Christian owners of B&B face ‘double bed’ trial
John Cooper
The case is going to court tomorrow.
John Cooper
- .. -- Tim .-.
http://www.christian.org.uk/who-we-are/
From the above site:-
"The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the
Christian religion in the United Kingdom” and “the advancement of education”.
The Christian Institute is a nondenominational Christian charity committed
to upholding the truths of the Bible. We are supported by individuals and
churches throughout the UK.
We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all of life and we
hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. We are committed to upholding the
sanctity of life from conception." [End quote]
Note that it says "The truths of the Bible" and "The Bible is the supreme
authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture." IMO
that means they cannot claim to represent all Christians, since the majority
of Christians world-wide do not hold to the "inerrancy" of scripture in that
way. They clearly put the Bible at the centre, rather than Christ. Neither
Roman Catholic nor East Orthodox Christians uphold 'Sola Scriptura', so
that's the majority out for a start.
However, in this case I am left wondering why the couple concerned don't
just simply offer only twin bed accommodation. Then there would be no need
to discriminate. Quite a few married couples don't always share a bed, it's
not compulsory, and a couple don't need a lot of bed space to have sex! I
get the impression that they would have accepted any unmarried couple, just
as long as they chose twin-bed accommodation rather than double. Double,
like their standards... They would have been happy to take this gay
couple's money, if they had accepted a twin room? Are they naive enough to
believe it is impossible to have sex except in a double bed?
Tim.
- .. -- Tim .-.
Oh, I also had a look at the "What we believe" section on the Christian
Institute website. Guess what? Absolutely ZERO there about the love of
God.
What a surprise.
Tim.
Claire
wrote:
> John Cooper wrote:
> >http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-owners-of-bb-face-court-ov...
>
> > The case is going to court tomorrow.
>
> > John Cooper
>
> http://www.christian.org.uk/who-we-are/
>
> From the above site:-
>
> "The Christian Institute exists for the furtherance and promotion of the
> Christian religion in the United Kingdom and the advancement of education .
> The Christian Institute is a nondenominational Christian charity committed
> to upholding the truths of the Bible. We are supported by individuals and
> churches throughout the UK.
> We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all of life and we
> hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. We are committed to upholding the
> sanctity of life from conception." [End quote]
>
> Note that it says "The truths of the Bible" and "The Bible is the supreme
> authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture." IMO
> that means they cannot claim to represent all Christians, since the majority
> of Christians world-wide do not hold to the "inerrancy" of scripture in that
> way. They clearly put the Bible at the centre, rather than Christ. Neither
> Roman Catholic nor East Orthodox Christians uphold 'Sola Scriptura', so
> that's the majority out for a start.
LOL! That is a piece of churlishly employed partiality for the
purposes of a political manoeuvring isn’t it Tim? ;-)
> However, in this case I am left wondering why the couple
>concerned don't
> just simply offer only twin bed accommodation.
You may have a point there.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> However, in this case I am left wondering why the couple concerned don't
> just simply offer only twin bed accommodation.
They should be able to accommodate *married couples only*....that would fix
it, after all it is their own home.
Why should they have to accommodate every fornicating Tom, Dick and Harry?
Jeff...
Failing that, make a sacrifice for "righteousness sake" and come out of the
B&B business altogether.
steve wilson
imputation of naivety, greed and double-standards, because they know
that sharing a room would over-step the line and give legitimacy to
sinful homosexual and unmarried heterosexual couples. The issue of
single or double beds within the room is irrelevant. In the video the
Christian couple say that homosexuals and unmarried heterosexuals would
be welcome in single accommodation, i.e single bedded rooms. No doubt,
if a married couple requested two single beds in their room, that would
not be a problem.
Steve Wilson
- .. -- Tim .-.
> "- .. -- Tim .-." <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> However, in this case I am left wondering why the couple concerned
>> don't just simply offer only twin bed accommodation.
>
> They should be able to accommodate *married couples only*....that
> would fix it, after all it is their own home.
So, you couldn't stay there as you are not married (legally) now, and you
are on your own. I couldn't stay there since my wife is not well enough to
be away overnight from the home she is in, and I couldn't stay there on my
own, since I am not a 'couple'. I couldn't stay there by sharing a room
with my brother (as I often do when on holiday) because we are not a
'married couple', even though no 'fornication' would happen.
My view is along these lines:
"If you don't approve of people drinking alcohol, don't run a pub."
Tim.
- .. -- Tim .-.
>> http://www.christian.org.uk/who-we-are/
>>
>> From the above site:-
>>
>> "The Christian Institute exists for the furtherance and promotion of
>> the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and the advancement of
>> education . The Christian Institute is a nondenominational Christian
>> charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible. We are
>> supported by individuals and churches throughout the UK.
>> We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all of life
>> and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. We are committed to
>> upholding the sanctity of life from conception." [End quote]
>>
>> Note that it says "The truths of the Bible" and "The Bible is the
>> supreme authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of
>> Scripture." IMO that means they cannot claim to represent all
>> Christians, since the majority of Christians world-wide do not hold
>> to the "inerrancy" of scripture in that way. They clearly put the
>> Bible at the centre, rather than Christ. Neither Roman Catholic nor
>> East Orthodox Christians uphold 'Sola Scriptura', so that's the
>> majority out for a start.
>
>
> LOL! That is a piece of churlishly employed partiality for the
> purposes of a political manoeuvring isn’t it Tim? ;-)
It's true though, the "Christian Institute", like the similar "Christian
Voice" only represent a small number of Christians globally, despite having
the name 'Christian' in the title, and claiming to be a 'voice' for
Christianity as a whole. Whereas all mainstream Christians hold scripture
to be 'Authoritive' and 'Divinely Inspired', the notions of 'Infallibility'
and 'Inerrancy' and the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) belong to only a
section of Protestantism. Note also the piece I added after, that the
Christian Institute "What we believe" section on their website only lists a
lot of political stuff. Nothing about the love of God!
Tim.
- .. -- Tim .-.
So, they ask to see the marriage certificate, do they? Oh, and yes of
course they don't want to let people share rooms, look at all the lovely
dosh they can rake in charging single occupancy suppliments! Boy, they'll
be rolling in it.
Like I say,
"If you don't approve of people drinking alcohol, don't run a pub."
Tim.
>
> Steve Wilson
steve wilson
Christian ethos. If when asked, a cohabiting heterosexual couple lie
about their marital status, then the owners conscience is clear before
the Lord and the cohabiting couple condemn themselves. There is not such
a problem with homosexuals. They could of course say they are only
friends, but my guess is that they would be unlikely to do this as they
are emboldened by the new legal legitimacy granted them by poorly
drafted legislation.
And I note again some concern, your irrational accusations. Such
comments can only be sourced in prejudice. This Christian couple are
only trying to make a living in accordance with their Christian beliefs,
it is clear they are not rolling in it. It is not them who have changed
but rather a change for the worse in the society around them enforced by
bad legislation.
> Like I say,
> "If you don't approve of people drinking alcohol, don't run a pub."
>
A simplistic analogy that misses the issues.
Steve Wilson
> Tim.
>
>>
>> Steve Wilson
>
>
- .. -- Tim .-.
There's the answer then. If nothing is said, most *reasonable* people would
just assume that they are, as you put it, "Only friends". I see no reason
why friends should not be permitted to share a room. To a point, I think
this is a matter where discretion should have been shown by the gay couple -
they should not have mentioned sexuality at all. I do agree that some
people want to make an issue of it, and that's what probably happened here.
But I certainly don't agree with any silly idea that only married couples
should be allowed to share a room.
Tim.
steve wilson
> steve wilson wrote:
>> On 13/12/2010 07:36, - .. -- Tim .-. wrote:
>>> steve wilson wrote:
>>>> On 12/12/2010 19:12, - .. -- Tim .-. wrote:
>>>
>>> So, they ask to see the marriage certificate, do they? Oh, and yes
>>> of course they don't want to let people share rooms, look at all the
>>> lovely dosh they can rake in charging single occupancy suppliments! Boy,
>>> they'll be rolling in it.
>>>
>> The owners make it clear in their advertising that the B&B is run on a
>> Christian ethos. If when asked, a cohabiting heterosexual couple lie
>> about their marital status, then the owners conscience is clear before
>> the Lord and the cohabiting couple condemn themselves. There is not
>> such a problem with homosexuals. They could of course say they are
>> only friends,
>
> There's the answer then. If nothing is said, most *reasonable* people would
> just assume that they are, as you put it, "Only friends". I see no reason
> why friends should not be permitted to share a room. To a point, I think
> this is a matter where discretion should have been shown by the gay couple -
> they should not have mentioned sexuality at all. I do agree that some
> people want to make an issue of it, and that's what probably happened here.
> But I certainly don't agree with any silly idea that only married couples
> should be allowed to share a room.
>
> Tim.
>
The problem with that is that body language often enables one to tell
the difference between those who are friends, and a couple in a sexual
relationship. The moment suspicions are raised, and a blind-eye turned,
one becomes complicit. This is why I have never been happy with your
'solution', it is fundamentally dishonest.
Contrary to you, I think these Christians should be free to run their
B&B according to their Christian beliefs. The Law should not put itself
in a place where it can be used as a tool of oppression.
Steve Wilson
Robert Marshall
> The problem with that is that body language often enables one to tell
> the difference between those who are friends, and a couple in a sexual
> relationship. The moment suspicions are raised, and a blind-eye
> turned, one becomes complicit. This is why I have never been happy
> with your 'solution', it is fundamentally dishonest.
>
> Contrary to you, I think these Christians should be free to run their
> B&B according to their Christian beliefs. The Law should not put
> itself in a place where it can be used as a tool of oppression.
>
So if a Christian couple believes that mixed race marriages are wrong -
and I'm sure there are some around who still do - are they justified in
humiliating such a couple by refusing them a double room? (Such a
refusal would be opression too!)
Robert
--
Conformity means death for any community. A loyal opposition is a
necessity in any community Karol Wojtyla (1969)
- .. -- Tim .-.
I don't agree. I do not consider reaching a compromise in the interests of
the greater good to be "Fundamentally dishonest". Rather, it is a matter of
both sides agreeing to give a bit. On the one side, don't assume there is
'sin' where in fact there may be none, and on the other side, be discrete
about matters that are properly private. Even a couple in a sexual
relationship and sharing a room might well deem it appropriate to abstain
from sex whilst in someone else's home, especially if they had a sense that
person or persons might disapprove.
>
> Contrary to you, I think these Christians should be free to run their
> B&B according to their Christian beliefs. The Law should not put
> itself in a place where it can be used as a tool of oppression.
I think it is all an unfortunate case of two sides sizing up for battle.
Probably most same-sex couples would prefer to stay somewhere where they
would not face disapproval. OTOH most Christians would not be bothered
about two friends of the same sex sharing a room. I remember, when going to
Spring Harvest a few years ago, those of us who were single (as I was, then)
were actually paired up with a friend of the same sex in order to share
rooms, and save costs. The same thing happened when our church went on
pilgrimmage to Israel.
Tim.
>
> Steve Wilson
Phil
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>
>> The problem with that is that body language often enables one to tell
>> the difference between those who are friends, and a couple in a
>> sexual relationship. The moment suspicions are raised, and a
>> blind-eye turned, one becomes complicit. This is why I have never
>> been happy with your 'solution', it is fundamentally dishonest.
>>
>> Contrary to you, I think these Christians should be free to run their
>> B&B according to their Christian beliefs. The Law should not put
>> itself in a place where it can be used as a tool of oppression.
>>
>
> So if a Christian couple believes that mixed race marriages are wrong
> - and I'm sure there are some around who still do - are they
> justified in humiliating such a couple by refusing them a double
> room? (Such a refusal would be opression too!)
>
> Robert
Why should a business not be able to refuse customers?
Employers can refuse to employ me because I am a man, because I am white,
because I don't speak Welsh, because I am not disabled, because I am a
Christian.
Why is it only humiliating if you are a minority?
regards
Phil
Robert Marshall
Where did I mention the word minority? But it easier for majorities to
gang up and oppress minorities.
If I'm out on my own late in on a cold evening I don't want a bus/train/taxi
company to refuse my custom because they dislike the colour of my eyes.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
news:m18vzsd...@capuchin.co.uk...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>
>> The problem with that is that body language often enables one to tell
>> the difference between those who are friends, and a couple in a sexual
>> relationship. The moment suspicions are raised, and a blind-eye
>> turned, one becomes complicit. This is why I have never been happy
>> with your 'solution', it is fundamentally dishonest.
>>
>> Contrary to you, I think these Christians should be free to run their
>> B&B according to their Christian beliefs. The Law should not put
>> itself in a place where it can be used as a tool of oppression.
>>
>
> So if a Christian couple believes that mixed race marriages are wrong -
What has that to do with God forbidden, sinful homosexual fornication?
Answer...NOTHING!
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
news:GoKNo.6490$EO....@newsfe25.ams2...
Phil, I see you have had another two posts rejected in ukrc....why do you
persist in doing it?
How does it help your cause?
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
The colour of your eyes does not involve breaking God laws of committing
fornication or adultery......in someone else's bed, Robert.
Jeff...
steve wilson
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>
>> The problem with that is that body language often enables one to tell
>> the difference between those who are friends, and a couple in a sexual
>> relationship. The moment suspicions are raised, and a blind-eye
>> turned, one becomes complicit. This is why I have never been happy
>> with your 'solution', it is fundamentally dishonest.
>>
>> Contrary to you, I think these Christians should be free to run their
>> B&B according to their Christian beliefs. The Law should not put
>> itself in a place where it can be used as a tool of oppression.
>>
>
> So if a Christian couple believes that mixed race marriages are wrong -
> and I'm sure there are some around who still do - are they justified in
> humiliating such a couple by refusing them a double room? (Such a
> refusal would be opression too!)
>
> Robert
The whole point is that monogamous heterosexual marriage is God's
creation will for men and women, there is no clause in scripture saying;
'except for mixed race marriages'. The couple running the B&B have
clearly stated their commitment to scripture. You appear not to
understand the core issue.
Steve Wilson
Barry OGrady
<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 14/12/2010 11:45, Robert Marshall wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with that is that body language often enables one to tell
>>> the difference between those who are friends, and a couple in a sexual
>>> relationship. The moment suspicions are raised, and a blind-eye
>>> turned, one becomes complicit. This is why I have never been happy
>>> with your 'solution', it is fundamentally dishonest.
>>>
>>> Contrary to you, I think these Christians should be free to run their
>>> B&B according to their Christian beliefs. The Law should not put
>>> itself in a place where it can be used as a tool of oppression.
>>>
>>
>> So if a Christian couple believes that mixed race marriages are wrong -
>> and I'm sure there are some around who still do - are they justified in
>> humiliating such a couple by refusing them a double room? (Such a
>> refusal would be opression too!)
>>
>> Robert
>
>The whole point is that monogamous heterosexual marriage is God's
>creation will for men and women,
God's will is that everything be just as it is.
Colossians 1:16
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that
are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Mark 10:27
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men [it is] impossible, but
not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Mark 14:36
And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take
away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou
wilt.
>there is no clause in scripture saying;
>'except for mixed race marriages'. The couple running the B&B have
>clearly stated their commitment to scripture.
They are not concerned that God wants things just as they are.
>Steve Wilson
steve wilson
Your misuse of scripture is appalling. Have you never heard of context?
You deny the Holiness of God by your claim that God is okay with sin.
Steve Wilson
Mr.Magoo
> John Cooper wrote:
>> http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-owners-of-bb-face-court-over-double-bed-policy/
>>
>> The case is going to court tomorrow.
>>
>> John Cooper
> http://www.christian.org.uk/who-we-are/
>
> From the above site:-
>
> "The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the
> Christian religion in the United Kingdom” and “the advancement of education”.
> The Christian Institute is a nondenominational Christian charity committed
> to upholding the truths of the Bible. We are supported by individuals and
> churches throughout the UK.
> We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all of life and we
> hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. We are committed to upholding the
> sanctity of life from conception." [End quote]
>
> Note that it says "The truths of the Bible" and "The Bible is the supreme
> authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture." IMO
> that means they cannot claim to represent all Christians, since the majority
> of Christians world-wide do not hold to the "inerrancy" of scripture in that
> way. They clearly put the Bible at the centre, rather than Christ.
So you're saying that Christ would approve of gay sex?
> Neither
> Roman Catholic nor East Orthodox Christians uphold 'Sola Scriptura', so
> that's the majority out for a start.
>
> However, in this case I am left wondering why the couple concerned don't
> just simply offer only twin bed accommodation. Then there would be no need
> to discriminate. Quite a few married couples don't always share a bed, it's
> not compulsory, and a couple don't need a lot of bed space to have sex! I
> get the impression that they would have accepted any unmarried couple, just
> as long as they chose twin-bed accommodation rather than double. Double,
> like their standards... They would have been happy to take this gay
> couple's money, if they had accepted a twin room? Are they naive enough to
> believe it is impossible to have sex except in a double bed?
>
> Tim.
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
"Julia only gets personal when there's a question she can't answer, which is nearly always"
"If you think utility prices are high now, watch them go through the roof with the Green/ALP carbon tax"
The insane Greens! .. http://tinyurl.com/insane-Greens
"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money"
"Those who tolerate intolerance will cease to exist"
"Truth is the new hate speech"
"Political correctness is a polite form of tryanny"
Barry OGrady
<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What is the context of
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that
are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
That sounds pretty unambiguous.
What is the context of 'with God all things are possible?'
> You deny the Holiness of God by your claim that God is okay with sin.
You deny God's power and authority when you claim that God allows
things he does not approve of.
>Steve Wilson
- .. -- Tim .-.
> On 13/12/2010 6:12 AM, - .. -- Tim .-. wrote:
>
>> John Cooper wrote:
>>> http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-owners-of-bb-face-court-over-double-bed-policy/
>>>
>>> The case is going to court tomorrow.
>>>
>>> John Cooper
>> http://www.christian.org.uk/who-we-are/
>>
>> From the above site:-
>>
>> "The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion
>> of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom” and “the
>> advancement of education”. The Christian Institute is a
>> nondenominational Christian charity committed to upholding the
>> truths of the Bible. We are supported by individuals and churches
>> throughout the UK. We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for
>> all of life
>> and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. We are committed to
>> upholding the sanctity of life from conception." [End quote]
>>
>> Note that it says "The truths of the Bible" and "The Bible is the
>> supreme authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of
>> Scripture." IMO that means they cannot claim to represent all
>> Christians, since the majority of Christians world-wide do not hold
>> to the "inerrancy" of scripture in that way. They clearly put the
>> Bible at the centre, rather than Christ.
>
> So you're saying that Christ would approve of gay sex?
That does not logically follow from what I posted there. I doubt that
Christ would consider that the 'Christian Institute' speaks for all, or even
the majority of Christians. That would be a more relevant comment. I was
talking there about the fact that most Christians world-wide do not hold to
doctrines about an 'Infallible' and 'Inerrant' Bible as expounded by the
C.I. That is a post-Reformation Protestant dogma that is not even accepted
by all Protestants. Traditional Christianity puts Christ at the centre,
rather than the Bible. The Bible contains errors and contradictions, and
whether or not it was "Perfect as originally received" is a moot point,
since we have NONE of the original writings.
If you have followed all the comments in this thread, you will see that it
brings into question whether same-sex friends should be permitted to share a
room, and that is plain silly. Both at Spring Harvest and on pilgrimage to
Israel, the churches I was with on those trips encouraged room sharing to
save on costs.
Tim.
Robert Marshall
I do! It may not agree with what you think of as the core issue though.
You wrote:
>>> I think these Christians should be free to run their B&B according
>>> to their Christian beliefs.
Does that only apply to those whom you regard as Christians?
Theo Bekkers
"Robert Marshall" wrote
Good Lord no. They shouldn't allow non-Christians at all. They should have a
sign saying
"Non-Christians Raus".
I'm sure it will catch on. It did in one European Country in the 1930s.
Theo
steve wilson
knowing good and evil is sourced in God's holy character not the created
order.
>> You deny the Holiness of God by your claim that God is okay with sin.
>
> You deny God's power and authority when you claim that God allows
> things he does not approve of.
>
God permits evil, how does that deny his power and authority?
If atheism is correct, how are you even aware of such a non-physical
concept that some things are good or evil of themselves? In the atheist
world-view there is only suffering, it is neither morally good or evil,
it just part of the normal struggle for life.
Steve Wilson
>> Steve Wilson
>
steve wilson
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> On 14/12/2010 11:45, Robert Marshall wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem with that is that body language often enables one to
>>>> tell the difference between those who are friends, and a couple in a
>>>> sexual relationship. The moment suspicions are raised, and a
>>>> blind-eye turned, one becomes complicit. This is why I have never
>>>> been happy with your 'solution', it is fundamentally dishonest.
>>>>
>>>> Contrary to you, I think these Christians should be free to run
>>>> their B&B according to their Christian beliefs. The Law should not
>>>> put itself in a place where it can be used as a tool of oppression.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So if a Christian couple believes that mixed race marriages are wrong
>>> - and I'm sure there are some around who still do - are they
>>> justified in humiliating such a couple by refusing them a double
>>> room? (Such a refusal would be opression too!)
>>>
>>> Robert
>>
>> The whole point is that monogamous heterosexual marriage is God's
>> creation will for men and women, there is no clause in scripture
>> saying; 'except for mixed race marriages'. The couple running the B&B
>> have clearly stated their commitment to scripture. You appear not to
>> understand the core issue.
>>
>
> I do! It may not agree with what you think of as the core issue though.
>
> You wrote:
>>>> I think these Christians should be free to run their B&B according
>>>> to their Christian beliefs.
>
> Does that only apply to those whom you regard as Christians?
>
No.
If some pagan B&B and has a rule that obeisance to a Green man must be
made in order to have a room, I will go elsewhere.
Steve Wilson
> Robert
Barry OGrady
<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What are you talking about? A God can't know what is good for us.
We determine good and bad by what is good for us along with empathy.
>>> You deny the Holiness of God by your claim that God is okay with sin.
>>
>> You deny God's power and authority when you claim that God allows
>> things he does not approve of.
>>
>God permits evil, how does that deny his power and authority?
It does mean he can't be good.
>If atheism is correct, how are you even aware of such a non-physical
>concept that some things are good or evil of themselves? In the atheist
>world-view there is only suffering, it is neither morally good or evil,
>it just part of the normal struggle for life.
Whereas you must believe that everything is good at all times.
Sounds like you need moral guidance.
However, in reality you choose for yourself what is good or bad.
Your actions don't match your words.
>Steve Wilson
steve wilson
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:16:13 +0000, steve wilson
> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15/12/2010 12:35, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:30:12 +0000, steve wilson
>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15/12/2010 10:43, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:54:19 +0000, steve wilson
>>>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/12/2010 11:45, Robert Marshall wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Your misuse of scripture is appalling. Have you never heard of context?
>>>
>>> What is the context of
>>> For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that
>>> are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or
>>> dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
>>> him, and for him:
>>> And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
>>>
>>> That sounds pretty unambiguous.
>>>
>>> What is the context of 'with God all things are possible?'
>>>
>> The context of the verse you cited is God's creation. The standard for
>> knowing good and evil is sourced in God's holy character not the created
>> order.
>
> What are you talking about? A God can't know what is good for us.
>
Who says the infinite and holy personal God revealed in creation and
scripture *cannot* know what is good for us? You are the one who
stepped onto the Christian world-view arrogantly assuming its
incoherency and the stupidity of those who believe it. Please don't
suddenly step back onto your own dire world-view to criticise the answer
I gave, an answer which is wholly consistent with the Christian
world-view, just because it does not fit with what you believe. You
obviously do not know what you are doing.
> We determine good and bad by what is good for us along with empathy.
>
>>>> You deny the Holiness of God by your claim that God is okay with sin.
>>>
>>> You deny God's power and authority when you claim that God allows
>>> things he does not approve of.
>>>
>> God permits evil, how does that deny his power and authority?
>
> It does mean he can't be good.
>
Does it? Lay out your argument.
>> If atheism is correct, how are you even aware of such a non-physical
>> concept that some things are good or evil of themselves? In the atheist
>> world-view there is only suffering, it is neither morally good or evil,
>> it just part of the normal struggle for life.
>
> Whereas you must believe that everything is good at all times.
> Sounds like you need moral guidance.
>
I most certainly do not believe that. What I do believe is that God is
all that is Good, indeed His character is the very standard by which we
are able to judge that some actions are morally good or evil in and of
themselves.
> However, in reality you choose for yourself what is good or bad.
>
The Christian world-view explains why you and I can intuitively sense
that some things are morally wrong in and of themselves, whereas by not
challenging the comment above you have acknowledged that, if atheism is
true, we could never make absolute moral judgements because there is no
absolute reference point. And yet without even knowing you, I know you
form such moral judgements every day, judgements which your atheism is
unable to explain and even denies is possible.
Steve Wilson
Barry OGrady
<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Its a different species for a start, so it can't empathise with us,
and if any 'god' is revealed in nature it must be an incredibly evil
God. No God worthy of the name would allow suffering on a huge scale.
>You are the one who
>stepped onto the Christian world-view arrogantly assuming its
>incoherency and the stupidity of those who believe it.
Not at all. I am forcefully reminded of the incoherency and the
stupidity of those who believe it.
>Please don't
>suddenly step back onto your own dire world-view to criticise the answer
>I gave, an answer which is wholly consistent with the Christian
>world-view, just because it does not fit with what you believe. You
>obviously do not know what you are doing.
You see the Christian world view as a role playing game?
>> We determine good and bad by what is good for us along with empathy.
>>
>>>>> You deny the Holiness of God by your claim that God is okay with sin.
>>>>
>>>> You deny God's power and authority when you claim that God allows
>>>> things he does not approve of.
>>>>
>>> God permits evil, how does that deny his power and authority?
>>
>> It does mean he can't be good.
>>
>Does it? Lay out your argument.
I only have proof.
Obviously a good God would not allow evil.
But, of course, you think evil must be good because God allows it, and
you have no ability to decipher good and bad.
Have you ever allowed a witch to live?
How many homosexuals have you killed?
Are you happy to dash little children against the rocks?
Do you get excited when you read about God inciting genocide?
>>> If atheism is correct, how are you even aware of such a non-physical
>>> concept that some things are good or evil of themselves? In the atheist
>>> world-view there is only suffering, it is neither morally good or evil,
>>> it just part of the normal struggle for life.
>>
>> Whereas you must believe that everything is good at all times.
>> Sounds like you need moral guidance.
>>
>I most certainly do not believe that. What I do believe is that God is
>all that is Good, indeed His character is the very standard by which we
>are able to judge that some actions are morally good or evil in and of
>themselves.
Bible says God created everything for his own purpose, so everything
must be good, right?
Since you are incapable of discernment how did you decide that God is
good?
>> However, in reality you choose for yourself what is good or bad.
>>
>The Christian world-view explains why you and I can intuitively sense
>that some things are morally wrong in and of themselves, whereas by not
>challenging the comment above you have acknowledged that, if atheism is
>true, we could never make absolute moral judgements because there is no
>absolute reference point. And yet without even knowing you, I know you
>form such moral judgements every day, judgements which your atheism is
>unable to explain and even denies is possible.
What do you do when 'God' contradicts itself? Do you go with the kill
homosexuals or love thy neighbour when thy neighbour is homosexual?
I don't believe you are as brain dead as you make out.
You shouldn't put yourself down like that.
Some people have been able to recover from Christianity.
steve wilson
Lol
> Obviously a good God would not allow evil.
This is not a necessary logical consequence.
> But, of course, you think evil must be good because God allows it, and
> you have no ability to decipher good and bad.
All this tells me is that your understanding of Christian belief is
poor. Anyone with a basic grasp of Christianity would know that of all
beliefs, it has the keenest awareness of moral good/evil and the surest
explanation for our moral awareness of the very concept.
> Have you ever allowed a witch to live?
> How many homosexuals have you killed?
> Are you happy to dash little children against the rocks?
> Do you get excited when you read about God inciting genocide?
>
And according to your atheistic belief, what is so wrong with any of
these? They can be good or evil depending on what society decides for
itself at any particular time. In atheism there cannot be anything
which is morally wrong in itself. In order for you to make such
judgements, you are referencing a conceptual and absolute standard.
What is the alternative absolute non-physical standard you are using? I
know that mine is the infinite and personal creator God revealed in the
Bible.
>>>> If atheism is correct, how are you even aware of such a non-physical
>>>> concept that some things are good or evil of themselves? In the atheist
>>>> world-view there is only suffering, it is neither morally good or evil,
>>>> it just part of the normal struggle for life.
>>>
>>> Whereas you must believe that everything is good at all times.
>>> Sounds like you need moral guidance.
>>>
>> I most certainly do not believe that. What I do believe is that God is
>> all that is Good, indeed His character is the very standard by which we
>> are able to judge that some actions are morally good or evil in and of
>> themselves.
>
> Bible says God created everything for his own purpose, so everything
> must be good, right?
Not necessarily. God created the universe and the earth 'and He saw that
it was good' however God also created humanity with the capacity of
moral freewill. Even though God is all-powerful, He cannot be
contradictory and create a being with such a capacity and then obstruct
the inherent consequence of that capacity, that of being able to choose
to do the immoral thing.
> Since you are incapable of discernment how did you decide that God is
> good?
>
I didn't decide, the Bible tells me so. And like all normal humans I
intuitively know that when I form a moral judgement, I am doing so with
reference to a non-physical conceptual and absolute standard. That is
why you and I know that raping babies is always wrong, whoever does it,
in which ever society it occurs, and whenever it occurs. Christianity
explains this perfectly, atheism flounders. It is why you quite
evidently assume the truth of Christianity whilst laying claim to atheism.
>>> However, in reality you choose for yourself what is good or bad.
>>>
>> The Christian world-view explains why you and I can intuitively sense
>> that some things are morally wrong in and of themselves, whereas by not
>> challenging the comment above you have acknowledged that, if atheism is
>> true, we could never make absolute moral judgements because there is no
>> absolute reference point. And yet without even knowing you, I know you
>> form such moral judgements every day, judgements which your atheism is
>> unable to explain and even denies is possible.
>
> What do you do when 'God' contradicts itself? Do you go with the kill
> homosexuals or love thy neighbour when thy neighbour is homosexual?
>
God does not contradict Himself. You are confusing the purity and
punishment regulations of the Jewish Mosaic Law code with Christianity.
Homosexual practice is very much a sin, along with many others, however
with the coming of Christ the Mosaic Law, with all its purity
regulations have passed away. The moral content of the Law, which
preceded the Mosaic Law code, as it is sourced in God's nature, still
remains. And there is no contradiction between having an attitude of
love to a sinner, a homosexual in this case, and maintaining the clear
biblical position that homosexual activity is immoral before God.
And I would like to ask you a question: Given your atheistic world-view,
why is killing homosexuals so very wrong? After-all homosexuals are
evolutionary dead-ends, why not eliminate them? This society has
decided that homosexual practice is morally acceptable, but Islamic
countries view homosexual activity as highly immoral and put offenders
to death. According to your atheism, what basis is there to form the
universal moral judgement that the killing of homosexuals is
intrinsically wrong in itself? At one time, our society thought slavery
was perfectly okay, it then changed its mind and decided it was immoral.
Atheism has no absolute standard, so slavery or homosexuality can be
both morally good or evil depending on the prevailing societal consensus
at any given time. I have no respect for atheism.
> I don't believe you are as brain dead as you make out.
> You shouldn't put yourself down like that.
> Some people have been able to recover from Christianity.
>
I think the problem is that, so far, you haven't really understood what
I've said.
And if being 'recovered from Christianity' is a self-reference, why then
do you so clearly presuppose the truth Christianity's core assumptions
instead of assuming atheistic ones?
Steve Wilson
Robert Marshall
>
> On 15/12/2010 10:40, Robert Marshall wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 14/12/2010 11:45, Robert Marshall wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The problem with that is that body language often enables one to
>>>>> tell the difference between those who are friends, and a couple in
>>>>> a sexual relationship. The moment suspicions are raised, and a
>>>>> blind-eye turned, one becomes complicit. This is why I have never
>>>>> been happy with your 'solution', it is fundamentally dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Contrary to you, I think these Christians should be free to run
>>>>> their B&B according to their Christian beliefs. The Law should
>>>>> not put itself in a place where it can be used as a tool of
>>>>> oppression.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So if a Christian couple believes that mixed race marriages are
>>>> wrong - and I'm sure there are some around who still do - are they
>>>> justified in humiliating such a couple by refusing them a double
>>>> room? (Such a refusal would be opression too!)
>>>>
>>>
>>> The whole point is that monogamous heterosexual marriage is God's
>>> creation will for men and women, there is no clause in scripture
>>> saying; 'except for mixed race marriages'. The couple running the
>>> B&B have clearly stated their commitment to scripture. You appear
>>> not to understand the core issue.
>>>
>>
>> I do! It may not agree with what you think of as the core issue
>> though.
>>
> The core issue is one of authority.
>
For you? For me the core issue is that of respect - and that goes both
ways - of the guests to the B&B owner and of the B&B owner to the guests.
If you have a child and s/he lives with a partner (of whatever sex) for
20+ years (without marrying) would you insist on them not staying with
you or using separate bedrooms?
>
>> You wrote:
>>>>> I think these Christians should be free to run their B&B according
>>>>> to their Christian beliefs.
>>
>> Does that only apply to those whom you regard as Christians?
>>
> No.
>
> If some pagan B&B and has a rule that obeisance to a Green man must be
> made in order to have a room, I will go elsewhere.
>
That wasn't my point - should a B&B owned by people who believe that
mixed race marriages are wrong[1] be permitted to humiliate a mixed race
couple who turn up having booked a room? If the law allowed that it
would IMHO be a case of opression
Robert
[1] and such attitudes were supported by laws which were common in the US in
the 20th C
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> If you have a child and s/he lives with a partner (of whatever sex) for
> 20+ years (without marrying) would you insist on them not staying with
> you or using separate bedrooms?
Absolutely!
Anyone professing to be a Brother of Christ would insist!
"18 Run from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this
one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body." 1 Cor 6:18
(NLT)
Have you for the sake of righteousness informed all your mates at
uk.gay-lesbian-bi, Robert?
Jeff...
"3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once
named among you, as becometh saints;"
Eph 5:3 (KJV)
Matt
Traditionalist" <broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Robert Marshall" <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> If you have a child and s/he lives with a partner (of whatever sex) for
>> 20+ years (without marrying) would you insist on them not staying with
>> you or using separate bedrooms?
>
>Absolutely!
>Anyone professing to be a Brother of Christ would insist!
Would that be the same if they were not Christian?
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
news:ibqkg65rjvimlf866...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:22:45 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
> Traditionalist" <broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>"Robert Marshall" <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>> If you have a child and s/he lives with a partner (of whatever sex) for
>>> 20+ years (without marrying) would you insist on them not staying with
>>> you or using separate bedrooms?
>>
>>Absolutely!
>>Anyone professing to be a Brother of Christ would insist!
>
> Would that be the same if they were not Christian?
In my house, most certainly!
Why wouldn't it be?
I would not allow any unmarried guests to sleep together, what a sinful
example it would be setting.
Jeff...
John Cooper
> For you? For me the core issue is that of respect - and that goes both
> ways - of the guests to the B&B owner and of the B&B owner to the guests.
>
> If you have a child and s/he lives with a partner (of whatever sex) for
> 20+ years (without marrying) would you insist on them not staying with
> you or using separate bedrooms?
According to the video, the lady's brother visited with his girlfriend, and
they were quite happy to abide by the house rules. It comes about 1 minute
into the video. So they are quite consistent in implementing it.
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-owners-of-bb-face-court-over-double-bed-policy/
John Cooper
John Cooper
> "Robert Marshall" <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> If you have a child and s/he lives with a partner (of whatever sex) for
>> 20+ years (without marrying) would you insist on them not staying with
>> you or using separate bedrooms?
>
> Absolutely!
> Anyone professing to be a Brother of Christ would insist!
>
> "18 Run from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this
> one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body." 1 Cor
> 6:18 (NLT)
> Have you for the sake of righteousness informed all your mates at
> uk.gay-lesbian-bi, Robert?
Interesting. I can't say I'd noticed that little gem. 420 posts on
uk.gay-lesbian-bi going back to 2002, and 597 posts on
england.religion.christian. Might just explain a few things.
John Cooper
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
news:8mva06...@mid.individual.net...
It explains an abundance of things as according to a post in UKRC Robert
states he is a moderator of that specific group.
A question is, whatever is a man professing to be of Christ's persuasion
doing mixing and moderating for such people?
Jeff...
John Cooper
>>> Have you for the sake of righteousness informed all your mates at
>>> uk.gay-lesbian-bi, Robert?
>>
>> Interesting. I can't say I'd noticed that little gem. 420 posts on
>> uk.gay-lesbian-bi going back to 2002, and 597 posts on
>> england.religion.christian. Might just explain a few things.
>
> It explains an abundance of things as according to a post in UKRC Robert
> states he is a moderator of that specific group.
> A question is, whatever is a man professing to be of Christ's persuasion
> doing mixing and moderating for such people?
Indeed. In one of his earlier posts he wrote regarding the Christian
Institute, the organisation which stands up for Christians in these
soft-persecution cases, that it was not a Christian website. It was a
homophobic, fascist website, and he wished there were some way of depriving
it of its url.
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-owners-of-bb-face-court-over-double-bed-policy/
John Cooper
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mr Peter Bull (aged 70) and his wife,
Hazelmary (aged 66), own Chymorvah
guesthouse in Marazion, near Penzance
in Cornwall. The guesthouse is also their
home.
The Bulls bought the guesthouse in
1986. In keeping with their Christian
faith, they restrict the use of double bed
accommodation to married couples.
Their policy was supported by the English
Tourist Board until 2007.
The policy is well advertised on the
internet and all booking forms; it is
applied consistently to unmarried couples,
whether heterosexual or homosexual.
The bedrooms feature open Bibles and
Christian leaflets. The reception features a
mosaic that reads: “Jesus Christ is Lord”.
In 2007 the Equality Act (Sexual
Orientation) Regulations were passed.
The regulations outlaw discrimination
on grounds of sexual orientation when
providing goods and services.
The regulations contain exemptions
to protect the liberty of religious
organisations and to protect the liberty
of those who provide certain goods and
services in their own home.
Since 2007 the regulations have caused all
but one Roman Catholic adoption agency
to close or cut ties with the Church.
When placing children with couples, the
agencies had a policy of insisting that the
couples were married.
In mid August 2008 an anonymous person
sent a booklet entitled “the pink pound” to
Mr and Mrs Bull’s guesthouse.
A letter dated 22 August 2008 was sent by
Stonewall, a homosexual lobby group, to
the guesthouse claiming that its double
bed policy was illegal.
On 4 September 2008 Mr Steven Preddy
booked a double room. The following day
he arrived at the guesthouse with a man,
Mr Martyn Hall, who he described as his
civil partner.
Mr Preddy and Mr Hall were informed
that double bed accommodation was
restricted to married couples. Their
deposit was refunded.
On 19 September 2008, the guesthouse
received correspondence from Devon and
Cornwall Police stating that an allegation
had been made that the guesthouse
policy was homophobic and went against
current civil legislation. The police stated
that the matter had been recorded as a
“non crime homophobic incident”.
In March 2009, Mr Preddy and Mr Hall
issued a civil claim against Mr and Mrs Bull
under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation)
Regulations 2007 for allegedly being
discriminated against on the ground of
sexual orientation.
Mr Preddy and Mr Hall are seeking
financial compensation for injury to
feelings up to the value of £5,000.
Their litigation is being financed by the
Government funded Equality and Human
Rights Commission.
Mr and Mrs Bull contest the claim of
discrimination. They say their double bed
policy applies to all unmarried couples
regardless of sexual orientation. They say
it is based on their beliefs about marriage,
not hostility to any sexual orientation.
Their legal defence is being financed
by The Christian Institute, a charity that
protects the religious liberty of Christians.
The case against Mr and Mrs Bull is due to
be tried at Bristol County Court on 13 and
14 December 20
http://www.christian.org.uk/bulls_facts.pdf
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> At one time, our society thought slavery was perfectly okay, it then
> changed its mind and decided it was immoral.
Indeed, but Scripture has not altered it's full acceptance of it, or of
Christians legally and sinlessly before God being slave owners.
> Atheism has no absolute standard, so slavery or homosexuality can be both
> morally good or evil depending on the prevailing societal consensus at any
> given time.
But not according to God's Word, Slavery remains a sinless deed, and
homosexual practises are still very sinful.
> have no respect for atheism.
Many professing Christians have no respect for Bible teaching on the keeping
of slaves or of homosexual fornication.
Jeff...
Michael Christ
But aren't you a sinner also??
Or is it that if you try not to be, then you are not a sinner??
Michael Christ
Robert Marshall
>
> "Robert Marshall" <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:m1k4j9b...@capuchin.co.uk...
>
>> For you? For me the core issue is that of respect - and that goes
>> both ways - of the guests to the B&B owner and of the B&B owner to
>> the guests.
>>
>> If you have a child and s/he lives with a partner (of whatever sex)
>> for 20+ years (without marrying) would you insist on them not staying
>> with you or using separate bedrooms?
>
> According to the video, the lady's brother visited with his
> girlfriend, and they were quite happy to abide by the house rules. It
> comes about 1 minute into the video. So they are quite consistent in
> implementing it.
I was asking Steve about where he would stand, not the B&B owners and
refusing a paying guest is rather different (IMHO but maybe not his) to
refusing your children, and potentially grandchildren.
I note you snip the other of my questions.
Robert
Robert Marshall
>
> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
> <broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:8mvbci...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>>> Have you for the sake of righteousness informed all your mates at
>>>> uk.gay-lesbian-bi, Robert?
>>>
>>> Interesting. I can't say I'd noticed that little gem. 420 posts on
>>> uk.gay-lesbian-bi going back to 2002, and 597 posts on
>>> england.religion.christian. Might just explain a few things.
Inaccurate figures ;-) It explains nothing, you knew I opposed your
anti-gay stance, this is just taking that committment to justice into
action.
>>
>> It explains an abundance of things as according to a post in UKRC
>> Robert states he is a moderator of that specific group. A question
>> is, whatever is a man professing to be of Christ's persuasion doing
>> mixing and moderating for such people?
Jeff has a short memory (what was it the Pharisees said? A friend of
....). He (Jeff) has posted to uk.glb a fact which I commented on at the
time - maybe not surprising as he has expressed the wish to crosspost to
all newsgroups.
I am also not the first regular uk.r.c poster to moderate uk.glb (do I
hear people rushing back to search google groups ;-) ;-) ;-) ?)
>
> Indeed. In one of his earlier posts he wrote regarding the Christian
> Institute, the organisation which stands up for Christians in these
> soft-persecution cases, that it was not a Christian website. It was a
> homophobic, fascist website, and he wished there were some way of
> depriving it of its url.
>
Indeed - though I was agreeing with someone who said some of that (I
wrote the bit from 'and he wished...') - but I've stated in other places
that I'd like them to lose that url. It's a bit like the BNP sqatting on
conservatives.org.uk
[there's been some Jeffish fiddling with cross-posting here, I've set it
back to the 2 groups which were originally x-posted]
Robert
- .. -- Tim .-.
>> Would that be the same if they were not Christian?
>
> In my house, most certainly!
You don't have a house.
Tim.
- .. -- Tim .-.
> Indeed. In one of his earlier posts he wrote regarding the Christian
> Institute, the organisation which stands up for Christians
ROTFL ! The Un-Christian Institute is a Bible-literalist fundie group that
certainly does NOT represent the Roman Catholics OR the East Orthodox, so
that's the VAST majority of Christians NOT represented by that God-forsaken
organisation for a start.
> in these
> soft-persecution cases, that it was not a Christian website.
It isn't, at least not for mainstream Christians.
> It was a
> homophobic, fascist website, and he wished there were some way of
> depriving it of its url.
Yes. I don't go as far as the Americans, regarding 'Free Speech'.
Hate-sites should be closed down.
Tim.
>
> John Cooper
- .. -- Tim .-.
>
> Mr Peter Bull (aged 70) and his wife,
> Hazelmary (aged 66), own Chymorvah
> guesthouse in Marazion, near Penzance
> in Cornwall. The guesthouse is also their
> home.
>
> The Bulls bought the guesthouse in
> 1986. In keeping with their Christian
> faith, they restrict the use of double bed
> accommodation to married couples.
> Their policy was supported by the English
> Tourist Board until 2007.
>
> The policy is well advertised on the
> internet and all booking forms; it is
> applied consistently to unmarried couples,
> whether heterosexual or homosexual.
>
> The bedrooms feature open Bibles and
> Christian leaflets. The reception features a
> In 2007 the Equality Act (Sexual
> Orientation) Regulations were passed.
>
> The regulations outlaw discrimination
> on grounds of sexual orientation when
> providing goods and services.
> The regulations contain exemptions
> to protect the liberty of religious
> organisations and to protect the liberty
> of those who provide certain goods and
> services in their own home.
>
> Since 2007 the regulations have caused all
> but one Roman Catholic adoption agency
> to close or cut ties with the Church.
>
> When placing children with couples, the
> agencies had a policy of insisting that the
> couples were married.
>
> In mid August 2008 an anonymous person
> Mr and Mrs Bull�ｿｽs guesthouse.
>
> A letter dated 22 August 2008 was sent by
> Stonewall, a homosexual lobby group, to
> the guesthouse claiming that its double
> bed policy was illegal.
>
> On 4 September 2008 Mr Steven Preddy
> booked a double room. The following day
> he arrived at the guesthouse with a man,
> Mr Martyn Hall, who he described as his
> civil partner.
>
> Mr Preddy and Mr Hall were informed
> that double bed accommodation was
> restricted to married couples. Their
> deposit was refunded.
>
> On 19 September 2008, the guesthouse
> received correspondence from Devon and
> Cornwall Police stating that an allegation
> had been made that the guesthouse
> policy was homophobic and went against
> current civil legislation. The police stated
> that the matter had been recorded as a
>
> In March 2009, Mr Preddy and Mr Hall
> issued a civil claim against Mr and Mrs Bull
> under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation)
> Regulations 2007 for allegedly being
> discriminated against on the ground of
> sexual orientation.
>
> Mr Preddy and Mr Hall are seeking
> financial compensation for injury to
>
> Their litigation is being financed by the
> Government funded Equality and Human
> Rights Commission.
>
> Mr and Mrs Bull contest the claim of
> discrimination. They say their double bed
> policy applies to all unmarried couples
> regardless of sexual orientation. They say
> it is based on their beliefs about marriage,
> not hostility to any sexual orientation.
>
> Their legal defence is being financed
> by The Christian Institute, a charity that
> protects the religious liberty of Christians.
>
> The case against Mr and Mrs Bull is due to
> be tried at Bristol County Court on 13 and
> 14 December 20
> http://www.christian.org.uk/bulls_facts.pdf
It seems to me that the couple could have had twin-bed accommodation. If
that is so they are being pedantic IMO. They could have taken twin-bed
accommodation and had it off in the shower or on the floor!
Tim.
Theo Bekkers
> "Robert Marshall" <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> If you have a child and s/he lives with a partner (of whatever sex) for
>> 20+ years (without marrying) would you insist on them not staying with
>> you or using separate bedrooms?
>
> Absolutely!
> Anyone professing to be a Brother of Christ would insist!
I very much doubt they would want to stay with you. Or even admit being
related to you.
Theo
Barry
<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Do you see the Christian world view as a role playing game?
>>>> We determine good and bad by what is good for us along with empathy.
>>>>
>>>>>>> You deny the Holiness of God by your claim that God is okay with sin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You deny God's power and authority when you claim that God allows
>>>>>> things he does not approve of.
>>>>>>
>>>>> God permits evil, how does that deny his power and authority?
>>>>
>>>> It does mean he can't be good.
>>>>
>>> Does it? Lay out your argument.
>>
>> I only have proof.
>
>Lol
>
>> Obviously a good God would not allow evil.
>
>This is not a necessary logical consequence.
How so?
>> But, of course, you think evil must be good because God allows it, and
>> you have no ability to decipher good and bad.
>
>All this tells me is that your understanding of Christian belief is
>poor.
Its possible my understanding of your personal beliefs is poor.
>Anyone with a basic grasp of Christianity would know that of all
>beliefs, it has the keenest awareness of moral good/evil and the surest
>explanation for our moral awareness of the very concept.
Where did God get his ideas from and what makes you think what seems
right to God is right for us?
>> Have you ever allowed a witch to live?
>> How many homosexuals have you killed?
>> Are you happy to dash little children against the rocks?
>> Do you get excited when you read about God inciting genocide?
>>
>And according to your atheistic belief, what is so wrong with any of
>these?
You are the one claiming to be without a moral sense.
>They can be good or evil depending on what society decides for
>itself at any particular time. In atheism there cannot be anything
>which is morally wrong in itself. In order for you to make such
>judgements, you are referencing a conceptual and absolute standard.
>What is the alternative absolute non-physical standard you are using? I
>know that mine is the infinite and personal creator God revealed in the
>Bible.
I take it you do find genocide acceptable when ordered by God.
For that matter you must believe that everything is good since God
allows it.
>>>>> If atheism is correct, how are you even aware of such a non-physical
>>>>> concept that some things are good or evil of themselves? In the atheist
>>>>> world-view there is only suffering, it is neither morally good or evil,
>>>>> it just part of the normal struggle for life.
>>>>
>>>> Whereas you must believe that everything is good at all times.
>>>> Sounds like you need moral guidance.
>>>>
>>> I most certainly do not believe that. What I do believe is that God is
>>> all that is Good, indeed His character is the very standard by which we
>>> are able to judge that some actions are morally good or evil in and of
>>> themselves.
>>
>> Bible says God created everything for his own purpose, so everything
>> must be good, right?
>
>Not necessarily. God created the universe and the earth 'and He saw that
>it was good' however God also created humanity with the capacity of
>moral freewill. Even though God is all-powerful, He cannot be
>contradictory and create a being with such a capacity and then obstruct
>the inherent consequence of that capacity, that of being able to choose
>to do the immoral thing.
I think I understand.
God is all-powerful but there are some things he can't do.
God is good but often does things that are not good.
You get to decide what God can and can't do.
>> Since you are incapable of discernment how did you decide that God is
>> good?
>>
>I didn't decide, the Bible tells me so.
How did you decide that the bible is right?
>And like all normal humans I
>intuitively know that when I form a moral judgement, I am doing so with
>reference to a non-physical conceptual and absolute standard. That is
>why you and I know that raping babies is always wrong, whoever does it,
>in which ever society it occurs, and whenever it occurs.
How is it that some people don't know that?
>Christianity
>explains this perfectly, atheism flounders. It is why you quite
>evidently assume the truth of Christianity whilst laying claim to atheism.
Christianity doesn't explain why humans are just another mammal with
the same basic needs and wants as other mammals and the same method
of reproduction.
However, it all fits with us being a product of evolution.
>>>> However, in reality you choose for yourself what is good or bad.
>>>>
>>> The Christian world-view explains why you and I can intuitively sense
>>> that some things are morally wrong in and of themselves, whereas by not
>>> challenging the comment above you have acknowledged that, if atheism is
>>> true, we could never make absolute moral judgements because there is no
>>> absolute reference point. And yet without even knowing you, I know you
>>> form such moral judgements every day, judgements which your atheism is
>>> unable to explain and even denies is possible.
>>
>> What do you do when 'God' contradicts itself? Do you go with the kill
>> homosexuals or love thy neighbour when thy neighbour is homosexual?
>>
>God does not contradict Himself. You are confusing the purity and
>punishment regulations of the Jewish Mosaic Law code with Christianity.
>Homosexual practice is very much a sin, along with many others, however
>with the coming of Christ the Mosaic Law, with all its purity
>regulations have passed away. The moral content of the Law, which
>preceded the Mosaic Law code, as it is sourced in God's nature, still
>remains. And there is no contradiction between having an attitude of
>love to a sinner, a homosexual in this case, and maintaining the clear
>biblical position that homosexual activity is immoral before God.
I see. You don't decide which of God's laws to obey but you do get
to decide which are God's laws.
>And I would like to ask you a question: Given your atheistic world-view,
>why is killing homosexuals so very wrong?
I would say its at least partly a self preservation thing. Were I
homosexual I would want to be treated with ordinary respect.
>After-all homosexuals are evolutionary dead-ends, why not eliminate them?
Christianity does more than its share of holding back human
advancement. Should we eliminate your sort?
>This society has
>decided that homosexual practice is morally acceptable, but Islamic
>countries view homosexual activity as highly immoral and put offenders
>to death.
That's what happens when people don't challenge the sort of claims you
make.
>According to your atheism, what basis is there to form the
>universal moral judgement that the killing of homosexuals is
>intrinsically wrong in itself? At one time, our society thought slavery
>was perfectly okay, it then changed its mind and decided it was immoral.
>Atheism has no absolute standard, so slavery or homosexuality can be
>both morally good or evil depending on the prevailing societal consensus
>at any given time.
That rather contradicts your claim that all morality comes from the
same source.
>I have no respect for atheism.
You have no respect for reality.
>> I don't believe you are as brain dead as you make out.
>> You shouldn't put yourself down like that.
>> Some people have been able to recover from Christianity.
>>
>I think the problem is that, so far, you haven't really understood what
>I've said.
That's possible. You are in the minority among Christians.
>And if being 'recovered from Christianity' is a self-reference, why then
>do you so clearly presuppose the truth Christianity's core assumptions
>instead of assuming atheistic ones?
Your question is invalid.
You clearly can't see out of the box you have been placed in.
That doesn't make you a bad person but it does say you are not
all there mentally.
I find Christianity to be a fascinating disease which is explained by
evolution not being an intelligent process.
>Steve Wilson
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
news:yJSdnRDW4rpVMpfQ...@bt.com...
> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>> Fact Sheet:
>>
>> Mr Peter Bull (aged 70) and his wife,
>> Hazelmary (aged 66), own Chymorvah
>> guesthouse in Marazion, near Penzance
>> in Cornwall. The guesthouse is also their
>> home.
>>
>> The Bulls bought the guesthouse in
>> 1986. In keeping with their Christian
>> faith, they restrict the use of double bed
>> accommodation to married couples.
>> Their policy was supported by the English
>> Tourist Board until 2007.
>>
>> The policy is well advertised on the
>> internet and all booking forms; it is
>> applied consistently to unmarried couples,
>> whether heterosexual or homosexual.
>>
>> The bedrooms feature open Bibles and
>> Christian leaflets. The reception features a
>> Orientation) Regulations were passed.
>>
>> The regulations outlaw discrimination
>> on grounds of sexual orientation when
>> providing goods and services.
>> The regulations contain exemptions
>> to protect the liberty of religious
>> organisations and to protect the liberty
>> of those who provide certain goods and
>> services in their own home.
>>
>> Since 2007 the regulations have caused all
>> but one Roman Catholic adoption agency
>> to close or cut ties with the Church.
>>
>> When placing children with couples, the
>> agencies had a policy of insisting that the
>> couples were married.
>>
>> In mid August 2008 an anonymous person
>> Mr and Mrs Bull’s guesthouse.
>>
>> A letter dated 22 August 2008 was sent by
>> Stonewall, a homosexual lobby group, to
>> the guesthouse claiming that its double
>> bed policy was illegal.
>>
>> On 4 September 2008 Mr Steven Preddy
>> booked a double room. The following day
>> he arrived at the guesthouse with a man,
>> Mr Martyn Hall, who he described as his
>> civil partner.
>>
>> Mr Preddy and Mr Hall were informed
>> that double bed accommodation was
>> restricted to married couples. Their
>> deposit was refunded.
>>
>> On 19 September 2008, the guesthouse
>> received correspondence from Devon and
>> Cornwall Police stating that an allegation
>> had been made that the guesthouse
>> policy was homophobic and went against
>> current civil legislation. The police stated
>> that the matter had been recorded as a
>>
>> issued a civil claim against Mr and Mrs Bull
>> under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation)
>> Regulations 2007 for allegedly being
>> discriminated against on the ground of
>> sexual orientation.
>>
>> Mr Preddy and Mr Hall are seeking
>> financial compensation for injury to
>>
>> Their litigation is being financed by the
>> Government funded Equality and Human
>> Rights Commission.
>>
>> Mr and Mrs Bull contest the claim of
>> discrimination. They say their double bed
>> policy applies to all unmarried couples
>> regardless of sexual orientation. They say
>> it is based on their beliefs about marriage,
>> not hostility to any sexual orientation.
>>
>> Their legal defence is being financed
>> by The Christian Institute, a charity that
>> protects the religious liberty of Christians.
>>
>> The case against Mr and Mrs Bull is due to
>> be tried at Bristol County Court on 13 and
>> 14 December 20
>> http://www.christian.org.uk/bulls_facts.pdf
>
> It seems to me that the couple could have had twin-bed accommodation.
Why should they, being professing Christians they detest immorality [ just
as any right thinking Christian does, right, Tim?] and so wish to discourage
people to fornicate under their roof.
> If that is so they are being pedantic IMO. They could have taken
> twin-bed accommodation and had it off in the shower or on the floor!
Would that be with your full sympathy and approval, or condemnation of their
immoral behavour before God?
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
news:kFCOo.5325$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
Excellent!
Then they can go and fornicate elsewhere.
>Or even admit being related to you.
Perfect!
As Jesus warned his faithful followers.
34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not
come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me;
anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38
and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
Matt 10:34-38 (ANIV)
Jeff...
- .. -- Tim .-.
I deduced that, from what you posted above. It is specifically *double* bed
accommodation that is being disputed. I get the impression the guest house
owners *would* have offered (and probably still will) twin-bedded rooms to
people of the same sex wishing to share, (which is, after all, normal
practice for such buisnesses). My point was that most same-sex couples
would probably be content with a twin-bedded room for the short duration of
a holiday. Thus, a descrete same-sex couple could stay there anyway. So
this is clearly (IMO) a matter of a couple deliberately making a political
issue of it, something even I consider to be unnecessarily inflammatory.
That is because a compromise was being offered.
>
>> If that is so they are being pedantic IMO. They could have taken
>> twin-bed accommodation and had it off in the shower or on the floor!
>
> Would that be with your full sympathy and approval, or condemnation
> of their immoral behavour before God?
Neither. It would be me pointing out that not having a double bed doesn't
prevent people from being able to have sex - so it is hard to understand why
the couple couldn't just have accepted a twin-bedded room. That is, apart
from recognising their intention here to make a political point. If I were
running a Christian guest house, I think I would only offer twin-bedded or
single accommodation (Obviously 'twin-bedded' would include family
accommodation if there is any). I certainly wouldn't ask my guests private
questions about their sexuality, or ask to see marriage licences. IMO most
married couples have no problem accepting a twin-bedded room if that is all
that is available, and some prefer it anyway. It avoids this sort of
argument, for a wise hotelier or guest house owner.
Tim.
>
> Jeff...
- .. -- Tim .-.
>
> Then they can go and fornicate elsewhere.
>
That's a very polite way to put it!
Tim.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Straight and to the point, Tim.
"18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he
that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." 1 Cor 6:18 (ASV)
Is that what you would advise your hetro and homosexual friends, Tim?
Jeff...
Barry OGrady
Sounds like the sin of pride.
>Jeff...
Barry OGrady
God made us that way so we would breed.
Surely God would not make us in a way he does not approve of?
>Jeff...
- .. -- Tim .-.
> "- .. -- Tim .-." <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:FpudnXor39zqg5bQ...@bt.com...
>> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>>
>>> Excellent!
>>> Then they can go and fornicate elsewhere.
>>
>> That's a very polite way to put it!
>
> Straight and to the point, Tim.
>
> "18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body;
> but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." 1
> Cor 6:18 (ASV) Is that what you would advise your hetro and
> homosexual friends, Tim?
> Jeff...
I wouldn't advise promiscuous sex for anyone, Jeff.
Tim.
Barry OGrady
Why did God make us that way?
>Tim.
Michael
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 08:48:21 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
>
> Traditionalist" <broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >news:FpudnXor39zqg5bQ...@bt.com...
> >> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>
> >>> Excellent!
> >>> Then they can go and fornicate elsewhere.
>
> >> That's a very polite way to put it!
>
> >Straight and to the point, Tim.
>
> >"18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he
> >that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." 1 Cor 6:18 (ASV)
> >Is that what you would advise your hetro and homosexual friends, Tim?
>
> God made us that way so we would breed.
> Surely God would not make us in a way he does not approve of?
>
You are quite right and that makes it clear that he approves of
gays ...cuz they didn't make themselves.
although blind bigots can't seem to get that through their thick
skulls.
- .. -- Tim .-.
Actually, males and females are different in this respect. The instinct of
the male is to maximise the chance of passing on his genes by impregnating
as many females as possible. The instinct of the female is (1) to be
impregnated by a male who exhibits qualities she wants to see in her
offspring, and (2) to pair up with a male who can provide for and protect
her. In modern Western societies, that second instinct is less important,
since she can provide for and protect herself much more than in the past.
However, giving in to base instincts is probably not the best way to live
one's life, and my reason for not recommending promiscuous sex is because of
the risk of diseases, the possible psychological effects, and the matter of
producing possibly unwanted children, and children that one cannot provide
for or look after properly.
Tim.
>
>> Tim.
Michael Christ
"Michael" <michae...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:1c3dab09-1e45-4279...@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
What next, trans-species relationships??
Homosexuality is nothing more and nothing less than delusion. Consequently
a homosexual is no different to anyone else caught up in delusion; for
instance, the love of money, or the lust for power.
Worshipping money or power is an abomination before God, and let's face it,
no amount of fancy footwork fallen human reasoning is going to make a man's
butt into the right place for a another man's penis.
Sorry, 'No Deal'!!
Michael Christ
Barry OGrady
You are right. Just because God makes people a certain way does not
mean he wants them to be that way.
>Sorry, 'No Deal'!!
You have no greens left in play.
>Michael Christ
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
I didn't ask about being promiscuous, only about committing fornication,
which requires only one partner to be operative as you know full well, Tim.
So do you recommend them to 'flee from fornication' and so stop 'sinning
against their own body' before God?
Jeff...
Barry OGrady
Traditionalist" <broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"- .. -- Tim .-." <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:18mdnaz5dqP9opbQ...@bt.com...
>> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>> "- .. -- Tim .-." <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:FpudnXor39zqg5bQ...@bt.com...
>>>> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>> Then they can go and fornicate elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> That's a very polite way to put it!
>>>
>>> Straight and to the point, Tim.
>>>
>>> "18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body;
>>> but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." 1
>>> Cor 6:18 (ASV) Is that what you would advise your hetro and
>>> homosexual friends, Tim?
>>> Jeff...
>>
>> I wouldn't advise promiscuous sex for anyone, Jeff.
>
>I didn't ask about being promiscuous, only about committing fornication,
>which requires only one partner to be operative as you know full well, Tim.
>
>So do you recommend them to 'flee from fornication' and so stop 'sinning
>against their own body' before God?
We must continually fight our God given nature.
>Jeff...
- .. -- Tim .-.
I would not expect or require behaviour of non-Christians to necessarily
meet Christian standards, Jeff. The law of our country defines what is
allowed, and fornication is not illegal. Christians, of course, should be
trying to avoid ANY sin, so personally if I was 'recommending', I would
phrase it generally, rather than specifically. That avoids some people
saying, "This doesn't apply to me", if we are reminded that we are ALL
sinners. That is a Biblical position to take, since in the Sermon on the
Mount Jesus points out that anyone who looks lustfully on someone is guilty
of sin, anyone who gets angry is guilty of murder. This teaching (1)
illustrates the seriousness of sin, and (2) points out that it applies to us
ALL.
So, the ONLY appropriate response is: "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner".
Tim.
Barry OGrady
<timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>I would not expect or require behaviour of non-Christians to necessarily
>meet Christian standards, Jeff.
Its good you don't want to drag non-Christians down to your level.
Can you imagine the chaos if everybody behaved as badly as Christians?
>Tim.
John Cooper
John Cooper
Michael
> "Michael" <michaelrja...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
another moronic statement about homosexuals by someone convinced
that his thoughts are 'the truth' and that others who are different
than him are delusional. 'the typical heterosexual delusion' based
on VERY limited knowledge and an egocentric view of life.
Sorry..but your view about homosexual is totally lame
No deal ? so what , your views are not valid. although I am pretty
sure that you won't accept that because it is obvious that you are a
thick headed bigot who is lost in your personal delusions . So I
will not waste more time in replying to you as it will lead no where
and short of a miracle will accomplish nothing.
Barry OGrady
God hates all forms of pleasure.
- .. -- Tim .-.
For once, I read an article in the Mail and thought it was almost reasonably
balanced. I doubt the business is struggling like they say, or that they
are as poor as they claim. But that aside, this article does say that the
guests could have had a twin room - although unfortunately there was none
available, (in the hotel which they say is normally empty.) IMO therefore
it shows that they are/were willing to compromise. She did say she doesn't
ask to see the marriage certificates of couples who claim to be married, and
(I would hope) presumably she doesn't ask questions about the sexuality of
guests of the same sex who want to share twin rooms.
The landlady said she thought her policy would be tested one day. Well, if
she had replaced the double beds with twin beds in all rooms, she wouldn't
have had to go through all this. But even I agree that this seems to have
all the markings of a deliberate set-up. That said, even if it was, it
doesn't necessarily follow that their action will be found legal by the
court.
Tim.
- .. -- Tim .-.
I think everyone behaves as badly as people!
Tim.
steve wilson
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:19:21 +0000, steve wilson
> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16/12/2010 10:15, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:30:57 +0000, steve wilson
>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/12/2010 07:16, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:16:13 +0000, steve wilson
>>>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/12/2010 12:35, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:30:12 +0000, steve wilson
>>>>>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 15/12/2010 10:43, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:54:19 +0000, steve wilson
>>>>>>>>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 14/12/2010 11:45, Robert Marshall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Please don't
>>>> suddenly step back onto your own dire world-view to criticise the answer
>>>> I gave, an answer which is wholly consistent with the Christian
>>>> world-view, just because it does not fit with what you believe. You
>>>> obviously do not know what you are doing.
>
> Do you see the Christian world view as a role playing game?
>
Do you consider defending your world-view, one that is based on there
being no God, to be a game? I can assure you that if atheism is unable
to fully account for human dignity, our awareness of moral absolutes, or
the existence of non-physical laws of logic, then atheism is incoherent
and should be rejected.
>>>>> We determine good and bad by what is good for us along with empathy.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You deny the Holiness of God by your claim that God is okay with sin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You deny God's power and authority when you claim that God allows
>>>>>>> things he does not approve of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> God permits evil, how does that deny his power and authority?
>>>>>
>>>>> It does mean he can't be good.
>>>>>
>>>> Does it? Lay out your argument.
>>>
>>> I only have proof.
>>
>> Lol
>>
>>> Obviously a good God would not allow evil.
>>
>> This is not a necessary logical consequence.
>
> How so?
>
It is not a necessary conclusion that God could not allow evil, because
there is another possibility which atheists never think to consider.
That is, that God could have a morally sufficient purpose for permitting
evil, even if we are not privy to that purpose. And this possibility
fits in perfectly with what scripture tells us about God. It also tells
Christians that bad things do happen and that we are to endure, trusting
in God's goodness and greater knowledge and purpose.
And it is equally clear from scripture, that whatever God's purpose is
in permitting evil, there is a time in the future to which it is all
moving and will find resolution. Christians will then see and
acknowledge the wisdom of God and praise Him.
Remember I do not have to provide an answer that satisfies you according
to your darkened Godless understanding, but only one that is consistent
with the Christian world-view. Any protestations from you about how
this explanation cannot possibly be true because there is no God, will
receive the contempt it deserves. The only course open to you is to
dispute that my explanation is indeed consistent with what Christians
believe about God based on scripture.
>>> But, of course, you think evil must be good because God allows it, and
>>> you have no ability to decipher good and bad.
>>
>> All this tells me is that your understanding of Christian belief is
>> poor.
>
> Its possible my understanding of your personal beliefs is poor.
>
The Christian world-view is founded on the bible being God-breathed. And
that means what it tells us is wholly reliable. If you know the basics
of biblical Christianity, then you already know my beliefs to a
substantial degree. Now I know nothing about you or the superstructure
of your personal beliefs, but having noticed the tell-tale signs of
atheism in your posts, if I understand your basic position, I have a
pretty good idea of what you believe. So I would restate that you give
the impression of having a poor understanding of Christianity.
>> Anyone with a basic grasp of Christianity would know that of all
>> beliefs, it has the keenest awareness of moral good/evil and the surest
>> explanation for our moral awareness of the very concept.
>
> Where did God get his ideas from and what makes you think what seems
> right to God is right for us?
>
The God of the bible is the almighty, all-knowing, infinite and personal
Creator of this universe. God is the one who created life and created
humans in His image and likeness. You tell me why this should not make
Him the ultimate authority?
>>> Have you ever allowed a witch to live?
>>> How many homosexuals have you killed?
>>> Are you happy to dash little children against the rocks?
>>> Do you get excited when you read about God inciting genocide?
>>>
>> And according to your atheistic belief, what is so wrong with any of
>> these?
>
> You are the one claiming to be without a moral sense.
>
When did I claim that? What I am actually claim is that the Christian
world-view enables us to make sense of our moral awareness, especially
with regard to our habitual practice of making absolute and universal
moral judgements. I contend that atheism struggles and fails miserably
in this respect. Yet despite of this failure, atheists continue to make
absolute moral judgements in contradiction to their world-view. And by
the presentation of the list above, you demonstrate that you do exactly
the same. So that's why I would like you to explain why it is you think
your list of actions above are so very wrong.
You can of course say these examples are wrong because our society views
them as unacceptable, which is fine as far as it goes, but what of other
cultures? For instance, in Muslim countries the punishment for
homosexual activity is death. How do you explain your moral outrage
according to your atheistic beliefs when there can be no absolute
reference point by which to make such judgements? If you were true to
atheism, you would be morally neutral about what other cultures decide
is good or evil for them. If you were truly consistent with your
atheistic beliefs, you happily acknowledge that no behaviour or action
is in itself either morally good or evil, but is only considered to be
one or the other by societal consensus. So for the truly consistent
atheist, killing a baby is not morally wrong in and of itself, it could
be morally wrong or morally acceptable depending on societal consensus.
It is the atheist who has the problem not the Christian.
>> They can be good or evil depending on what society decides for
>> itself at any particular time. In atheism there cannot be anything
>> which is morally wrong in itself. In order for you to make such
>> judgements, you are referencing a conceptual and absolute standard.
>> What is the alternative absolute non-physical standard you are using? I
>> know that mine is the infinite and personal creator God revealed in the
>> Bible.
>
> I take it you do find genocide acceptable when ordered by God.
> For that matter you must believe that everything is good since God
> allows it.
>
I do not personally relish it because it is not pleasant, but I do
recognise that God is God and has prerogatives in keeping with being the
infinite and personal creator, which are not ours as creatures. One of
those prerogatives is that He has the right as God to judge sin and
punish anyone in accordance with His perfect justice. It is this
judgement upon our sin that necessitated that Jesus Christ had to be
incarnated. The whole of Christianity turns on the perfect justice of
God and our rebellion against Him.
If you have carefully read the bible, then you will know that the
destruction of a whole people was never an arbitrary act by God, but
done in judgement for their sin, and it corresponded with working out
God's will in history to pave the way for the Messiah. For example, we
are told the Jews had to remain 400 years in Egypt until the wickedness
and detestable practices of the peoples inhabiting the promised land
came to its disgusting fullness. Only then did God bring the Israelites
out of Egypt to fulfil His promise, and at the same time be instruments
of God's judgement upon the inhabitant of the land. God's timing is
perfect in meshing these together without compromising Himself. And
read Leviticus to see that even the Israelites were warned by the LORD,
that if they copied the detestable practices of the peoples, who were in
the land before them, then the land would vomit them out. In other
words, the LORD's judgement would fall upon them too, as indeed it did.
Having said this I believe that when men indulge in genocide it is a sin
for which they will be judged, even though God permits such evil. I have
noticed that many people do not think that God is wrong in permitting
evil, but they have a do have problem with the quantity and depth of
evil which He permits.
And I have noticed that you have been evasive and not answered my
question. Please explain, according to your godless world-view, how you
are able to recognise that mass killing is always wrong when atheism is
well known for denying an absolute standard of reference.
>>
>> Not necessarily. God created the universe and the earth 'and He saw that
>> it was good' however God also created humanity with the capacity of
>> moral freewill. Even though God is all-powerful, He cannot be
>> contradictory and create a being with such a capacity and then obstruct
>> the inherent consequence of that capacity, that of being able to choose
>> to do the immoral thing.
>
> I think I understand.
> God is all-powerful but there are some things he can't do.
God cannot make a square circle. Does that make Him not all-powerful?
> God is good but often does things that are not good.
God is holy and righteous. The problem lays with your ignorance of God's
attributes. God is wholly good, but he does not compromise his perfect
justice to make Himself look good for the benefit of those with darkened
minds.
> You get to decide what God can and can't do.
>
No that is wrong. It is the Christian world-view, which is based
solidly on scripture as God-breathed. Your whole concept of
Christianity being invented by Christians is wrong.
>>> Since you are incapable of discernment how did you decide that God is
>>> good?
>>>
>> I didn't decide, the Bible tells me so.
>
> How did you decide that the bible is right?
>
I didn't decide, it is it's own authority, which I recognised and placed
myself under. When Christ took me out of Yoga, he pointed me straight
towards the Bible; the gospels initially. I read things there which I
found quite hard to understand and accept, but knew I had to persist
with it because of the person of Christ, who towered above all the
Eastern gurus and 'holy men'.
>> And like all normal humans I
>> intuitively know that when I form a moral judgement, I am doing so with
>> reference to a non-physical conceptual and absolute standard. That is
>> why you and I know that raping babies is always wrong, whoever does it,
>> in which ever society it occurs, and whenever it occurs.
>
> How is it that some people don't know that?
>
The bible tells me that all humans are made in the image and likeness of
God, and however hard paedophiles work at suppressing their conscience,
these males cannot absolutely and consistently deny the image of the one
who's likeness they bear. At some deep level in their heart, they know
that what they do is immoral. Indeed some paedophiles do admit there
activity is immoral and confess they are helpless in the power of their
own perverted lust, a lust they themselves have carefully nurtured.
Others feel twinges of guilt after the event and work hard to
rationalise it away. A hardened core have so deadened their conscience
that they even claim it is their natural sexual orientation. However
even in them a residue still resides awaiting expression, either in
conviction during spiritual conversion or in condemnation when they
stand before God.
Unless I am very much mistaken about you, you are not one of those who
gives the appearance of not knowing that raping babies is morally wrong
in itself. So according to your atheism, and without assuming the truth
of Christianity, how it is that you are able to form such an objective
and universal moral judgement and declare that raping babies is always
wrong?
>> Christianity
>> explains this perfectly, atheism flounders. It is why you quite
>> evidently assume the truth of Christianity whilst laying claim to atheism.
>
> Christianity doesn't explain why humans are just another mammal with
> the same basic needs and wants as other mammals and the same method
> of reproduction.
> However, it all fits with us being a product of evolution.
>
Christianity doesn't explain that we are 'just' mammals like any other
because it says we are much more than that. Scripture clearly says we
have a spiritual side to us, bearing the image and likeness of God,
which makes us qualitatively different from animals, even though we
share physical similarities along with the need for food, shelter and
desire to procreate.
And if we are just the products of evolution, why are you bothering to
tackle me on my religion? If evolution is true, my religion is purely
the result of my biochemical make up and it is not amenable to reasoned
debate with ever-present possibility of a changed mind. My thinking is
determined by my biology and so is yours. If atheistic evolution is
true, then rational discourse as it is normally understood, cannot and
does not occur. However it does clearly occur, so atheism and it's
vehicle, evolution, is clearly incoherent.
What grounds do have you to expect any respect as a homosexual or
heterosexual, or be under any obligation to give respect others apart
from fear of violence? Do you realise you are secretly assuming the
Christian world-view?
In the light of your recent comment that we are just a sub-set of
animals, please explain how atheism is able to attribute innate dignity
to humans? What universal value is it based upon? You are obviously
assuming there is one, unfortunately for you the dignity you are
assuming is based upon what the bible tells us.
>> After-all homosexuals are evolutionary dead-ends, why not eliminate them?
>
> Christianity does more than its share of holding back human
> advancement. Should we eliminate your sort?
>
Some atheists have given me the impression they would just love to get
rid of Christians. And why not? There is nothing in atheism which I can
see that says it is absolutely wrong. After all, humans are only
biochemical machines, an accident of evolution. And Muslims are
becoming stronger by the year in our society. I take it, that according
to the logic of atheism, there can be nothing wrong with the strongest
taking control by force if necessary? Survival of the fittest and
strongest is what its all about isn't it?
>> This society has
>> decided that homosexual practice is morally acceptable, but Islamic
>> countries view homosexual activity as highly immoral and put offenders
>> to death.
>
> That's what happens when people don't challenge the sort of claims you
> make.
>
But on what basis can you make such a challenge? I keep asking this same
question and it either goes straight over your head, or you don't want
to give an answer.
>> According to your atheism, what basis is there to form the
>> universal moral judgement that the killing of homosexuals is
>> intrinsically wrong in itself? At one time, our society thought slavery
>> was perfectly okay, it then changed its mind and decided it was immoral.
>> Atheism has no absolute standard, so slavery or homosexuality can be
>> both morally good or evil depending on the prevailing societal consensus
>> at any given time.
>
> That rather contradicts your claim that all morality comes from the
> same source.
>
Objective morality can only have one source, a transcendent moral law
giver, i.e. the God of the bible. However humanity is in rebellion to
its creator and tries to go it alone. Yet however hard it tries to find
an alternative 'God free' way of arranging our own moral standards, it
is always subject to frustration and failure because no other way has
coherence. None the less though humanity rejects God and his authority,
it cannot help routinely making universal moral judgements without
realising it because God has given us the capacity of moral awareness
which is intuitively keyed into God's character as the fixed standard
from which objective moral judgements are made.
>> I have no respect for atheism.
>
> You have no respect for reality.
>
LoL. The infinite and personal God who has revealed Himself in
creation, and through scripture and Christ, is the ultimate reality.
>>> I don't believe you are as brain dead as you make out.
>>> You shouldn't put yourself down like that.
>>> Some people have been able to recover from Christianity.
>>>
>> I think the problem is that, so far, you haven't really understood what
>> I've said.
>
> That's possible. You are in the minority among Christians.
>
I don't think you have encountered someone who argues from the
perspective of world-views before. I am guessing, that like many
atheists, you think of atheism as being only about a lack of belief in
God, whereas in fact it involves a whole view of reality based on the
consequence of there being no God. What cannot be denied is that
atheism has profound implications for how we know what we know; how we
understand ourselves, how we understand ultimate reality, how we
interpret facts and even what can be accepted as facts. It is obvious
to me that atheism undermines our very humanity, our intuitive sense of
objective morality and even our very rationality. Of course you will
disagree, but only because you are accustomed to being inconsistent in
your atheism. Without realising it you introduce aspects of the
Christianity world-view into your atheism and then pass it off as
atheism.
>> And if being 'recovered from Christianity' is a self-reference, why then
>> do you so clearly presuppose the truth Christianity's core assumptions
>> instead of assuming atheistic ones?
>
> Your question is invalid.
It is more valid that you as yet realise. The problem is that you, like
all atheists, cannot consistently live according to the atheist
world-view, predicated as it is on there being no God.
Steve Wilson
steve wilson
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> On 15/12/2010 10:40, Robert Marshall wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14/12/2010 11:45, Robert Marshall wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, steve wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> tell the difference between those who are friends, and a couple in
>>>>>> a sexual relationship. The moment suspicions are raised, and a
>>>>>> blind-eye turned, one becomes complicit. This is why I have never
>>>>>> been happy with your 'solution', it is fundamentally dishonest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contrary to you, I think these Christians should be free to run
>>>>>> their B&B according to their Christian beliefs. The Law should
>>>>>> not put itself in a place where it can be used as a tool of
>>>>>> oppression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So if a Christian couple believes that mixed race marriages are
>>>>> wrong - and I'm sure there are some around who still do - are they
>>>>> justified in humiliating such a couple by refusing them a double
>>>>> room? (Such a refusal would be opression too!)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The whole point is that monogamous heterosexual marriage is God's
>>>> creation will for men and women, there is no clause in scripture
>>>> saying; 'except for mixed race marriages'. The couple running the
>>>> B&B have clearly stated their commitment to scripture. You appear
>>>> not to understand the core issue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do! It may not agree with what you think of as the core issue
>>> though.
>>>
>> The core issue is one of authority.
>>
>
> For you? For me the core issue is that of respect - and that goes both
> ways - of the guests to the B&B owner and of the B&B owner to the guests.
>
You say there should be mutual respect but how can there be given the
ridiculously bad legislation, which outlaws discrimination against
homosexuals regards the provision of goods and services? On the surface
it sounds quite reasonable, but it is toxic for those who for reasons of
faith cannot accept the new lower moral standard involved.
For the Christian couple the permissible compromise was two single
rooms, unfortunately at the time, all single rooms were occupied and the
two homosexuals were offered back their deposit. I sense that for the
two homosexuals, this compromise would not have been acceptable at all,
as it denied their desire for full societal acceptance of homosexuality.
Given the situation, the Christian hoteliers were dammed either way
because they refused to acquiesce unreservedly to the new sexual ethic.
The Christian hoteliers have been forced by bad legislation into an
either/or situation; Make a stand with God and be forced to pay
compensation claims and suffer the loss of the business, or confirm the
moral integrity of a homosexual relationship and disobey the clear
teaching of scripture, (which is the same as saying; what God says).
How is this not an issue of authority?
> If you have a child and s/he lives with a partner (of whatever sex) for
> 20+ years (without marrying) would you insist on them not staying with
> you or using separate bedrooms?
>
If they wanted to sleep overnight in my house they would have to abide
by my conditions or pay for a motel. In no way would I permit them to
share a room. To permit room-sharing would be to condone and approve
of what is a sinful relationship. And the passage of time does not bring
legitimacy.
I have two Christian friends who have had sons who live with their
'partners'. Both sets of parents stipulated and do stipulate that
sharing a room in their house is not an option. The son and 'partner'
of both parents accept the situation without fuss. One son and
'partner' has recently married.
>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>>>> I think these Christians should be free to run their B&B according
>>>>>> to their Christian beliefs.
>>>
>>> Does that only apply to those whom you regard as Christians?
>>>
>> No.
>>
>> If some pagan B&B and has a rule that obeisance to a Green man must be
>> made in order to have a room, I will go elsewhere.
>>
>
> That wasn't my point - should a B&B owned by people who believe that
> mixed race marriages are wrong[1] be permitted to humiliate a mixed race
> couple who turn up having booked a room? If the law allowed that it
> would IMHO be a case of opression
>
And you have missed the point too. It is what God says, which is all
important, not society or its legislators. God does not view mixed
marriages as immoral because all humans originate from Adam and Eve.
Therefore to deny a double-room to a married couple of mixed race would
be very wrong whether is was legal or not. Whether it be individuals or
society they are guilty of making up their own moral standards, just as
our society is doing so today with its revised moral standards for
homosexual relationships. As I said, it is an issue of authority.
I have always been of the understanding that Christians are to be
diligently obedient to the law of the land, as long as it does not clash
with what God says. When they do clash, we are to side with God not
man. And this is what is happening with the Christian hoteliers.
Steve Wilson
> Robert
> [1] and such attitudes were supported by laws which were common in the US in
> the 20th C
- .. -- Tim .-.
> On 16/12/2010 15:10, Robert Marshall wrote:
>> For you? For me the core issue is that of respect - and that goes
>> both ways - of the guests to the B&B owner and of the B&B owner to the
>> guests.
> You say there should be mutual respect but how can there be given the
> ridiculously bad legislation, which outlaws discrimination against
> homosexuals regards the provision of goods and services? On the
> surface it sounds quite reasonable, but it is toxic for those who for
> reasons of faith cannot accept the new lower moral standard involved.
>
> For the Christian couple the permissible compromise was two single
> rooms,
Incorrect. Read the Mail article quoted by Cooper. They make it clear
there, that a twin-bedded room would have been offered had there been one
available.
> unfortunately at the time, all single rooms were occupied and
> the two homosexuals were offered back their deposit. I sense that
> for the two homosexuals, this compromise would not have been
> acceptable at all, as it denied their desire for full societal
> acceptance of homosexuality. Given the situation, the Christian
> hoteliers were dammed either way because they refused to acquiesce
> unreservedly to the new sexual ethic.
They would, by their own admission, have allowed them to share a room, just
not a bed.
>
> The Christian hoteliers have been forced by bad legislation into an
> either/or situation; Make a stand with God and be forced to pay
> compensation claims and suffer the loss of the business, or confirm
> the moral integrity of a homosexual relationship and disobey the clear
> teaching of scripture, (which is the same as saying; what God says).
> How is this not an issue of authority?
They were actually willing to compromise, since they would have offered a
twin-bed room. So IMO they were fair, they adopted the sort of willingness
to compromise that I approve of. However, IMO the same-sex couple did not
WANT a compromise, because they wanted to make an issue of it. Most
same-sex couples would probably have simply booked a twin-bed room in the
first place, and been discrete about their sexuality, and nothing would have
been said. Most hotels would accept two people of the same sex sharing a
twin-room, without asking questions about their sexuality, and I think it
likely that the same thing would have happened here.
>
>
>> If you have a child and s/he lives with a partner (of whatever sex)
>> for 20+ years (without marrying) would you insist on them not
>> staying with you or using separate bedrooms?
>>
> If they wanted to sleep overnight in my house they would have to abide
> by my conditions or pay for a motel. In no way would I permit them to
> share a room. To permit room-sharing would be to condone and approve
> of what is a sinful relationship. And the passage of time does not
> bring legitimacy.
Oddly, it would be harder for an unmarried couple of different sexes to take
a room in some places without lying, than for a couple of the same sex. A
different sex couple who were not married would probably have to pretend to
be, to get even a twin-bedded room in the hotel being discussed here. A
same sex couple would only need to say nothing, and allow the assumption
that they are 'Just friends'.
>
> I have two Christian friends who have had sons who live with their
> 'partners'. Both sets of parents stipulated and do stipulate that
> sharing a room in their house is not an option. The son and 'partner'
> of both parents accept the situation without fuss. One son and
> 'partner' has recently married.
It is a different situation to accepting paying guests. The landlady in
this case admitted she does not ask to see marriage certificates. I take it
as likely that if two (same-sex) friends book a twin-room, she does not ask
about their sexuality.
>
>
>>>
>>>> You wrote:
>>>>>>> I think these Christians should be free to run their B&B
>>>>>>> according to their Christian beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> Does that only apply to those whom you regard as Christians?
>>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> If some pagan B&B and has a rule that obeisance to a Green man must
>>> be made in order to have a room, I will go elsewhere.
>>>
>>
>> That wasn't my point - should a B&B owned by people who believe that
>> mixed race marriages are wrong[1] be permitted to humiliate a mixed
>> race couple who turn up having booked a room? If the law allowed
>> that it would IMHO be a case of opression
>>
>
> And you have missed the point too. It is what God says, which is all
> important, not society or its legislators.
Well, actually it's about what people *think* God says, and whether that
should be imposed on people who either have a different view on what God
says, or who are not believers at all.
> God does not view mixed
> marriages as immoral because all humans originate from Adam and Eve.
> Therefore to deny a double-room to a married couple of mixed race
> would be very wrong whether is was legal or not. Whether it be
> individuals or society they are guilty of making up their own moral
> standards, just as our society is doing so today with its revised
> moral standards for homosexual relationships. As I said, it is an
> issue of authority.
Civil laws should not be based on religious beliefs alone. Not even mine.
>
> I have always been of the understanding that Christians are to be
> diligently obedient to the law of the land, as long as it does not
> clash with what God says. When they do clash, we are to side with
> God not man. And this is what is happening with the Christian
> hoteliers.
Don't agree. No-where in the Bible does it say that people may not share a
bed. It's only having sex that is the question. Several times over the
years I have travelled with my brother, and we have had to take a B&B where
there was only a double room available. Actually we hated having to share a
bed, and I can assure you there was NO chance of hankey-pankey! In fact, I
look nothing like my brother, but we were quite often offered a double room
rather than nothing, AFAIK no-one assumed or even thought we were a
'same-sex couple'. Where I see a lowering of standards is over people
making much more of a fuss about sharing beds these days. Sharing a bed to
sleep in doesn't mean having sex. I pointed out elsewhere, that on
pilgrimage to Israel and when going to Spring Harvest, the churches we were
with actually paired up single people with friends of the same sex, to
enable twin-room sharing and save costs.
Tim.
- .. -- Tim .-.
"The God of the Bible".
******
In the beginning God was without form and void, and the Spirit of the Bible
moved over God and said, "Let there be God." And there was God.
Tim.
Barry OGrady
So God was created in the image of the Bible?
>Tim.
steve wilson
> steve wilson wrote:
>> On 16/12/2010 15:10, Robert Marshall wrote:
>>> For you? For me the core issue is that of respect - and that goes
>>> both ways - of the guests to the B&B owner and of the B&B owner to the
>>> guests.
>> You say there should be mutual respect but how can there be given the
>> ridiculously bad legislation, which outlaws discrimination against
>> homosexuals regards the provision of goods and services? On the
>> surface it sounds quite reasonable, but it is toxic for those who for
>> reasons of faith cannot accept the new lower moral standard involved.
>>
>> For the Christian couple the permissible compromise was two single
>> rooms,
>
> Incorrect. Read the Mail article quoted by Cooper. They make it clear
> there, that a twin-bedded room would have been offered had there been one
> available.
>
>> unfortunately at the time, all single rooms were occupied and
>> the two homosexuals were offered back their deposit. I sense that
>> for the two homosexuals, this compromise would not have been
>> acceptable at all, as it denied their desire for full societal
>> acceptance of homosexuality. Given the situation, the Christian
>> hoteliers were dammed either way because they refused to acquiesce
>> unreservedly to the new sexual ethic.
>
> They would, by their own admission, have allowed them to share a room, just
> not a bed.
>
On reading the article this does seems to be the case. They are actually
more lax than I would be. My 'line in the sand' would be sharing a
room, not separate beds within a room. I cannot see there is much of a
'line' drawn with two single beds in one room. It's almost not worth
the bothering.
>>
>> The Christian hoteliers have been forced by bad legislation into an
>> either/or situation; Make a stand with God and be forced to pay
>> compensation claims and suffer the loss of the business, or confirm
>> the moral integrity of a homosexual relationship and disobey the clear
>> teaching of scripture, (which is the same as saying; what God says).
>> How is this not an issue of authority?
>
> They were actually willing to compromise, since they would have offered a
> twin-bed room. So IMO they were fair, they adopted the sort of willingness
> to compromise that I approve of. However, IMO the same-sex couple did not
> WANT a compromise, because they wanted to make an issue of it. Most
> same-sex couples would probably have simply booked a twin-bed room in the
> first place, and been discrete about their sexuality, and nothing would have
> been said. Most hotels would accept two people of the same sex sharing a
> twin-room, without asking questions about their sexuality, and I think it
> likely that the same thing would have happened here.
>
I would agree, I get the impression the homosexual couple wanted to make
an issue out of it. Stonewall are out to crush all opposition to
homosexual legitimacy.
>>
>>
>>> If you have a child and s/he lives with a partner (of whatever sex)
>>> for 20+ years (without marrying) would you insist on them not
>>> staying with you or using separate bedrooms?
>>>
>> If they wanted to sleep overnight in my house they would have to abide
>> by my conditions or pay for a motel. In no way would I permit them to
>> share a room. To permit room-sharing would be to condone and approve
>> of what is a sinful relationship. And the passage of time does not
>> bring legitimacy.
>
> Oddly, it would be harder for an unmarried couple of different sexes to take
> a room in some places without lying, than for a couple of the same sex. A
> different sex couple who were not married would probably have to pretend to
> be, to get even a twin-bedded room in the hotel being discussed here. A
> same sex couple would only need to say nothing, and allow the assumption
> that they are 'Just friends'.
>
The two Christian hoteliers say they just ask if a couple are married
and take it on trust.
And though it is not 100% foolproof there is a discernible difference
between two male friends and a male homosexual couple. It's in the body
language and how they interact with each other. Or is that just me?
It's similar to when you see a heterosexual couple slobbering all over
each other, you can almost be certain they are not married :)
>>
>> I have two Christian friends who have had sons who live with their
>> 'partners'. Both sets of parents stipulated and do stipulate that
>> sharing a room in their house is not an option. The son and 'partner'
>> of both parents accept the situation without fuss. One son and
>> 'partner' has recently married.
>
> It is a different situation to accepting paying guests. The landlady in
> this case admitted she does not ask to see marriage certificates. I take it
> as likely that if two (same-sex) friends book a twin-room, she does not ask
> about their sexuality.
>
It is clear the Christian hoteliers simply take people at their word.
Yet in this case, somewhere along the line it became known that the two
males were in a sinful homosexual relationship. Did the wife suspect
and ask or was the wife told by the two homosexuals upon arrival? I
haven't read anything about this aspect yet.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> You wrote:
>>>>>>>> I think these Christians should be free to run their B&B
>>>>>>>> according to their Christian beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that only apply to those whom you regard as Christians?
>>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> If some pagan B&B and has a rule that obeisance to a Green man must
>>>> be made in order to have a room, I will go elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That wasn't my point - should a B&B owned by people who believe that
>>> mixed race marriages are wrong[1] be permitted to humiliate a mixed
>>> race couple who turn up having booked a room? If the law allowed
>>> that it would IMHO be a case of opression
>>>
>>
>> And you have missed the point too. It is what God says, which is all
>> important, not society or its legislators.
>
> Well, actually it's about what people *think* God says, and whether that
> should be imposed on people who either have a different view on what God
> says, or who are not believers at all.
>
No it is quite wrong to say 'it's about what people *think* God says',
as if there is so much abiguity on the issue that it's open to various
interpretations. Scripture is very clear about God's intent for sexual
relationships. The problem is people are sinners and don't want to
listen to the one who made them, much less be obedient.
>> God does not view mixed
>> marriages as immoral because all humans originate from Adam and Eve.
>> Therefore to deny a double-room to a married couple of mixed race
>> would be very wrong whether is was legal or not. Whether it be
>> individuals or society they are guilty of making up their own moral
>> standards, just as our society is doing so today with its revised
>> moral standards for homosexual relationships. As I said, it is an
>> issue of authority.
>
> Civil laws should not be based on religious beliefs alone. Not even mine.
>
Christianity is not in the business of transplanting religious beliefs
directly into civil law, but having said that, Christian principles have
for a long time underpinned and informed our civil law. Even today,
despite the erosion of Christian values, as a nation we still consider
polygamy and androgyny to be wrong. And even though the government
makes concessions I think they only officially recognise the first wife
of a Muslim for the payment of child benefit.
We still believe that taking justice into our own hands to get vengeance
for a perceived crimes is wrong and we still recognise that the innate
dignity of a human means we have no right to murder anyone or be
murdered. The secular humanists may have hijacked the human dignity as
their own, but in reality they have no grounds for attributing any such
universal dignity other than the one provided by Christianity.
>>
>> I have always been of the understanding that Christians are to be
>> diligently obedient to the law of the land, as long as it does not
>> clash with what God says. When they do clash, we are to side with
>> God not man. And this is what is happening with the Christian
>> hoteliers.
>
> Don't agree. No-where in the Bible does it say that people may not share a
> bed. It's only having sex that is the question. Several times over the
> years I have travelled with my brother, and we have had to take a B&B where
> there was only a double room available. Actually we hated having to share a
> bed, and I can assure you there was NO chance of hankey-pankey! In fact, I
> look nothing like my brother, but we were quite often offered a double room
> rather than nothing, AFAIK no-one assumed or even thought we were a
> 'same-sex couple'.
> Where I see a lowering of standards is over people
> making much more of a fuss about sharing beds these days. Sharing a bed to
> sleep in doesn't mean having sex. I pointed out elsewhere, that on
> pilgrimage to Israel and when going to Spring Harvest, the churches we were
> with actually paired up single people with friends of the same sex, to
> enable twin-room sharing and save costs.
>
> Tim.
>
Agree with all you say, it is quite uncontroversial and I am puzzled why
you feel the need to go into detail. However there is a world of
difference between two brothers or same-sex friends (i.e in non-sexual
relation to each other) and a homosexual couple, who's relationship is
intrinsically based on sexual attraction.
If the homosexual couple in question had kept quiet, or lied, the
Christian hoteliers would have accepted them at face value as friends
and let them have a double-bedded room. The operative fact is that
somehow it became known that the two males were in a homosexual
relationship, and that is when it gets problematic if you are faithful
to what God says about the place of marriage.
Steve Wilson
steve wilson
the reader can read into it whatever idea of God he/she has created in
their own mind, which is likely to be far removed from the God as
understood by Christians. When I say God, I want the reader to know
that I am referring specifically to the God who has revealed Himself
through scripture and thus through Christ. I have heard the word God
used so often, and meaning so many different things, that I want to try
and avoid misapprehensions.
Steve Wilson
steve wilson
Christianity. Rather it's a case of 'who needs enemies when you have
brothers like him'. I put a lot of time and thought into writing that
post and all Tim can do is pick me up on my particular choice of words.
He reads it one way and I read it another. He is being over-critical to
the point of perversity.
I do hope, that unlike Tim, you are going to make a sensible response to
my post. You may not realise it at the moment but you assume the truth
of Christianity in your arguments. As an atheist you should embrace the
logical consequences of your view of a world where there is no God,
rather than borrow from Christian theism and pass it off as part of the
atheist world-view.
Steve Wilson
Mr.Magoo
The impossibility of fulfilling christian standards, and how unrealistic
and inappropriate for everyday life they truly are.
> the seriousness of sin, and (2) points out that it applies to us
> ALL.
>
> So, the ONLY appropriate response is: "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner".
And that of course is the aim of all religion- the subservience of oneself.
> Tim.
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
"Julia only gets personal when there's a question she can't answer, which is nearly always"
"If you think utility prices are high now, watch them go through the roof with the Green/ALP carbon tax"
The insane Greens! .. http://tinyurl.com/insane-Greens
"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money"
"Those who tolerate intolerance will cease to exist"
"Truth is the new hate speech"
"Political correctness is a polite form of tryanny"
Mr.Magoo
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 07:56:39 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic
> Traditionalist"<broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> "Theo Bekkers"<theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:kFCOo.5325$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
>>> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
>>> <broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote +
>>>> "Robert Marshall"<sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> If you have a child and s/he lives with a partner (of whatever sex) for
>>>>> 20+ years (without marrying) would you insist on them not staying with
>>>>> you or using separate bedrooms?
>>>> Absolutely!
>>>> Anyone professing to be a Brother of Christ would insist!
>>> I very much doubt they would want to stay with you.
>> Excellent!
>> Then they can go and fornicate elsewhere.
>>
>>> Or even admit being related to you.
>> Perfect!
>> As Jesus warned his faithful followers.
>> 34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not
>> come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
>>
>>
>> " 'a man against his father,
>>
>> a daughter against her mother,
>>
>> a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
>>
>> 36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'
>>
>>
>> 37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me;
>> anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38
>> and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
>> Matt 10:34-38 (ANIV)
> Sounds like the sin of pride.
It's certainly at odds with the concept of Jesus as the "Prince of Peace"
>> Jeff...
Mr.Magoo
>> No deal? so what, your views are not valid. although I am pretty
>> sure that you won't accept that because it is obvious that you are a
>> thick headed bigot who is lost in your personal delusions. So I
>> will not waste more time in replying to you as it will lead no where
>> and short of a miracle will accomplish nothing.
> God hates all forms of pleasure.
>
The concept of asceticism is well established within the christian
faith. The dilemma the Christian Church faces, is in maintaining that
God created everything in existence, necessitates explaining why God
created gays, and it's prohibition of gay sex.
Mr.Magoo
> On Dec 17, 4:06 pm, "Michael Christ"<JesusisL...@Father.com> wrote:
>> "Michael"<michaelrja...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1c3dab09-1e45-4279...@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> You are quite right and that makes it clear that he approves of
>>> gays ...cuz they didn't make themselves.
>>> although blind bigots can't seem to get that through their thick
>>> skulls.
>> What next, trans-species relationships??
>>
>> Homosexuality is nothing more and nothing less than delusion. Consequently
>> a homosexual is no different to anyone else caught up in delusion; for
>> instance, the love of money, or the lust for power.
>>
>> Worshipping money or power is an abomination before God, and let's face it,
>> no amount of fancy footwork fallen human reasoning is going to make a man's
>> butt into the right place for a another man's penis.
>>
>> Sorry, 'No Deal'!!
>>
>> Michael Christ
> another moronic statement about homosexuals by someone convinced
> that his thoughts are 'the truth' and that others who are different
> than him are delusional. 'the typical heterosexual delusion' based
> on VERY limited knowledge and an egocentric view of life.
> Sorry..but your view about homosexual is totally lame
> No deal? so what, your views are not valid.
Why deem his views invalid but yours not? Everyone is entitled to their
own opinion.
> although I am pretty
> sure that you won't accept that because it is obvious that you are a
> thick headed bigot who is lost in your personal delusions . So I
> will not waste more time in replying to you as it will lead no where
> and short of a miracle will accomplish nothing.
Mr.Magoo
Hullo. My name is Peter. We haven't met before. I used to frequent these
newsgroups in the days when some semblance of decent, respectful, and
sensible debate was evident. However when certain persons arrived, and I
encountered in essence a concerted campaign of harassment and stalking,
simply because I wouldn't accept their position or beliefs, I departed
for greener pastures. Occasionally on I whim I pop in for a quick look,
as I did recently and noticed this thread, and your posts in particular,
both of which I found interesting, so I now offer some comment below.
> On 17/12/2010 06:35, Barry wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:19:21 +0000, steve wilson
>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/12/2010 10:15, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obviously a good God would not allow evil.
>>>
>>> This is not a necessary logical consequence.
>>
>> How so?
>>
>
> It is not a necessary conclusion that God could not allow evil,
> because there is another possibility which atheists never think to
> consider. That is, that God could have a morally sufficient purpose
> for permitting evil, even if we are not privy to that purpose. And
> this possibility fits in perfectly with what scripture tells us about
> God. It also tells Christians that bad things do happen and that we
> are to endure, trusting in God's goodness and greater knowledge and
> purpose.
>
> And it is equally clear from scripture, that whatever God's purpose is
> in permitting evil, there is a time in the future to which it is all
> moving and will find resolution. Christians will then see and
> acknowledge the wisdom of God and praise Him.
This it simply rationalising to fit your theology. If God
permits/created evil then God is responsible for the consequences of
evil, hence the suffering it produces.
>
> Remember I do not have to provide an answer that satisfies you
> according to your darkened Godless understanding, but only one that is
> consistent with the Christian world-view. Any protestations from you
> about how this explanation cannot possibly be true because there is no
> God, will receive the contempt it deserves. The only course open to
> you is to dispute that my explanation is indeed consistent with what
> Christians believe about God based on scripture.
>
>
>>>> But, of course, you think evil must be good because God allows it, and
>>>> you have no ability to decipher good and bad.
>>>
>>> All this tells me is that your understanding of Christian belief is
>>> poor.
>>
>> Its possible my understanding of your personal beliefs is poor.
>>
> The Christian world-view is founded on the bible being God-breathed.
> And that means what it tells us is wholly reliable. If you know the
> basics of biblical Christianity, then you already know my beliefs to a
> substantial degree. Now I know nothing about you or the
> superstructure of your personal beliefs, but having noticed the
> tell-tale signs of atheism in your posts, if I understand your basic
> position, I have a pretty good idea of what you believe. So I would
> restate that you give the impression of having a poor understanding of
> Christianity.
Barry has a bias against Christianity. He doesn't extend the same
disfavour to other religions.
Where is the problem in having ones moral compass set according to doing
right by ones fellow man rather than God? We do not want others to do
wrong by us, so we know others do not want us to do wrong by them. The
concept of God is not a prerequisite for moral judgement.
Ah yes.. the Church says what's what, and if we don't understand then
it's our fault, but we must accept it, right?
>
>> You get to decide what God can and can't do.
>>
> No that is wrong. It is the Christian world-view, which is based
> solidly on scripture as God-breathed. Your whole concept of
> Christianity being invented by Christians is wrong.
There were christians before the bible existed.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
Why does it have to be 'the God of the bible'?
Theo Bekkers
"Mr.Magoo" <go_away@not_here.biz> wrote
> Hullo. My name is Peter. We haven't met before. I used to frequent these
> newsgroups in the days when some semblance of decent, respectful, and
> sensible debate was evident. However when certain persons arrived, and I
> encountered in essence a concerted campaign of harassment and stalking,
> simply because I wouldn't accept their position or beliefs, I departed for
> greener pastures. Occasionally on I whim I pop in for a quick look, as I
> did recently and noticed this thread, and your posts in particular, both
> of which I found interesting, so I now offer some comment below.
Hello Pete. Is that the Pete who was here previously?
With a pen name like Mr Magoo, why should anyone think you have a clear view
of things?
Theo
Mr.Magoo
> "Mr.Magoo"<go_away@not_here.biz> wrote
>
>> Hullo. My name is Peter. We haven't met before. I used to frequent these
>> newsgroups in the days when some semblance of decent, respectful, and
>> sensible debate was evident. However when certain persons arrived, and I
>> encountered in essence a concerted campaign of harassment and stalking,
>> simply because I wouldn't accept their position or beliefs, I departed for
>> greener pastures. Occasionally on I whim I pop in for a quick look, as I
>> did recently and noticed this thread, and your posts in particular, both
>> of which I found interesting, so I now offer some comment below.
> Hello Pete. Is that the Pete who was here previously?
I'll leave you to figure it out Theo. I would have thought that my
unchanged sig for many years "rgds Pete" would have been a serious clue.
> With a pen name like Mr Magoo, why should anyone think you have a clear view
> of things?
>
> Theo
>
Mr.Magoo
correcting last sentence.. The dilemma the Christian Church faces is,
maintaining that God created everything in existence necessitates
explaining why God created gays, and also it's prohibition of gay sex.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
news:shfPo.5335$MF5....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
> On 19/12/2010 4:30 AM, steve wilson wrote:
>> And it is equally clear from scripture, that whatever God's purpose is in
>> permitting evil, there is a time in the future to which it is all moving
>> and will find resolution. Christians will then see and acknowledge the
>> wisdom of God and praise Him.
>
> permits/created evil then God is responsible for the consequences of evil,
> hence the suffering it produces.
Of course that is the object of the exercise to punish sin and evil.
"I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create
darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
Isaiah 45:6-7 (KJV)
"10 For I have set my face against this city for evil, and not for good,
saith the LORD: it shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and
he shall burn it with fire." Jer 21:9-10 (KJV)
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts....... lo, I begin to bring evil on the city
which is called by my name, and should ye be utterly unpunished? Ye shall
not be unpunished: for I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of
the earth, saith the LORD of hosts." Jer 25:28-29 (KJV)
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Well, they are quotations from the "Prince of Peace" himself.......{;o;}
Jeff...
Mr.Magoo
They aren't actually. They are testimony as to what was said. There's no
way of knowing with certainty that Jesus ever said that.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> On 19/12/2010 5:30 PM, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>>>> 37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy
>>>>> of me;
>>>>> anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
>>>>> 38
>>>>> and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of
>>>>> me."
>>>>> Matt 10:34-38 (ANIV)
>>>> Sounds like the sin of pride.
>>>
>>> It's certainly at odds with the concept of Jesus as the "Prince of
>>> Peace"
>>
>> Well, they are quotations from the "Prince of Peace" himself.......{;o;}
>
> They aren't actually. They are testimony as to what was said. There's no
> way of knowing with certainty that Jesus ever said that.
LOL!
If you think that, Peter, it was rather pointless using the quotation you
did.....{;o;}
Jeff...
- .. -- Tim .-.
Or the recognition that oneself is 'At One' with the Universe? (Or at
least, meant to be).
Tim.
>
>> Tim.
Mr.Magoo
All I was saying is that there is inconsistency within the christian
faith and it's teaching.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> On 19/12/2010 6:25 PM, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>> "Mr.Magoo" <go_away@not_here.biz> wrote in message
>> news:LXhPo.5564$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
>>> On 19/12/2010 5:30 PM, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>>>>>> 37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy
>>>>>>> of me;
>>>>>>> anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of
>>>>>>> me; 38
>>>>>>> and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy
>>>>>>> of me."
>>>>>>> Matt 10:34-38 (ANIV)
>>>>>> Sounds like the sin of pride.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's certainly at odds with the concept of Jesus as the "Prince of
>>>>> Peace"
>>>>
>>>> Well, they are quotations from the "Prince of Peace"
>>>> himself.......{;o;}
>>>
>>> They aren't actually. They are testimony as to what was said. There's no
>>> way of knowing with certainty that Jesus ever said that.
>>
>> LOL!
>> If you think that, Peter, it was rather pointless using the quotation
>> you did.....{;o;}
>>
>> Jeff...
>
> All I was saying is that there is inconsistency within the christian faith
> and it's teaching.
Because like millions of others you fail to "Rightly divide the Word of
Truth" 2 Tim. 2:15
Jeff...
- .. -- Tim .-.
> On 18/12/2010 20:05, - .. -- Tim .-. wrote:
>> steve wilson wrote:
>> They would, by their own admission, have allowed them to share a
>> room, just not a bed.
>>
> On reading the article this does seems to be the case. They are
> actually more lax than I would be. My 'line in the sand' would be
> sharing a room, not separate beds within a room. I cannot see there
> is much of a 'line' drawn with two single beds in one room. It's
> almost not worth the bothering.
Well, as I pointed out below, on trips such as Spring Harvest and Israel
pilgrimages that I have been on, the organising churches actually *required*
single people to pair up with a same-sex friend to share rooms. The reason
is partly economic, and partly due to the limited numbers of single rooms in
most establishments. So, where you would draw the line becomes very
problematic for same-sex friends who are not in a sexual relationship.
Despite your claims, it is not usually easy to tell the sexual orientation
of someone at a glance. Many gay people have hidden their orientation for
many years, even from their closest friends and family.
>> They were actually willing to compromise, since they would have
>> offered a twin-bed room. So IMO they were fair, they adopted the
>> sort of willingness to compromise that I approve of. However, IMO
>> the same-sex couple did not WANT a compromise, because they wanted
>> to make an issue of it. Most same-sex couples would probably have
>> simply booked a twin-bed room in the first place, and been discrete
>> about their sexuality, and nothing would have been said. Most
>> hotels would accept two people of the same sex sharing a twin-room,
>> without asking questions about their sexuality, and I think it
>> likely that the same thing would have happened here.
> I would agree, I get the impression the homosexual couple wanted to
> make an issue out of it. Stonewall are out to crush all opposition to
> homosexual legitimacy.
Probably they will do more damage than good for their cause, with this sort
of confrontational thing. Of course I only have the news articles quoted to
go on, but I get the impression the owners of this hotel were not
particularly 'homophobic', and were willing to compromise with a twin-room,
but not at the same date as there wasn't one available.
>
>>
>> Oddly, it would be harder for an unmarried couple of different sexes
>> to take a room in some places without lying, than for a couple of
>> the same sex. A different sex couple who were not married would
>> probably have to pretend to be, to get even a twin-bedded room in
>> the hotel being discussed here. A same sex couple would only need
>> to say nothing, and allow the assumption that they are 'Just
>> friends'.
> The two Christian hoteliers say they just ask if a couple are married
> and take it on trust.
>
> And though it is not 100% foolproof there is a discernible difference
> between two male friends and a male homosexual couple. It's in the
> body language and how they interact with each other. Or is that just
> me?
I think it's just you. If they are being discrete (and I don't like even
married couples slobbering all over each other in public), then I would say
the converse: It's almost 0% reliable. Some gay couples deliberately 'Camp
it up' to tease people, if they think they might be among people who
disapprove. But if they don't want people to know, then people probably
won't. I don't try to guess people's sexuality, because I know it is in
most cases almost impossible to do so, unless they want you to know.
> It's similar to when you see a heterosexual couple slobbering all
> over each other, you can almost be certain they are not married :)
L O L !!
>
>>
> It is clear the Christian hoteliers simply take people at their word.
> Yet in this case, somewhere along the line it became known that the
> two males were in a sinful homosexual relationship. Did the wife
> suspect and ask or was the wife told by the two homosexuals upon
> arrival? I haven't read anything about this aspect yet.
I get the impression they are claiming they forgot to ask their usual
question, that is, is the double-bed room for a married couple? It also
seems that they had not realised the booking was for two men. However, (and
as you probably realise, I distrust the Daily Mail), if the article is to be
believed, it does seem that there is suspicion of alleged deliberate
deception by the booking couple. It seems that a woman with the same
(unusual) surname had phoned earlier and asked about the hotel policy
regarding dogs. Since the couple booking wanted to bring a dog, the man
also asked about a dog when booking, and so it might look as though they
were in collusion and deliberately trying to give the impression to the
hotelier that a married couple were booking the room. (Let's be clear that
I am not accusing them of deliberate deception, that is for the court to
decide, and even then I am not sure whether it affects the legal position of
not offering them the room - though it might affect their compensation, so
it IS a matter for the court.)
>>
>> Well, actually it's about what people *think* God says, and whether
>> that should be imposed on people who either have a different view on
>> what God says, or who are not believers at all.
>>
> No it is quite wrong to say 'it's about what people *think* God says',
> as if there is so much abiguity on the issue that it's open to various
> interpretations. Scripture is very clear about God's intent for sexual
> relationships. The problem is people are sinners and don't want to
> listen to the one who made them, much less be obedient.
We have been over the issue of how 'clear' it is before. You and I disagree
over that point, which just shows that actually Christians DO disagree, for
several reasons. I would say that there are huge areas of sexual conduct
that are just not mentioned in the Bible, and it is my view that, in the
main, when passages in the Bible talk about 'having sex', the assumption is
that it applies to penetrative intercourse. Thus any masturbatory acts
(self or mutual) are simply not mentioned at all (apart from Onan spilling
his seed, which was interrupted coitus, rather than masturbation). The only
reference that might extend beyond actual intercourse is Romans 1, and that
seems to be worded as heterosexual people turning to homosexual acts, as an
illustration of people turning to idolatrous rites and mixing in things from
other religions.
>>
>> Civil laws should not be based on religious beliefs alone. Not even
>> mine.
> Christianity is not in the business of transplanting religious beliefs
> directly into civil law, but having said that, Christian principles
> have for a long time underpinned and informed our civil law. Even
> today, despite the erosion of Christian values, as a nation we still
> consider polygamy and androgyny to be wrong. And even though the
> government makes concessions I think they only officially recognise
> the first wife of a Muslim for the payment of child benefit.
> We still believe that taking justice into our own hands to get
> vengeance for a perceived crimes is wrong and we still recognise that
> the innate dignity of a human means we have no right to murder anyone
> or be murdered. The secular humanists may have hijacked the human
> dignity as their own, but in reality they have no grounds for
> attributing any such universal dignity other than the one provided by
> Christianity.
Other cultures not even from a Judeo-Christian origin have managed to evolve
some reasonable moral systems. IMO having laws based on religious beliefs
alone is a dodgy idea. If we do that, at some point in the future how could
we argue against Sharia Law going on the statute books?
>
>
>>>
>>> I have always been of the understanding that Christians are to be
>>> diligently obedient to the law of the land, as long as it does not
>>> clash with what God says. When they do clash, we are to side with
>>> God not man. And this is what is happening with the Christian
>>> hoteliers.
>>
>> Where I see a lowering of standards is over people
>> making much more of a fuss about sharing beds these days. Sharing a
>> bed to sleep in doesn't mean having sex. I pointed out elsewhere,
>> that on pilgrimage to Israel and when going to Spring Harvest, the
>> churches we were with actually paired up single people with friends
>> of the same sex, to enable twin-room sharing and save costs.
>>
>> Tim.
>>
> Agree with all you say, it is quite uncontroversial and I am puzzled
> why you feel the need to go into detail. However there is a world of
> difference between two brothers or same-sex friends (i.e in non-sexual
> relation to each other) and a homosexual couple, who's relationship is
> intrinsically based on sexual attraction.
But there is NOT 'A world of difference' outwardly, if they are willing and
want to be discrete. I went into detail to try and illustrate to you how
banning people of the same sex from sharing rooms would be terrible for many
non-sexually involved friends and people wanting to share rooms.
>
> If the homosexual couple in question had kept quiet, or lied, the
> Christian hoteliers would have accepted them at face value as friends
> and let them have a double-bedded room.
Possibly. They would have let them have a twin-room, of that I am
reasonably certain, and that even after knowing they were a 'same-sex
couple'. But the wording on their booking form (I've looked at their
website) is that the double-bedded rooms are only for maried couples. In
the UK, Civil Partnership is not called 'marriage'. But the hoteliers might
have more of a problem if foreign visitors came to them from a nation that
allows actual legal marriage between persons of the same sex. That is why,
if I were running a guest house, I wouldn't have double-bedded rooms, I'd
only have twin bedded rooms (including family rooms) and single rooms. That
way, any guests can be treated equally, and no accusations of discrimination
could be made.
> The operative fact is that
> somehow it became known that the two males were in a homosexual
> relationship, and that is when it gets problematic if you are faithful
> to what God says about the place of marriage.
Well, I think if one is running a business that is open to non-Christians,
it is problematic, but something one has to consider. To what extent can
Christian views be imposed on others who do not share our faith? I agree
that the couple actually live in the hotel themselves, and therefore it is
their home, but if it were me, I would consider the 'public' parts of the
business to be separate from my private dwelling parts, rather like the
division in a pub between the bar, and 'behind' the bar. If not happy with
that, I probably would not opt to run that sort of business.
Tim.
>
> Steve Wilson
- .. -- Tim .-.
It's just that traditional Christians (that is, Roman Catholic, East
Orthodox, as well as Anglo-Catholic) do not generally hold to the
essentially Protestant idea of the Bible being "Infallible and without
error", or of it being the sole authority. Had you said "God, as referred
to in the Bible" (which I know is what you meant) I would have made no
comment. But I object to the implied rejection of 'Reason' and 'Tradition'
as also being authoritive. Aren't you also an Anglican? You know
Christians have differing views over the Bible and its role.
Tim.
Mr.Magoo
> "Mr.Magoo" <go_away@not_here.biz> wrote in message
> news:5UiPo.5572$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
>> On 19/12/2010 6:25 PM, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>> "Mr.Magoo" <go_away@not_here.biz> wrote in message
>>> news:LXhPo.5564$gM3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
>>>> On 19/12/2010 5:30 PM, 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>>>>>>> 37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not
>>>>>>>> worthy of me;
>>>>>>>> anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy
>>>>>>>> of me; 38
>>>>>>>> and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not
>>>>>>>> worthy of me."
>>>>>>>> Matt 10:34-38 (ANIV)
>>>>>>> Sounds like the sin of pride.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's certainly at odds with the concept of Jesus as the "Prince
>>>>>> of Peace"
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, they are quotations from the "Prince of Peace"
>>>>> himself.......{;o;}
>>>>
>>>> They aren't actually. They are testimony as to what was said.
>>>> There's no way of knowing with certainty that Jesus ever said that.
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>> If you think that, Peter, it was rather pointless using the
>>> quotation you did.....{;o;}
>>>
>>
>> All I was saying is that there is inconsistency within the christian
>> faith and it's teaching.
>
> Because like millions of others you fail to "Rightly divide the Word
> of Truth" 2 Tim. 2:15
It's quite simply really.. those within the Church see things how they
want to, those without see things as they are.
>
> Jeff...
Mr.Magoo
I note that you make no attempt to repute this statement.
>>> the seriousness of sin, and (2) points out that it applies to us
>>> ALL.
>>>
>>> So, the ONLY appropriate response is: "Lord, have mercy on me, a
>>> sinner".
>> And that of course is the aim of all religion- the subservience of
>> oneself.
> Or the recognition that oneself is 'At One' with the Universe? (Or at
> least, meant to be).
Christianity is mind and life controlling.