Sorry about this

[hermeneutika]

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHYMFeGBU8s&t=107s

The above link is the Archbishop's speech in Ghana.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/02/2023 13:17, hermeneutika wrote:

> Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

What is it that you are sorry about?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[David Dalton]

In article <4c4a75a1-edf1-4e28...@googlegroups.com>,

Once again, incompatible sex is an abomination and
compatible sex is not.

Moreover I have reason to believe that when a lesbian (woman
sexually attracted just to women) marries a man she has
a black widow effect that shortens the lifespan of the man.

Likewise when a gay man (man sexually attracted just to men)
marries a woman he has a black widower effect that shortens
the lifespan of the woman. I can give an example of this
if you wish, but it relies on my matchmaking ability which
I had for periods in 2019 and 2021, which the moderator
might consider to be too woo woo a topic, so I won't post
the example unless someone asks me to.

--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"And now the angry morning; Gives the early signs of warning; You must face
alone the plans you make; Decisions they will try to break" (S. McLachlan)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 17/02/2023 06:18, David Dalton wrote:

> Once again, incompatible sex is an abomination and
> compatible sex is not.

That is your opinion.

> Moreover I have reason to believe that when a lesbian (woman
> sexually attracted just to women) marries a man she has
> a black widow effect that shortens the lifespan of the man.

I have not heard that before and gravely doubt your claim.

> Likewise when a gay man (man sexually attracted just to men)
> marries a woman he has a black widower effect that shortens
> the lifespan of the woman. I can give an example of this
> if you wish, but it relies on my matchmaking ability

If you can quote scientific evidence in support of your claim, you may,
of course, post it. If you are just claiming extraordinary powers for
yourself, it will not be permitted, whether or not others have
questioned you about it.

[David Dalton]

In article <tsna94$3ijfo$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Kendall K. Down" <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 17/02/2023 06:18, David Dalton wrote:
>
> > Once again, incompatible sex is an abomination and
> > compatible sex is not.
>
> That is your opinion.

Moreover, anyone whose words have caused a gay teen
to commit suicide is guilty of murder and is a
major criminal.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 18/02/2023 06:36, David Dalton wrote:

> Moreover, anyone whose words have caused a gay teen
> to commit suicide is guilty of murder and is a
> major criminal.

That is a remarkably silly statement. People commit suicide for all
sorts of reasons - or rather, something totally innocuous can set them
off. "He looked funny at me" is one I came across. Being rejected by a
love interest is more common - but what do you think? You should accept
every proposal, whether decent or indecent, in case you cause someone to
commit suicide? How if you do not fancy the other person? Are you
obliged to marry or enter into a relationship with someone you can't
stand lest they top themselves?

[David Dalton]

In article <tsrb2r$42d7$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Kendall K. Down" <kendal...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Obviously, in the context of this thread, I meant someone
who delivered anti-gay words in a sermon that caused
a gay teen to commit suicide.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/02/2023 00:03, David Dalton wrote:

> Obviously, in the context of this thread, I meant someone
> who delivered anti-gay words in a sermon that caused
> a gay teen to commit suicide.

I would partially agree with you.

There are two possible attitudes. One is that of the Westboro Baptists,
who go around screaming that "God hates fags" and similar falsehoods.
Mind you, if anyone was so foolish as to take them seriously and commit
suicide in consequence, he has only himself to blame. However I suppose
there maybe others, less strident but equally wrong, who might
reasonably be taken seriously.

The second attitude is to teach what the Bible teaches - that homosexual
sexual acts are forbidden by God and therefore sinful. Everyone faces
different temptations and some homosexuals point out that pride or
selfishness may be more reprehensible in God's eyes than a bit of
homosexual sex. Of course, what they fail to realise is that even if
their claim is true, that does not excuse nor justify their particular sin.

The whole area of sex and sexuality is incredibly difficult from the
pastoral point of view. If someone steals and repents, he can resolve
never to steal again, he can offer restitution of what he has stolen, he
can apologise to those from whom he has stolen. Fine.

If someone engages in illicit sex - heterosexual or homosexual - it is
usually because he (I'm using the male pronouns, but you may substitute
female) believes that he is in love. That means there is a huge
emotional investment in the sin which simply is not present in theft!
Furthermore the person with whom he has sinned is probably also
emotionally involved and would not take kindly to being suddenly
rejected. And, of course, how can you make "restitution"? To whom would
you make restitution? Would any "restitution" be accepted?

If you accept a thief back into society and he falls again, well, you
just go through the process again and hopefully restitution will draw a
line under the offence. If you accept an adulterer or a homosexual back
into the church and he falls again, that is another family damaged or
destroyed, who might justifiably resent being exposed to the offender.

So I can understand when sexual offenders - heterosexual, homosexual,
paedophile or whatever - are more or less excluded from church society.
If that leads to suicide that is deeply regrettable, but I suppose,
looked at callously, it is better that the offender kill himself than
that he inveigle another person into sin and then *that* person kills
him or herself.

The one thing that a Christian church cannot do is stand up and declare
that that which God has condemned is now all right. Yet, strangely, you
get fake Christians standing up and saying that homosexual love should
be celebrated, never saying that adultery is to be celebrated or
paedophilia to receive a service of blessing. Hypocrites!

[Mike Davis]

Up to here, Kendall, I think that is a sensible explanation of the
pastoral position, with which I would agree. However, one cornerstone of
the Christian position that could & should be restated is that God
created everyone and *loves* them - ie. God wants what is absolutely the
best for each person. That's why some actions (and attitudes) are sins,
because those things are either against God's laws (for mankind) or
because the person committing them will be damaged by those actions. >

> So I can understand when sexual offenders - heterosexual, homosexual,
> paedophile or whatever - are more or less excluded from church society.
> If that leads to suicide that is deeply regrettable, but I suppose,
> looked at callously, it is better that the offender kill himself than
> that he inveigle another person into sin and then *that* person kills
> him or herself.
>
> The one thing that a Christian church cannot do is stand up and declare
> that that which God has condemned is now all right. Yet, strangely, you
> get fake Christians standing up and saying that homosexual love should
> be celebrated, never saying that adultery is to be celebrated or
> paedophilia to receive a service of blessing. Hypocrites!

Indeed.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 19/02/2023 21:42, Mike Davis wrote:

> Up to here, Kendall, I think that is a sensible explanation of the
> pastoral position, with which I would agree. However, one cornerstone of
> the Christian position that could & should be restated is that God
> created everyone and *loves* them

Indeed - but He not only may not love what they do, He may actively
detest what they do. Which is why, if we would truly show God's love for
sinners, we must be clear that what they are doing is sin and must be
forsaken and repented for.

To let someone go unwarned to the Judgement is the very opposite of
Christian love.

[Mike Davis]

On 20/02/2023 19:39, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 19/02/2023 21:42, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Up to here, Kendall, I think that is a sensible explanation of the
>> pastoral position, with which I would agree. However, one cornerstone
>> of the Christian position that could & should be restated is that God
>> created everyone and *loves* them
>
> Indeed - but He not only may not love what they do, He may actively
> detest what they do. Which is why, if we would truly show God's love for
> sinners, we must be clear that what they are doing is sin and must be
> forsaken and repented for.

Certainly!

>
> To let someone go unwarned to the Judgement is the very opposite of
> Christian love.

As long as we do it lovingly!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 21/02/2023 16:38, Mike Davis wrote:

>> To let someone go unwarned to the Judgement is the very opposite of
>> Christian love.

> As long as we do it lovingly!

I completely agree. Westboro Baptist fills me with horror, even though
in broad (very broad) terms I agree with their message.

And not only lovingly, but also bearing in mind that I too may be
tempted and may even be a castaway. Different temptations, perhaps, but
temptations and sin nonetheless.

[hermeneutika]

Whaat? I believe that suicide is a intensely personal existential act, and is the sole responsibility of the person who does the deed and noone else.

[hermeneutika]

Well it is a contraversial point. Not everyone agrees that the Bible appears to teach us that God views homosexuality as a sin. eg some Churches have decided to "bless" what the Bible seems to "abominate"!!! And as always with such things it never ends

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/02/2023 18:36, hermeneutika wrote:

> Well it is a contraversial point. Not everyone agrees that the Bible appears to teach us that God views homosexuality as a sin. eg some Churches have decided to "bless" what the Bible seems to "abominate"!!! And as always with such things it never ends

It is only controversial because people prefer to follow wordly fashion
rather than Scripture.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/02/2023 18:30, hermeneutika wrote:

> Whaat? I believe that suicide is a intensely personal existential act, and is the sole responsibility of the person who does the deed and noone else.

You are, of course, right. Nevertheless people can sometimes be put into
such a position that they feel as if suicide is the only way out, so to
speak. They are wrong, but that is what they feel.

Take, for example, someone who has had difficulty finding a girl-friend
because of - say - a bodily disfigurement. He finds this girl and thinks
that all his problems are solved and then she dumps him, and not only
dumps him, but does do brutally.

He concludes - wrongly, in your opinion and mine - that there is nothing
left in life for him and tops himself. We might wonder, however, whether
the girl could have dropped him more tactfully, perhaps let things
slowly cool down or something. Had she done so, he might have come to
accept the situation and not committed suicide.

David Dalton's comment can be interpreted several ways. He may mean -
and I suspect he does - that anyone who upholds Biblical teaching on
homosexuality is responsible for a homosexual committing suicide. He
would want us to welcome homosexuals and their behaviour with open arms
lest they kill themselves. Naturally I reject that notion.

However he may mean that anyone who is "brutal" about expressing Bible
teaching and about rejecting homosexuals is responsible for subsequent
actions, and I have a certain sympathy for that point of view.
Homosexuals are sinners, but so are we all, and it behoves us to
approach them as fellow sinners rather than with a "holier than thou"
attitude.

As I've said before, I totally reject the Westboro Baptist strident "God
hates fags". God doesn't hate homosexuals; He hates what they do, He
longs to see them repent and be saved, but He doesn't hate them. He
loves them just as much as He loves you and me. We have the complex task
of communicating both those things to any homosexuals we meet: God loves
them but He rejects their behaviour.

I all we communicate is the rejection, then we are indeed responsible if
the person unfortunately commits suicide.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:

> If you accept a thief back into society and he falls again, well, you
> just go through the process again and hopefully restitution will draw a
> line under the offence. If you accept an adulterer or a homosexual back
> into the church and he falls again, that is another family damaged or
> destroyed, who might justifiably resent being exposed to the offender.

How on earth is another family damaged or destroyed by a Christian
homosexual repenting of sexual sin and then falling? Why is the
homosexual (or lesbian) singled out? Are they cut off from God, but the
thief, liar etc etc is forgiven and allowed to continue life in the
church. You allow a repentant adulterer9ess) back into the church, even
if they fall again, so why sghould the repentant homosexual who sins
again be treated any differently?

> So I can understand when sexual offenders - heterosexual, homosexual,
> paedophile or whatever - are more or less excluded from church society.
> If that leads to suicide that is deeply regrettable, but I suppose,
> looked at callously, it is better that the offender kill himself than
> that he inveigle another person into sin and then *that* person kills
> him or herself.

Sexual sinners are no worse or better than anyone else who sins. They
should be treated the same when repentant. Suggesting it is better for
a homosexual sinner to kill themself rather than lead another person
into sin who then kills themself I find quite repugnant, and, quite
frankly, a homosexual struggling with temptation but resisting, could
quite easily be persuaded by your comments and do that rather than
possibly succumbing to temptation.

True story...One ex-member of this parish, many years ago, made some
fairly derogatory comments regarding something I had been struggling
with (and resisting) It hurt me quite badly (probably my fault) but it
caused me to think I'm not a good Christian, I might as well do this,
skipped church that night, and did it. I repented but the fact is this
person unbalanced my mind, albeit temporarily. If your comments
unbalanced a homosexual struggling, and thought, oh its better to kill
myself, unfortunately it will be too late for them to think it a mistake
afterwards.

> The one thing that a Christian church cannot do is stand up and declare
> that that which God has condemned is now all right. Yet, strangely, you
> get fake Christians standing up and saying that homosexual love should
> be celebrated, never saying that adultery is to be celebrated or
> paedophilia to receive a service of blessing. Hypocrites!

Yet you are happy enough to say that a person can remarry, which makes
them an adulterer(ess) and allow them to continue in the church, but
would frown upon having an homosexual in your church.

What's your view on an unmarried couple participating in your church,
would they receive the same treatment as a homosexual sinner?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/02/2023 17:53, John wrote:

> How on earth is another family damaged or destroyed by a Christian
> homosexual repenting of sexual sin and then falling?

It depends on who he involves in his sin. If he goes out cottaging, then
probably no one. If he seduces someone in the church, then the answer is
obvious.

> Why is the
> homosexual (or lesbian) singled out? Are they cut off from God, but the
> thief, liar etc etc is forgiven and allowed to continue life in the
> church. You allow a repentant adulterer9ess) back into the church, even
> if they fall again, so why sghould the repentant homosexual who sins
> again be treated any differently?

If you read my post, you would see that I was making exactly this point.

> Sexual sinners are no worse or better than anyone else who sins.  They
> should be treated the same when repentant.  Suggesting it is better for
> a homosexual sinner to kill themself rather than lead another person
> into sin who then kills themself I find quite repugnant, and, quite
> frankly, a homosexual struggling with temptation but resisting, could
> quite easily be persuaded by your comments and do that rather than
> possibly succumbing to temptation.

Why is it repugnant for a homosexual to commit suicide but not for the
person he seduced to commit suicide? You seem to think that homosexuals
should be allowed to do whatever they want and to hell with any
consequences.

However I don't think that anybody should commit suicide and, as you
point out above and I pointed out in my original post, homosexual
sinners should be treated the same as any other sinners.

On the other hand, if someone proves dishoneset in financial matters, we
should love him and forgive him but we should not put him in as church
treasurer - or if, for some reason, we have no other choice, he should
be watched like a hawk! Audited every five minutes!!

In exactly the same way anyone who proves himself weak in moral matters
should be loved and forgiven - but then never placed in situations that
could constitute temptation, and watched like a hawk if such situations
arise.

> Yet you are happy enough to say that a person can remarry, which makes
> them an adulterer(ess) and allow them to continue in the church, but
> would frown upon having an homosexual in your church.

As I have frequently pointed out, the difference is that God allowed
divorce and remarriage. (I can supply references if your Bible knowledge
is so limited.) God never relaxed the prohibition on homosexual relations.

> What's your view on an unmarried couple participating in your church,
> would they receive the same treatment as a homosexual sinner?

Yes. That is, they would be welcome to attend, but could not become
baptised members until their relationship was regularised.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 24/02/2023 17:53, John wrote:
>
>> How on earth is another family damaged or destroyed by a Christian
>> homosexual repenting of sexual sin and then falling?
>
> It depends on who he involves in his sin. If he goes out cottaging, then
> probably no one. If he seduces someone in the church, then the answer is
> obvious.

If he seduces someone in the church, then the other person will also be
homosexual. One sin is no worse than the other. Unless the other person
is denying their sexuality and has a family, I fail to see your point here.

>> Why is the homosexual (or lesbian) singled out? Are they cut off from
>> God, but the thief, liar etc etc is forgiven and allowed to continue
>> life in the church. You allow a repentant adulterer9ess) back into the
>> church, even if they fall again, so why sghould the repentant
>> homosexual who sins again be treated any differently?
>
> If you read my post, you would see that I was making exactly this point.
>
>> Sexual sinners are no worse or better than anyone else who sins.  They
>> should be treated the same when repentant.  Suggesting it is better
>> for a homosexual sinner to kill themself rather than lead another
>> person into sin who then kills themself I find quite repugnant, and,
>> quite frankly, a homosexual struggling with temptation but resisting,
>> could quite easily be persuaded by your comments and do that rather
>> than possibly succumbing to temptation.
>
> Why is it repugnant for a homosexual to commit suicide but not for the
> person he seduced to commit suicide? You seem to think that homosexuals
> should be allowed to do whatever they want and to hell with any
> consequences.

Where have I said that? It just annoys me that one sin seems to be dealt
with by the church more harshly than others. You are the worst culprit
(not this time I grant you) for raising the subject of homosexuality.
Sin in other areas is more prevalent than homosexual sin, yet this is
the one hot topic that has conservative Christians foaming at the mouth,
despite homosexuals making up a very small percentage of people.

> However I don't think that anybody should commit suicide and, as you
> point out above and I pointed out in my original post, homosexual
> sinners should be treated the same as any other sinners.

Thanks for clarifying that.

>> Yet you are happy enough to say that a person can remarry, which makes
>> them an adulterer(ess) and allow them to continue in the church, but
>> would frown upon having an homosexual in your church.
>
> As I have frequently pointed out, the difference is that God allowed
> divorce and remarriage. (I can supply references if your Bible knowledge
> is so limited.) God never relaxed the prohibition on homosexual relations.

I know the references Ken, the latest of which says God doesn't permit
divorce, except where adultery has taken place in the marriage.

>> What's your view on an unmarried couple participating in your church,
>> would they receive the same treatment as a homosexual sinner?
>
> Yes. That is, they would be welcome to attend, but could not become
> baptised members until their relationship was regularised.

I should have specified that I meant those living together, but I think
you realised that. Strange that you allow unrepentant sinners in your
church.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/02/2023 20:28, John wrote:

> If he seduces someone in the church, then the other person will also be
> homosexual.

Which is about as sensible as claiming that if a priest seduces a young
girl, that proves that the girl is really a prostitute.

>>> Sexual sinners are no worse or better than anyone else who sins.
>>> They should be treated the same when repentant.  Suggesting it is
>>> better for a homosexual sinner to kill themself rather than lead
>>> another person into sin who then kills themself I find quite
>>> repugnant, and, quite frankly, a homosexual struggling with
>>> temptation but resisting, could quite easily be persuaded by your
>>> comments and do that rather than possibly succumbing to temptation.

>> Why is it repugnant for a homosexual to commit suicide but not for the
>> person he seduced to commit suicide? You seem to think that
>> homosexuals should be allowed to do whatever they want and to hell
>> with any consequences.

> Where have I said that?

Try re-reading your post. I have kept it above for your convenience.

> It just annoys me that one sin seems to be dealt
> with by the church more harshly than others. You are the worst culprit
> (not this time I grant you) for raising the subject of homosexuality.
> Sin in other areas is more prevalent than homosexual sin, yet this is
> the one hot topic that has conservative Christians foaming at the mouth,
> despite homosexuals making up a very small percentage of people.

The answer is very simple. No one is going around urging Christians to
accept that theft or adultery or murder is good and healthy. We are all
united in agreeing that those things are wrong, so there is no need for
conservative Christians to start foaming at the mouth over them.

The same applies to pride, selfishness or covetousness. No one is
defending them and claiming that selfish people should be celebrated
with parades and flags and special treatment.

So all conservatives are demanding is what you seem to be wanting:
homosexuals should be treated just like any other sinners. Their actions
should be condemned and if they refuse to repent and make efforts to
change, they have no place in the church. In fact, if they refuse to
repent and refuse to even try to change, they should not be welcome even
to attend services.

> I know the references Ken, the latest of which says God doesn't permit
> divorce, except where adultery has taken place in the marriage.

What you are conveniently overlooking is the fact that divorce has legal
sanction; Jesus' words are not legislation. They are on the same basis
as His urging us to not even hate someone nor to look lustfully at a
woman. They are the ideal towards which we should strive, but they are
not and cannot be the basis for legislation.

As Jesus said, Moses - or rather, God through Moses - recognised that
men can have hardened hearts. He does not leave people in the situation
where murder is the only way out of an unwanted marriage.

> I should have specified that I meant those living together, but I think
> you realised that. Strange that you allow unrepentant sinners in your
> church.

Everyone is on a journey and it would be unreasonable to kick people out
of church when they are at the start of their journey. A few years down
the line things might be very different.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 24/02/2023 20:28, John wrote:
>
>> If he seduces someone in the church, then the other person will also
>> be homosexual.
>
> Which is about as sensible as claiming that if a priest seduces a young
> girl, that proves that the girl is really a prostitute.

Eh? You do know that if heterosexual male would have no sexual
attraction to a homosexual don't you? It's a bit difficult to seduce
someone who doesn't fancy you, unless it's by force, in which case it
isn't seduction.

>>>> Sexual sinners are no worse or better than anyone else who sins.
>>>> They should be treated the same when repentant.  Suggesting it is
>>>> better for a homosexual sinner to kill themself rather than lead
>>>> another person into sin who then kills themself I find quite
>>>> repugnant, and, quite frankly, a homosexual struggling with
>>>> temptation but resisting, could quite easily be persuaded by your
>>>> comments and do that rather than possibly succumbing to temptation.
>
>>> Why is it repugnant for a homosexual to commit suicide but not for
>>> the person he seduced to commit suicide? You seem to think that
>>> homosexuals should be allowed to do whatever they want and to hell
>>> with any consequences.
>
>> Where have I said that?
>
> Try re-reading your post. I have kept it above for your convenience.

I said it is repugnant to suggest one is better than the other. I never
said it was repugnant for someone to commit suicide. Whether it be the
person who committed suicide to avoid falling into sin, or the person
who had fallen into sin because the other had succumbed to their desire,
my thoughts would be the same, immense sadness for either.

>> It just annoys me that one sin seems to be dealt with by the church
>> more harshly than others. You are the worst culprit (not this time I
>> grant you) for raising the subject of homosexuality. Sin in other
>> areas is more prevalent than homosexual sin, yet this is the one hot
>> topic that has conservative Christians foaming at the mouth, despite
>> homosexuals making up a very small percentage of people.
>
> The answer is very simple. No one is going around urging Christians to
> accept that theft or adultery or murder is good and healthy. We are all
> united in agreeing that those things are wrong, so there is no need for
> conservative Christians to start foaming at the mouth over them.

If only that were true. I've yet to see you start a thread deploring
Christians living in sin for example.

> The same applies to pride, selfishness or covetousness. No one is
> defending them and claiming that selfish people should be celebrated
> with parades and flags and special treatment.
>
> So all conservatives are demanding is what you seem to be wanting:
> homosexuals should be treated just like any other sinners. Their actions
> should be condemned and if they refuse to repent and make efforts to
> change, they have no place in the church. In fact, if they refuse to
> repent and refuse to even try to change, they should not be welcome even
> to attend services.

That's strange, the other day you said co-habiting Christians would be
welcome to attend services, but not be baptised.

>> I know the references Ken, the latest of which says God doesn't permit
>> divorce, except where adultery has taken place in the marriage.
>
> What you are conveniently overlooking is the fact that divorce has legal
> sanction; Jesus' words are not legislation. They are on the same basis
> as His urging us to not even hate someone nor to look lustfully at a
> woman. They are the ideal towards which we should strive, but they are
> not and cannot be the basis for legislation.

So legal sanction trumps God's Word? I'm sure married homosexuals will
be rejoicing at those words Ken. If God says divorce is allowed in
BC1500 or whenever, but then says in AD30 or whenever, sorry chaps I now
rule that divorce is prohibited, doesn't the second trump the first.
And what about Paul, he also says no divorce. Does Paul's word not count
either?

> As Jesus said, Moses - or rather, God through Moses - recognised that
> men can have hardened hearts. He does not leave people in the situation
> where murder is the only way out of an unwanted marriage.

Once Jesus said divorce wasn't allowed, does that not trump Moses
instructions?

>
>> I should have specified that I meant those living together, but I
>> think you realised that. Strange that you allow unrepentant sinners in
>> your church.
>
> Everyone is on a journey and it would be unreasonable to kick people out
> of church when they are at the start of their journey. A few years down
> the line things might be very different.

Would you provide the same leniency to a homosexual couple living
together? I suspect not.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/02/2023 01:17, John wrote:

> Eh? You do know that if heterosexual male would have no sexual
> attraction to a homosexual don't you? It's a bit difficult to seduce
> someone who doesn't fancy you, unless it's by force, in which case it
> isn't seduction.

You clearly have not been keeping up to date with the stories of
Catholic priests seducing choir boys (very few of whom have turned out
to be homosexuals themselves).

> I said it is repugnant to suggest one is better than the other.

Even that is a dubious claim. Take an all-too-common situation:
supposing that we had the death penalty, which would be better, for a
rapist and murder to be killed or for a random woman off the street to
be raped and killed?

Unfortunately there are far too many idiots in the judiciary and on
parole boards, who believe that the second is the preferable option.
Personally I believe unshakeably that it is the guilty who should
suffer, not the innocent.

Therefore if anyone is to commit suicide - and I agree with you in
deploring all suicides - it is preferable for the offender to do so than
for his actions to lead to an innocent person being driven to suicide.

>> The answer is very simple. No one is going around urging Christians to
>> accept that theft or adultery or murder is good and healthy. We are
>> all united in agreeing that those things are wrong, so there is no
>> need for conservative Christians to start foaming at the mouth over them.

> If only that were true.  I've yet to see you start a thread deploring
> Christians living in sin for example.

You start up a thread advocating it or deploring the way the church
discriminates against such people and you'll find me replying in very
short order. In the absence of such a thread, I see no point in
condemning what we all agree to be wrong. Preaching to the converted is
a fruitless occupation.

> That's strange, the other day you said co-habiting Christians would be
> welcome to attend services, but not be baptised.

If they were not baptised, they would not be Christians, would they?

> So legal sanction trumps God's Word?

When it is God giving the legal sanction.

> I'm sure married homosexuals will
> be rejoicing at those words Ken. If God says divorce is allowed in
> BC1500 or whenever, but then says in AD30 or whenever, sorry chaps I now
> rule that divorce is prohibited, doesn't the second trump the first. And
> what about Paul, he also says no divorce. Does Paul's word not count
> either?

If Jesus - or Paul - had been lawmakers, legislating for the country, I
might agree that the previous legislation was invalid. Both Jesus and
Paul were stating the ideal - which I wholly support - while recognising
that real life and real people can be incredibly messy.

I do not believe that two Christians should ever get divorced. If they
do, that is prima facie evidence that one or both have denied the faith.
Like Paul, I do not believe that a brother or a sister who is married to
a non-Christian (or an ex-Christian) should be "in bondage" if the
non-Christian wants out of the marriage.

> Once Jesus said divorce wasn't allowed, does that not trump Moses
> instructions?

Only for His followers. As a marriage requires two, if one of the two is
determined to disobey Christ and seek a divorce, the Christian partner
is not obligated to insist on remaining married nor, once the divorce
has gone through, to insist on remaining single.

> Would you provide the same leniency to a homosexual couple living
> together?  I suspect not.

Would I welcome them to attend my church? Of course I would. Would I
refrain from denouncing what they do as sin? Of course I would not.
Would I expect them to change their behaviour as they grew in Christ? Of
course I would. Would I ask them to leave if they continually insisted
that what they were doing was good and right? Of course I would.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 26/02/2023 01:17, John wrote:
>
>> Eh? You do know that if heterosexual male would have no sexual
>> attraction to a homosexual don't you? It's a bit difficult to seduce
>> someone who doesn't fancy you, unless it's by force, in which case it
>> isn't seduction.
>
> You clearly have not been keeping up to date with the stories of
> Catholic priests seducing choir boys (very few of whom have turned out
> to be homosexuals themselves).

Your definition of seduction is different to mine. In my book that's
sexual abuse and if penetration has taken place then it's rape.

>> I said it is repugnant to suggest one is better than the other.
>
> Even that is a dubious claim. Take an all-too-common situation:
> supposing that we had the death penalty, which would be better, for a
> rapist and murder to be killed or for a random woman off the street to
> be raped and killed?

I'm actually staggered by that comment. The original scenario is by
mutual consent where both succumbed to sin. Not right of course but both
can be forgiven. The woman raped and murdered by the rapist has
absolutely no choice, so to compare the two as similar scenario's is
quite unbelievable.

> Unfortunately there are far too many idiots in the judiciary and on
> parole boards, who believe that the second is the preferable option.
> Personally I believe unshakeably that it is the guilty who should
> suffer, not the innocent.

The person seduced in the first scenario is not a victim.

> Therefore if anyone is to commit suicide - and I agree with you in
> deploring all suicides - it is preferable for the offender to do so than
> for his actions to lead to an innocent person being driven to suicide.

Nor are they innocent.

>>> The answer is very simple. No one is going around urging Christians
>>> to accept that theft or adultery or murder is good and healthy. We
>>> are all united in agreeing that those things are wrong, so there is
>>> no need for conservative Christians to start foaming at the mouth
>>> over them.
>
>> If only that were true.  I've yet to see you start a thread deploring
>> Christians living in sin for example.
>
> You start up a thread advocating it or deploring the way the church
> discriminates against such people and you'll find me replying in very
> short order. In the absence of such a thread, I see no point in
> condemning what we all agree to be wrong. Preaching to the converted is
> a fruitless occupation.
>
>> That's strange, the other day you said co-habiting Christians would be
>> welcome to attend services, but not be baptised.
>
> If they were not baptised, they would not be Christians, would they?

Sorry Jeff, oops I mean Ken. Strange, I thought you became a Christian
when you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. Baptism is simply an
outward act confirming that.

>> So legal sanction trumps God's Word?
>
> When it is God giving the legal sanction.

Did God not do this in Matthew 19v8?

>> I'm sure married homosexuals will be rejoicing at those words Ken. If
>> God says divorce is allowed in BC1500 or whenever, but then says in
>> AD30 or whenever, sorry chaps I now rule that divorce is prohibited,
>> doesn't the second trump the first. And what about Paul, he also says
>> no divorce. Does Paul's word not count either?
>
> If Jesus - or Paul - had been lawmakers, legislating for the country, I
> might agree that the previous legislation was invalid. Both Jesus and
> Paul were stating the ideal - which I wholly support - while recognising
> that real life and real people can be incredibly messy.

Well I'm sorry, but that isn't in the text of either Matthew or Mark.
Verse 9 of Mark is particular pertinent I would say.

> I do not believe that two Christians should ever get divorced. If they
> do, that is prima facie evidence that one or both have denied the faith.
> Like Paul, I do not believe that a brother or a sister who is married to
> a non-Christian (or an ex-Christian) should be "in bondage" if the
> non-Christian wants out of the marriage.

Paul doesn't say they should get divorced, merely that they should separate.

>> Once Jesus said divorce wasn't allowed, does that not trump Moses
>> instructions?
>
> Only for His followers. As a marriage requires two, if one of the two is
> determined to disobey Christ and seek a divorce, the Christian partner
> is not obligated to insist on remaining married nor, once the divorce
> has gone through, to insist on remaining single.

Disobey Christ? I thought you said it was just an ideal, and if the
marriage broke down irretrievably it was ok to divorce and later marry a
moire suitable wife/husband if one came along?

>> Would you provide the same leniency to a homosexual couple living
>> together?  I suspect not.
>
> Would I welcome them to attend my church? Of course I would. Would I
> refrain from denouncing what they do as sin? Of course I would not.
> Would I expect them to change their behaviour as they grew in Christ? Of
> course I would. Would I ask them to leave if they continually insisted
> that what they were doing was good and right? Of course I would.

Well that's moved from allowing them in the church providing they
weren't baptised.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/02/2023 11:23, John wrote:

> Your definition of seduction is different to mine. In my book that's
> sexual abuse and if penetration has taken place then it's rape.

I can't help it if you have an idiosyncratic definition of seduction.

>> Even that is a dubious claim. Take an all-too-common situation:
>> supposing that we had the death penalty, which would be better, for a
>> rapist and murder to be killed or for a random woman off the street to
>> be raped and killed?

> I'm actually staggered by that comment.  The original scenario is by
> mutual consent where both succumbed to sin. Not right of course but both
> can be forgiven.  The woman raped and murdered by the rapist has
> absolutely no choice, so to compare the two as similar scenario's is
> quite unbelievable.

I notice that with all your faux outrage, you carefully avoid answering
the question. And, by introducing "mutual consent" you are further
muddying the waters. The priests (or other clergy, I'm not attacking the
Catholics here) who seduce choir boys might well think that there was
mutual consent. It was only afterwards that the choir boy realised and
resented.

> Nor are they innocent.

So a choirboy seduced by a priest is, ipso facto, a ravening homosexual
and definitely not innocent. He was asking for it!!!

Talk about victim blaming!

>> If they were not baptised, they would not be Christians, would they?

> Sorry Jeff, oops I mean Ken.  Strange, I thought you became a Christian
> when you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. Baptism is simply an
> outward act confirming that.

Pedantically, you are correct. In practical terms, if someone has
accepted Christ into their lives, they will be eager to live according
to His will and there will be no question of them cohabiting and
continuing in that state. However people may well start coming to church
and only gradually grow into the stage where they have fully accepted
Christ into their lives.

>> When it is God giving the legal sanction.

> Did God not do this in Matthew 19v8?

All right. Answer this: when Jesus said "But I say unto you, do not
hate", was He nullifying and replacing the law against murder? Or was He
supplementing it with the counsel of perfection to which Christians
should aspire?

> Well I'm sorry, but that isn't in the text of either Matthew or Mark.
> Verse 9 of Mark is particular pertinent I would say.

It doesn't need to be. It was already in the law of God in Deuteronomy.

> Paul doesn't say they should get divorced, merely that they should
> separate.

And you can quote authorities to prove that the distinction between
separation and divorce was known in the Roman world?

> Disobey Christ? I thought you said it was just an ideal, and if the
> marriage broke down irretrievably it was ok to divorce and later marry a
> moire suitable wife/husband if one came along?

One partner to the marriage may be eager to obey Christ and remain
married, but if the other partner is determined to divorce - and in
these days of "no fault" divorces, that is quite possible - what to you
suggest the Christian partner do?

Come on, tell us what your pastoral counsel would be? Just to help you,
it's usually a woman who is abandoned by her husband. What would you
tell her?

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 26/02/2023 11:23, John wrote:
>
>> Your definition of seduction is different to mine. In my book that's
>> sexual abuse and if penetration has taken place then it's rape.
>
> I can't help it if you have an idiosyncratic definition of seduction.

Obviously the 8th commandment isn't in your bible, given how often you
break it. You have seriously misrepresented me here and going forward.

>>> Even that is a dubious claim. Take an all-too-common situation:
>>> supposing that we had the death penalty, which would be better, for a
>>> rapist and murder to be killed or for a random woman off the street
>>> to be raped and killed?
>
>> I'm actually staggered by that comment.  The original scenario is by
>> mutual consent where both succumbed to sin. Not right of course but
>> both can be forgiven.  The woman raped and murdered by the rapist has
>> absolutely no choice, so to compare the two as similar scenario's is
>> quite unbelievable.
>
> I notice that with all your faux outrage, you carefully avoid answering
> the question. And, by introducing "mutual consent" you are further
> muddying the waters. The priests (or other clergy, I'm not attacking the
> Catholics here)

Oh but you did, because you singled out Catholic Priests.

> who seduce choir boys might well think that there was
> mutual consent. It was only afterwards that the choir boy realised and
> resented.

A Priest who molests an underage boy (or girl) does it in full knowledge
that it's against the law, as well as being immoral. If you get the
chance I would suggest watching Broken, about a young Catholic boy
interfered with by the Priest, and who later became a Priest himself,
haunted by flashbacks of the abuse he suffered. and although this drama
is based on a Catholic Priest, sexual abuse to children by adult
Christians is by no means exclusive to Catholicism.

>> Nor are they innocent.
>
> So a choirboy seduced by a priest is, ipso facto, a ravening homosexual
> and definitely not innocent. He was asking for it!!!

Again you have misrepresented my comments, and twisted it to make it
look like we are referring to the choirboys. Of course the choirboy is
innocent

You introduced the choirboys, not me. You know full well I am referring
to an adult Christian persuading another adult Christian into sin, and
although we were referring to homosexuals, the same goes for
heterosexuals as well. Snipping out my comments to make it look like
I've referring to something else is dishonest, but it's a regular trait
with you.



> Talk about victim blaming!

Are you deliberately being contemptuous* or is it something you can't help?

* There is a more apt word, but not appropriate to use on a Christian
newsgroup.

>
>>> If they were not baptised, they would not be Christians, would they?
>
>> Sorry Jeff, oops I mean Ken.  Strange, I thought you became a
>> Christian when you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. Baptism is
>> simply an outward act confirming that.
>
> Pedantically, you are correct. In practical terms, if someone has
> accepted Christ into their lives, they will be eager to live according
> to His will and there will be no question of them cohabiting and
> continuing in that state. However people may well start coming to church
> and only gradually grow into the stage where they have fully accepted
> Christ into their lives.

Whilst I agree that someone becoming a Christian will invariably lead to
a changed life, and yes, in theory that would involve looking at the
cohabitation issue, it's not that simple. I became a Christian in 1985,
I was engaged at the time, and saw nothing wrong with having sex with my
fiancee, and no idea it was a sin. Yes, there was that bit in the bible
that said avoid sexual immorality, but I didn't consider what we were
doing was part of that. It was only when I read the passage in a
different version and it said avoid fornication, that I realised, and we
stopped doing it.

My point is, that although cohabitation (and fornication) is wrong for
Christians, it doesn't bring the same outrage that sexual activity
between homosexuals does) Society has changed over the last 50-60
years, and thankfully for homosexuals Society has become a lot more
tolerant. For Christian homosexuals, that does cause some dilemma, but
if they are sinning it is no worse, or better, than heterosexuals
sinning. You wouldn't think so though the way you and other
conservative Christians rail on about it.

>>> When it is God giving the legal sanction.
>
>> Did God not do this in Matthew 19v8?
>
> All right. Answer this: when Jesus said "But I say unto you, do not
> hate", was He nullifying and replacing the law against murder? Or was He
> supplementing it with the counsel of perfection to which Christians
> should aspire?
>
>> Well I'm sorry, but that isn't in the text of either Matthew or Mark.
>> Verse 9 of Mark is particular pertinent I would say.
>
> It doesn't need to be. It was already in the law of God in Deuteronomy.

So are you saying that Jesus is unable to change the law? I hear what
you're saying by the way in regards to hate, so I'm not dismissing what
you say, but it makes for some interesting thoughts, after all, isn't
Jesus the one who made the Deuteronomy law in the first place?

>> Paul doesn't say they should get divorced, merely that they should
>> separate.
>
> And you can quote authorities to prove that the distinction between
> separation and divorce was known in the Roman world?

Fair enough, I don't know but I presume there wasn't a distinction

>> Disobey Christ? I thought you said it was just an ideal, and if the
>> marriage broke down irretrievably it was ok to divorce and later marry
>> a moire suitable wife/husband if one came along?
>
> One partner to the marriage may be eager to obey Christ and remain
> married, but if the other partner is determined to divorce - and in
> these days of "no fault" divorces, that is quite possible - what to you
> suggest the Christian partner do?
>
> Come on, tell us what your pastoral counsel would be? Just to help you,
> it's usually a woman who is abandoned by her husband. What would you
> tell her?

It would depend on the individual circumstances. I would of course urge
her to remain with her husband as long as there was no abuse in the
marriage, but ultimately hat would be her decision.

If one of them isn't a Christian then Paul's instructions come into
play, but I don't believe that the Christian should instigate divorce
proceedings.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/02/2023 12:05, John wrote:

> Oh but you did, because you singled out Catholic Priests.

I mentioned them simply because they seem to hit the news more often
than other clergy and there was hope that you might have heard of them.

> A Priest who molests an underage boy (or girl) does it in full knowledge
> that it's against the law, as well as being immoral. If you get the
> chance I would suggest watching Broken, about a young Catholic boy
> interfered with by the Priest, and who later became a Priest himself,
> haunted by flashbacks of the abuse he suffered. and although this drama
> is based on a Catholic Priest, sexual abuse to children by adult
> Christians is by no means exclusive to Catholicism.

Indeed not.

> Again you have misrepresented my comments, and twisted it to make it
> look like we are referring to the choirboys. Of course the choirboy is
> innocent

Good. So your blanket "they are not innocent" was, in fact, a
misrepresentation all of your own.

> You introduced the choirboys, not me. You know full well I am referring
> to an adult Christian persuading another adult Christian into sin, and
> although we were referring to homosexuals, the same goes for
> heterosexuals as well. Snipping out my comments to make it look like
> I've referring to something else is dishonest, but it's a regular trait
> with you.

But according to what you said, the person persuaded simply had to be a
homosexual - crypto, perhaps, but homosexual. Yet even if he was, being
persuaded into a sin he had previously resisted might drive him to
suicide, for which the persuader would be responsible. Strangely, you
seem to feel that this second suicide is far better than the persuader
committing suicide.

Note: I don't want anyone committing suicide.

>> Talk about victim blaming!

> Are you deliberately being contemptuous* or is it something you can't help?

I am certainly contemptuous of people who make foolish blanket
statements they hastily retract or qualify. Claiming that anyone seduced
into a homosexual act is therefore, ipso facto, homosexual, comes under
that heading.

> Whilst I agree that someone becoming a Christian will invariably lead to
> a changed life, and yes, in theory that would involve looking at the
> cohabitation issue, it's not that simple. I became a Christian in 1985,
> I was engaged at the time, and saw nothing wrong with having sex with my
> fiancee, and no idea it was a sin.  Yes, there was that bit in the bible
> that said avoid sexual immorality, but I didn't consider what we were
> doing was part of that. It was only when I read the passage in a
> different version and it said avoid fornication, that I realised, and we
> stopped doing it.

I congratulate you for your strength and honourableness. I do hope you
married the lady as soon thereafter as you could.

> My point is, that although cohabitation (and fornication) is wrong for
> Christians, it doesn't bring the same outrage that sexual activity
> between homosexuals does)  Society has changed over the last 50-60
> years, and thankfully for homosexuals Society has become a lot more
> tolerant.  For Christian homosexuals, that does cause some dilemma, but
> if they are sinning it is no worse, or better, than heterosexuals
> sinning.  You wouldn't think so though the way you and other
> conservative Christians rail on about it.

I have already explained why that is so. Everyone agrees that
fornication is wrong (though as your own experience shows, it can take
time for the realisation to sink in). There is no one here urging the
contrary.

You are, yourself, an example. You say "thankfully for homosexuals" but
you don't express similar delight in the fact that society is less
disapproving of fornication than it was in the Victorian era.

> So are you saying that Jesus is unable to change the law? I hear what
> you're saying by the way in regards to hate, so I'm not dismissing what
> you say, but it makes for some interesting thoughts, after all, isn't
> Jesus the one who made the Deuteronomy law in the first place?

Exactly. And Jesus was also the One Who made the "Thou shalt not kill"
command. He did not abolish either when He gave the counsel of
perfection for Christians. He strengthened both.

> Fair enough, I don't know but I presume there wasn't a distinction

I don't claim to be an expert in Roman jurisprudence, but what I have
read leads me to believe that you were either married or you were
divorced. There was no half-way house corresponding to our legal separation.

> It would depend on the individual circumstances. I would of course urge
> her to remain with her husband as long as there was no abuse in the
> marriage, but ultimately hat would be her decision.

What marriage? He has gone off with another woman; he has insituted
divorce proceedings; how is she to "remain with her husband"? Pick the
locks on his new house? Break a window? In what way is it "her decision"?

> If one of them isn't a Christian then Paul's instructions come into
> play, but I don't believe that the Christian should instigate divorce
> proceedings.

Even if there has been abuse?

And I would say that the husband who leaves his wife has thereby ceased
to be a Christian, even if he still goes to church.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/02/2023 12:05, John wrote:

Me:

>> Again you have misrepresented my comments, and twisted it to make it
>> look like we are referring to the choirboys. Of course the choirboy is
>> innocent
>
> Good. So your blanket "they are not innocent" was, in fact, a
> misrepresentation all of your own.

Here's the context. I have emphasised the bit you attempted to misrepresent

Me: The person seduced *in the first scenario* is not a victim.


Ken: Therefore if anyone is to commit suicide - and I agree with you in

deploring all suicides - it is preferable for the offender to do so than
for his actions to lead to an innocent person being driven to suicide.

Me: Nor are they innocent.

>> You introduced the choirboys, not me. You know full well I am
>> referring to an adult Christian persuading another adult Christian
>> into sin, and although we were referring to homosexuals, the same goes
>> for heterosexuals as well. Snipping out my comments to make it look
>> like I've referring to something else is dishonest, but it's a regular
>> trait with you.
>
> But according to what you said, the person persuaded simply had to be a
> homosexual - crypto, perhaps, but homosexual. Yet even if he was, being
> persuaded into a sin he had previously resisted might drive him to
> suicide, for which the persuader would be responsible. Strangely, you
> seem to feel that this second suicide is far better than the persuader
> committing suicide.

Stop lying Ken. I said that that both were equal, both had sinned. I
also said that it was extremely sad in both cases if they felt suicide
was the only option.

> Note: I don't want anyone committing suicide.

I understood that

>> Are you deliberately being contemptuous* or is it something you can't
>> help?
>
> I am certainly contemptuous of people who make foolish blanket
> statements they hastily retract or qualify. Claiming that anyone seduced
> into a homosexual act is therefore, ipso facto, homosexual, comes under
> that heading.

Seduction is *not* forcing your desires on to someone else. You give the
impression that if a homosexual man fluttered his eyelashes at a
heterosexual man in the church they would be tempted to drop their pants
and willingly join in. In case it has escaped your notice Ken, people
are usually homosexual because there is no attraction to the opposite sex.

>> Whilst I agree that someone becoming a Christian will invariably lead
>> to a changed life, and yes, in theory that would involve looking at
>> the cohabitation issue, it's not that simple. I became a Christian in
>> 1985, I was engaged at the time, and saw nothing wrong with having sex
>> with my fiancee, and no idea it was a sin.  Yes, there was that bit in
>> the bible that said avoid sexual immorality, but I didn't consider
>> what we were doing was part of that. It was only when I read the
>> passage in a different version and it said avoid fornication, that I
>> realised, and we stopped doing it.
>
> I congratulate you for your strength and honourableness. I do hope you
> married the lady as soon thereafter as you could.

I did, but brought the wedding forward a year :)

>> My point is, that although cohabitation (and fornication) is wrong for
>> Christians, it doesn't bring the same outrage that sexual activity
>> between homosexuals does)  Society has changed over the last 50-60
>> years, and thankfully for homosexuals Society has become a lot more
>> tolerant.  For Christian homosexuals, that does cause some dilemma,
>> but if they are sinning it is no worse, or better, than heterosexuals
>> sinning.  You wouldn't think so though the way you and other
>> conservative Christians rail on about it.
>
> I have already explained why that is so. Everyone agrees that
> fornication is wrong (though as your own experience shows, it can take
> time for the realisation to sink in). There is no one here urging the
> contrary.
>
> You are, yourself, an example. You say "thankfully for homosexuals" but
> you don't express similar delight in the fact that society is less
> disapproving of fornication than it was in the Victorian era.

I meant homosexuality in general, but I've no particular aversion to
someone "living in sin". I was drawing a parallel to the hypocrisy that
some Christians throw up their hands in horror at the mention of
homosexuality even outside the church but turn a blind eye to
co-habitation inside the church.

>> So are you saying that Jesus is unable to change the law? I hear what
>> you're saying by the way in regards to hate, so I'm not dismissing
>> what you say, but it makes for some interesting thoughts, after all,
>> isn't Jesus the one who made the Deuteronomy law in the first place?
>
> Exactly. And Jesus was also the One Who made the "Thou shalt not kill"
> command. He did not abolish either when He gave the counsel of
> perfection for Christians. He strengthened both.

Yes, he said at one time it was allowable to give your wife a letter of
divorce but now it's a no no. You excuse that and say, ah but it's only
an ideal.

>> It would depend on the individual circumstances. I would of course
>> urge her to remain with her husband as long as there was no abuse in
>> the marriage, but ultimately hat would be her decision.
>
> What marriage? He has gone off with another woman; he has insituted
> divorce proceedings; how is she to "remain with her husband"? Pick the
> locks on his new house? Break a window? In what way is it "her decision"?

I see you've moved the goalposts from "One partner to the marriage may

be eager to obey Christ and remain married, but if the other partner is
determined to divorce - and in these days of "no fault" divorces, that

is quite possible - what to you suggest the Christian partner do?" to
him having left his wife and shacked up with another woman. In which
case it isn't non fault and the bloke has committed adultery, ergo
divorce permitted.

>> If one of them isn't a Christian then Paul's instructions come into
>> play, but I don't believe that the Christian should instigate divorce
>> proceedings.
>
> Even if there has been abuse?

Which bit of "as long as there was no abuse in the marriage" did you not
quite understand?

> And I would say that the husband who leaves his wife has thereby ceased
> to be a Christian, even if he still goes to church.

In that case I strongly disagree. No sin is unforgivable except one, and
I don't think adultery or divorce is it.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/03/2023 10:42, John wrote:

> Stop lying Ken. I said that that both were equal, both had sinned. I
> also said that it was extremely sad in both cases if they felt suicide
> was the only option.

But they are not equal. One is seducing, the other is seduced.

> Seduction is *not* forcing your desires on to someone else. You give the
> impression that if a homosexual man fluttered his eyelashes at a
> heterosexual man in the church they would be tempted to drop their pants
> and willingly join in.  In case it has escaped your notice Ken, people
> are usually homosexual because there is no attraction to the opposite sex.

Which is precisely why your comment that anyone seduced must therefore
by homosexual.

> I did, but brought the wedding forward a year :)

And, I trust, have lived happily ever after. Good for you.

> I meant homosexuality in general, but I've no particular aversion to
> someone "living in sin". I was drawing a parallel to the hypocrisy that
> some Christians throw up their hands in horror at the mention of
> homosexuality even outside the church but turn a blind eye to
> co-habitation inside the church.

Perhaps you need to look for a better church.

> Yes, he said at one time it was allowable to give your wife a letter of
> divorce but now it's a no no. You excuse that and say, ah but it's only
> an ideal.

It is an ideal, just as refraining from hating your brother is an ideal.

> I see you've moved the goalposts from "One partner to the marriage may
> be eager to obey Christ and remain married, but if the other partner is
> determined to divorce - and in these days of "no fault" divorces, that
> is quite possible - what to you suggest the Christian partner do?" to
> him having left his wife and shacked up with another woman. In which
> case it isn't non fault and the bloke has committed adultery, ergo
> divorce permitted.

Unfortunately I don't think divorce courts any longer accept adultery as
a factor. If the man wants a divorce and the Christian wife doesn't, the
divorce goes ahead anyway. Which is why your comments about the
Christian not getting divorced are so foolish.

> In that case I strongly disagree. No sin is unforgivable except one, and
> I don't think adultery or divorce is it.

Very true - but it would require confession and repentance in order for
there to be forgiveness. Which is why this whole question is so tricky,
because I trust that not even you would insist that the new marriage be
broken up and the erring partner return to his previous partner. And, of
course, loud confessions of "I made a mistake, I am truly sorry" will
not go down well with the new partner!

Much better to accept that God's law is wise and sensible: no divorce is
the ideal at which we should all aim, but if there is a divorce, move on
with life.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 01/03/2023 10:42, John wrote:
>
>> Stop lying Ken. I said that that both were equal, both had sinned. I
>> also said that it was extremely sad in both cases if they felt suicide
>> was the only option.
>
> But they are not equal. One is seducing, the other is seduced.

For someone to be seduced, they have to be a willing participant. Both
the seducer and the one who has been seduced have sinned.

>> Seduction is *not* forcing your desires on to someone else. You give
>> the impression that if a homosexual man fluttered his eyelashes at a
>> heterosexual man in the church they would be tempted to drop their
>> pants and willingly join in.  In case it has escaped your notice Ken,
>> people are usually homosexual because there is no attraction to the
>> opposite sex.
>
> Which is precisely why your comment that anyone seduced must therefore
> by homosexual.

I didn't say anyone, I said another homosexual if the seducer is a
homosexual. That's the bit you took exception to and introduced the
choirboys.

>> I did, but brought the wedding forward a year :)
>
> And, I trust, have lived happily ever after. Good for you.

Indeed. It's not been easy at times, but 37 years this year.

Ken said someone is no longer a Christian if they instigate divorce
after playing away.

>> In that case I strongly disagree. No sin is unforgivable except one,
>> and I don't think adultery or divorce is it.
>
> Very true - but it would require confession and repentance in order for
> there to be forgiveness. Which is why this whole question is so tricky,
> because I trust that not even you would insist that the new marriage be
> broken up and the erring partner return to his previous partner. And, of
> course, loud confessions of "I made a mistake, I am truly sorry" will
> not go down well with the new partner!

It will be several months in the future before divorce is finalised so
there is time for reconciliation if both parties are up for it. If
remarriage has already taken place then no, I wouldn't stick my oar in.

And if this was a real life situation I would only offer counsel if I
was asked or knew the partners well.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/03/2023 23:00, John wrote:

> For someone to be seduced, they have to be a willing participant. Both
> the seducer and the one who has been seduced have sinned.

I agree that seduction is different from rape with violence, but there
are degrees of willingness. Some are, no doubt, enthusiastic
participants; others go along with what the seducer wants out of fear,
hope for reward, false expectations (of marriage, in the case of women),
or a whole variety of other reasons. And, of course, there those who do
not understand what is going on until it is too late.

I remember reading a book by a well-known author, who described how as a
young boy he had been interested in Egyptian things and frequently
visited the big city museum near his home. He fell into conversation
with an older man who also expressed interest in mummies and eventually
invited him home and suggested that they "play mummies". The author
tells how he didn't suspect anything until he was wrapped hand and foot
and unable to move and comments "And then I knew."

As he gives no further details, one is left to imagine what happened
next, but the point is that you would no doubt argue that the boy was "a
willing particpant" and I would agree that it was seduction, but there
is no possible way in which you could argue that the boy sinned nor that
he was homosexual.

> Indeed. It's not been easy at times, but 37 years this year.

Hearty congratulations. No marriage is always easy; it takes
determination for two different people learn to live together and put up
with each other's annoying ways, and "I'm sorry" is as important as "I
love you". (52 years this year.)

> It will be several months in the future before divorce is finalised so
> there is time for reconciliation if both parties are up for it. If
> remarriage has already taken place then no, I wouldn't stick my oar in.

I am by no means decrying reconciliation, but the point is that it takes
two to tango and two to marry. No matter how willing one may be for a
reconciliation or how opposed to divorce, if the other is determined on
it there is nothing one can do. Which is why God allows divorce (for the
hardness of your hearts) rather than the rather cruel Catholic
insistence that marriage cannot be dissolved and the rejected partner is
prohibited from finding love and happiness again.

> And if this was a real life situation I would only offer counsel if I
> was asked or knew the partners well.

A luxury not always available to the clergy.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 01/03/2023 23:00, John wrote:
>
>> For someone to be seduced, they have to be a willing participant. Both
>> the seducer and the one who has been seduced have sinned.
>
> I agree that seduction is different from rape with violence, but there
> are degrees of willingness. Some are, no doubt, enthusiastic
> participants; others go along with what the seducer wants out of fear,
> hope for reward, false expectations (of marriage, in the case of women),
> or a whole variety of other reasons. And, of course, there those who do
> not understand what is going on until it is too late.

Perhaps I should have used consent as a better word, but I agree there
are degrees of willingness.

> I remember reading a book by a well-known author, who described how as a
> young boy he had been interested in Egyptian things and frequently
> visited the big city museum near his home. He fell into conversation
> with an older man who also expressed interest in mummies and eventually
> invited him home and suggested that they "play mummies". The author
> tells how he didn't suspect anything until he was wrapped hand and foot
> and unable to move and comments "And then I knew."
>
> As he gives no further details, one is left to imagine what happened
> next, but the point is that you would no doubt argue that the boy was "a
> willing particpant" and I would agree that it was seduction, but there
> is no possible way in which you could argue that the boy sinned nor that
> he was homosexual.

Whilst He might have been a willing participant in being wrapped up,
thinling it was a game, I very much doubt he was in what presumably
follows. That isn't seduction in my book.

>> Indeed. It's not been easy at times, but 37 years this year.
>
> Hearty congratulations. No marriage is always easy; it takes
> determination for two different people learn to live together and put up
> with each other's annoying ways, and "I'm sorry" is as important as "I
> love you". (52 years this year.)

Excellent news, congratulations, and I agree it's always better to say
sorry and we're both good at conceding when the need arises.

I think the first year was the hardest,and there were a lot of arguments
as we got used to each others ways. Her dad said to me one day, who
himself was married for 50 years before he died. "Son, it's important
to remember to say 3 litle words to them. What's that I asked eagerly,
expecting something like I love you. Just say to them yes my dear!!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 03/03/2023 16:03, John wrote:

> Whilst He might have been a willing participant in being wrapped up,
> thinling it was a game, I very much doubt he was in what presumably
> follows.  That isn't seduction in my book.

I am sure once he realised what had happened (or possibly even, what was
happening) I am sure you are right, but nevertheless, he had been
willing right up until it was too late - classic seduction.

> I think the first year was the hardest,and there were a lot of arguments
> as we got used to each others ways.  Her dad said to me one day, who
> himself was married for 50 years before he died.  "Son, it's important
> to remember to say 3 litle words to them. What's that I asked eagerly,
> expecting something like I love you. Just say to them yes my dear!!

He he! A very wise man, your father.

[Steve Hague]

We've been married for 48 years. I put it down to me doing as I'm told.
Steve Hague

[Mike Davis]

On 04/03/2023 08:37, Steve Hague wrote:
> On 03/03/2023 20:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> On 03/03/2023 16:03, John wrote:
>>
>>> Whilst He might have been a willing participant in being wrapped up,
>>> thinling it was a game, I very much doubt he was in what presumably
>>> follows.  That isn't seduction in my book.
>>
>> I am sure once he realised what had happened (or possibly even, what
>> was happening) I am sure you are right, but nevertheless, he had been
>> willing right up until it was too late - classic seduction.
>>
>>> I think the first year was the hardest,and there were a lot of
>>> arguments as we got used to each others ways.  Her dad said to me one
>>> day, who himself was married for 50 years before he died.  "Son, it's
>>> important to remember to say 3 litle words to them. What's that I
>>> asked eagerly, expecting something like I love you. Just say to them
>>> yes my dear!!
>>
>> He he! A very wise man, your father.
>>

> We've been married for 48 years. I put it down to me doing as I'm told.

Well, Jenny & I celebrated our Diamond Anniversary last Saturday (the
actual date was the 23rd), and we put it down to the key message - "Love
is a decision" - if you base your reactions on one's own feelings, it's
all ups and downs. So when you make the decision to love (as we vowed at
our wedding), then your feelings just tell you about yourself. And then
you need to remember the decision to love.

That came from a Christian course called 'Marriage Encounter' which we
went on just before we were about to foster a somewhat disruptive young
man (12yo actually) - we already had 2 adopted children. We did start to
be part of the team that ran the courses, but said fostering soon meant
that we couldn't be away for weekends after that.

So last Saturday our Parish Priest celebrated a double Diamond
Anniversary service - including Mass - for another couple (and good
friends of ours for 40 years) and ourselves. Apart from our families, a
large number of parishioners were there. We then had a small family
gathering at home of (most of) our children including the latest
great-granddaughter now aged 16 months! (Fortunately our eldest son is
a caterer and provided the food for all!)

The saddest thing is that Jenny's dementia is now so severe that I don't
think she recognised any of them, except some Wedding photos I dug out!

Of course, "Love is a decision" isn't just for marriage, but is - of
course - a fundamental tenet for any Christian, it's what God decided
when we were created, and what we are invited to respond to.

Blessings

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/03/2023 08:37, Steve Hague wrote:

> We've been married for 48 years. I put it down to me doing as I'm told.

I can't say that I do as I am told. Neither can I claim that Shirley
does as she is told. Rather we reach decisions together with lots of
discussion.

Of course, there may be situations - like the pressure cooker getting
too hot - when I have to run and do as I'm told, but there are other
situations where the converse applies. On the whole, however, we respect
each other and make decisions jointly.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/03/2023 15:24, Mike Davis wrote:

> Well, Jenny & I celebrated our Diamond Anniversary last Saturday

Heartiest congratulations.

> we put it down to the key message - "Love is a decision"

I do so agree. Shirley and I have had our moments, but divorce or
separation was never a possibility because we had decided to remain
together. That meant that we *had* to work things out between us.

> The saddest thing is that Jenny's dementia is now so severe that I don't
> think she recognised any of them, except some Wedding photos I dug out!

I am so sorry to hear it, Mike, especially as Shirley is going down the
same path. May God give you comfort and strength as you care for her.

I don't know whether you have considered it, but many hospices offer
"respite care", where you can take your loved one in for a short break.
Some will even allow you to stay with her at first until she is used to
the people and the place. I suspect they have in mind that the time will
come when she will enter the hospice permanently, but whether or not
that is a possibility for you, you should not feel guilty if
occasionally you take a break to recharge your batteries.

I must admit that I would not consider it and perhaps you see yourself
as strong too - I hope so - but everyone is different and, as they say,
everyone has their breaking point. Better to seek help before the
breaking point arrives.

[Mike Davis]

Thanks, Kendall. Yes, as a 'carer' I'm learning about a wide range of
contacts and possibilities, but currently am coping. But I can see the
point coming in the near future where I'll need 'outside help'.

You & Shirley are likewise in my prayers.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/03/2023 21:34, Mike Davis wrote:

> Thanks, Kendall. Yes, as a 'carer' I'm learning about a wide range of
> contacts and possibilities, but currently am coping. But I can see the
> point coming in the near future where I'll need 'outside help'.

I presume you have applied for disability living allowance? It can help
to pay for extra help within the home.

> You & Shirley are likewise in my prayers.

They are appreciated.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 21:34, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Kendall. Yes, as a 'carer' I'm learning about a wide range of
>> contacts and possibilities, but currently am coping. But I can see the
>> point coming in the near future where I'll need 'outside help'.
>
> I presume you have applied for disability living allowance? It can help
> to pay for extra help within the home.

You may mean attendance allowance? DLA is a legacy benefit which was
replaced by Personal Independence Payment (PIP), but you can't make a
new claim if over pension age.

[Mike Davis]

On 06/03/2023 05:08, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 21:34, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Kendall. Yes, as a 'carer' I'm learning about a wide range of
>> contacts and possibilities, but currently am coping. But I can see the
>> point coming in the near future where I'll need 'outside help'.
>
> I presume you have applied for disability living allowance? It can help
> to pay for extra help within the home.

Yes, got that - not that I've had to pay for any added help so far! But
I thought that it would lead to a reduction in Council tax, but haven't
cracked that yet!

[Mike Davis]

Yes, I replied assuming he meant that.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/03/2023 09:14, John wrote:

> You may mean attendance allowance?  DLA is a legacy benefit which was
> replaced by Personal Independence Payment (PIP), but you can't make a
> new claim if over pension age.

I may well mean that. Thanks for the correction.