Tom Daley
Ethics & Morality

Tom Daley, gay diving and the 'Christian Voice' judgment of God

 

Tom Daley had already won a bronze medal for his synchronised 10m platform routine with Daniel Goodfellow. He then took first place in the Men’s 10m platform preliminaries, and hopes were high for Gold. But things went a bit wrong during the semi-final, and Tom Daley fell from first place to last, failing even to qualify for the chance to dive again, let alone win a medal. Bad hair day. One day you’re up; next day you’re down. Skubalon happens.

‘Christian Voice’ responded with this tweet:

Christian Voice

You’d think a group calling itself ‘Christian Voice’ would ensure that their every utterance were, well.. Christian. This tweet was not only lacking in grace an compassion (the guy had just failed in front of the whole world, for Pete’s sake ; he was devastated, tearful and deeply upset), it was a sneery, spiteful tweet; callous, cruel and un-Christian. What manner of Christian voice trumpets crass theology to a man when he’s down? If “turning gay” caused Tom Daley to make a ‘gay dive‘, how come the openly bisexual Nicola Adams won not one but two Gold medals in boxing? How come Kate Richardson-Walsh and her wife Helen (yes, you’ve got it) won Gold in women’s hockey? Could Christian Voice please explain why “turning gay” works for some but not others? Why does God shower some LGBT athletes with Gold, but leaves poor Tom a-cold and all alone on Pillicock Hill?

Which does God hate most: homosexuality or Islam? Perhaps Christian Voice might expound why Mo Farah (that’s Mo as in Mohammed [yes, you’ve got it]) wins the ‘double-double’ 10,000m and 5,000m twice; and Muslims like Sara Ahmed and Ibtihaj Muhammad make history for their nations. Does turning Muslim bring more divine blessing than turning gay? Mo Farah normally prays before a race, and falls down on the track to thank Allah for giving him victory. Why would God honour such blatant idolatry with a double-double gold medal? And what about fornicating and adulterous athletes? They slog away day-in, day-out for four long years, just like Tom Daley, and then they triumph in moments of glory; their sexual sin of no apparent consequence at all.

The theological worldview of Christian Voice appears to be one in which idolaters, adulterers and fornicators are given a pass by God to win gold; and homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals are given the same pass, except if they’re named Tom, who seems to merit particular opprobrium. Perhaps Christian Voice might explain why. Is it because of his celebrity? Is it because he’s something of a role model or ambassador for young gay people? Wouldn’t these be rather asinine reasons for singling out one young, gay diver for particular judgment, while leaving the gay boxers, swimmers, equestrians and discus-throwers to glory in their gold or wallow in their loss? How is that just or fair? Surely if you’re going to proclaim God’s message of sexual morality, you need to ensure that there is no prejudice in your preaching; no soteriological favouritism or ethical preference for male or female; Jew or Greek; diver or gymnast. Why hasn’t Christian Voice been, well.. more Christian and egalitarian in its judgments?

The truth is..

Christian Voice is just plain wrong. Their grasp of cause-and-effect sin-and-judgment is so crass as to be not only unkind and uncompassionate, but egregiously un-biblical and so un-Christian. The most cursory reading of the Psalms, Ecclesiastes and the Book of Job would point them the right way, but Christian Voice has set itself up as pope of doctrinal exposition and the authoritative magisterium on all questions of morality: Stephen Green is apparently preserved from error (though divorce is apparently permitted).

The reason Tom Daley failed to qualify is nothing to do with his sexuality: it is because he had a bad day. He didn’t do anything to deserve that day: it just happened, like skubalon sometimes does. Christian Voice may apportion his fall to personal wickedness or sin, as though the universal moral order functions like clockwork, meting out rewards to the righteous and punishment to the corrupt, perverted and immoral. But God doesn’t work like that: righteous people are afflicted by suffering (Ps 13:1). Moreover:

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
(Jn 9:1-3).

Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
I tell you, Nay..
(Lk 13:4f).

Jesus separates calamity and suffering from moral wrongdoing: there is no automatic imputation of guilt. Death, disaster, suffering and failure do not damn the victim with the stain of particular sin: none is pure (including Stephen Green), and none is more worthy than another of suffering. To be innocent and righteous, as Job undoubtedly was (Job 9:15, 20; 10:1-7), is not to be exempt from calamity. And to be corrupt, perverted and guilty is no guarantee of retribution:

There is a vanity which is done upon the earth; that there be just men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again, there be wicked men, to whom it happeneth according to the work of the righteous (Eccl 8:14).

Christian Voice would do well to reflect on this, for God’s punishments and rewards are rarely, if ever, in proportion to man’s sin or righteousness. Tom Daley’s experience moves him beyond crass theologies and limiting apprehensions of wisdom: perhaps “turning gay” is preferable to being one of Job’s dogmatic, unfeeling comforters.

  • Paul
  • TIME to CTRL ALT & DEL

    As a conservative christian can I say what a stupid tweet. This does the cause of biblical sexuality no good. Ashamed.

    • YeshuaReigns

      Don’t feel ashamed because of those who lack sound judgement.

  • chefofsinners

    Looks like Christian Voice is in for some heavy judgment then.
    …or possibly a gold medal.

  • magnolia

    Even the last worker in the vineyard gets the full (unearned) infinite measure of God’s love as his or her ultimate reward. Perhaps Christian Voice hasn’t fully absorbed this reality.

    I find this Christian Voice comment very unfortunate, and unkind. Having said that it might not have happened had the whole gay issue not been disproportionately even provocatively inflated in the media with Tom Daley at times as a poster boy. Lead not Christian Voice into temptation as too often they fall into the Pooh Trap for Heffalumps!

    Gay husband/ wife: maybe this silliness will pass, Deo Volente.

    Personally not keen on poster individuals for anything controversial, including Christianity. Leaves them far too vulnerable

  • Politically__Incorrect

    I agree YG. This is not the right way to convey Gods message on homosexuality or anything else for that matter. Gods methods and readoning are not always amenable to man. That too is stated in the Scriptures. We shouldn’t try to bring Him down to our level of thinking. The Scriptures speak for themselves on all matters of sin. It is the Christians duty to both kive by those teachings and to encourage others to do so without consideting himself or herself to be better than other sinners.

  • sarky

    So glad to see a common sense rebuke.

  • len

    We are all sinners.We all need Christ. These are facts whether we accept them or not.Jesus came into the world to save sinners(us, all of us) not to condemn us…But ….God has already defined’ sin’ (although man has tried to redefine ‘sin’ as only being natural part of ‘human nature’) so the state of us being in ‘sin’ is also a fact whether we accept this fact or not.

    In the past its not the fact that we are sinners but openly flaunting this fact in the face of God is something God has responded to in the past.
    Being proud of our sin and encouraging others to sin is a different matter entirely ..

  • The Explorer

    When the 2004 tsunami struck, an imam said it was Allah’s judgement on sex tourism. That is consistent with Islam, which tends to see health, wealth etc in an individual life (or their absence) as evidence of divine approval or disapproval.

    Christianity agrees that there will be divine judgement, but not necessarily in this life. In this life, the rain falls alike on the just and the unjust.

  • preacher

    IMO, the scriptures deal & expose ALL of us as rebels & sinners, ” All have sinned, there is none righteous, not one “. The problem is how we deal with our sins, whether we struggle to overcome them or revel publicly in them & encourage others to follow & replicate them. We can never be good enough to earn salvation, which is why the Lord came & died to give us the opportunity to be saved should we wish to accept His sacrificial love & respond.
    We must not be judgemental, God is the only judge & He will do so on the day He has appointed.
    Having said that. we must still be prepared to warn of His judgement & the reasons for being rejected, namely continuing to sin whilst knowing the outcome.
    Perhaps the Church has become to soft in not taking a more Biblical stance on the results of sin & not condemning but rather turning a blind eye on issues like so called ‘ same sex marriage ‘ & the resulting over reaction of media, entertainment, ‘ Gay pride ‘ marches have not helped & casualties like Tom Daley are bound to continue to rise & hurt. while the Church struggles in a swamp of equality based liberalism.
    Personal sexuality is for the individual to choose & it’s private not part of a Circus. The same as all the other areas of life that God warns us of, ( A look at the Ten Commandments would do us all good & prove quite sobering ! ). We are all in the same boat & if we won’t bail & help each other we will all sink & drown together.

    • Dreadnaught

      Personal sexuality is for the individual to choose

      This is just plain ignorant.
      A person doesn’t ”choose” to be homosexual any more than one chooses to be straight.

      • len

        Disagree with that …We all make choices ..

        • Dreadnaught

          Like you chose your height, skin colour and sexuality – your choice?

          • Anton

            Height is easy to define. Please define “sexuality”.

          • “Sexuality” – that which causes the blood to flow. It’s hard to avoid.

          • Anton

            I am hoping that, in answering my request, Dredders will see what Len is getting at.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Sniggers!!

          • len

            Suppose I decide I want to give my neighbour’ a slap ‘because he is constantly annoying me, this urge becomes irresistible.
            Do I obey this urge or resist it?.

            (No threat or risk to human life is implied in this theoretical scenario)

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            You resist it because it’s bad. Is heterosexual attraction per se a bad thing that needs to be resisted? My answer is “No”. Is homosexual attraction per se a bad thing that needs to be resisted? My answer is likewise “No”.

          • Martin

            GM

            Any sexual attraction outside the marriage of one man to one woman is bad. You’re answer is wrong.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Does that mean that, before they get married, there is no sexual attraction between them? Or does it mean that there is, but it is sinful and only stops being sinful when they get married? Either way, what a very odd idea – although, coming from you, not too surprising. You are free, as always, to believe that my answer is wrong. I think that it is right.

          • Martin

            GM

            Temptation isn’t sin but to yield to it is.

            You may find that odd, but that is because your thought processes are degenerate.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, thank you very much for telling me.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Do it…you will feel better:)

      • carl jacobs

        Behavior is always a choice. Desire does not determine behavior. Neither does it legitimize behavior.

        But you already know this.

        • Dreadnaught

          So sexuality is a choice? or is your problem what you do with it? – Rubbish.

          • carl jacobs

            You are trying to justify acting upon a particular sexual desire by asserting that the desire is “natural”. But you can’t bootstrap an assertion of nature from an observation of desire. People have evil desires. They are morally responsible to suppress them and refuse to act upon them.

            But again. You already know this. That’s why you don’t credit the same argument made by a paedophile – because you don’t care that his desire is “natural”. You only care that he suppresses it.

            You aren’t making an argument from nature. You are making a disguised argument from Autonomy.

          • Dreadnaught

            You talking CRAP. Homosexuality is well documented in nature.
            Pedophilia exploits the vulnerable and the age of consent has varied throughout the ages until the argument was made to declare it illegal in this Country at least.
            Religions are obsessed with sex and sexualirty and what people do in privacy. Butt Out.
            But then you already know this.

          • carl jacobs

            If man is purely a material creature – as you assert – then the desire must originate in his nature. He is after all just a sophisticated chemical reaction and the desire emerges from the chemistry.

            But here you have already demonstrated my point.

            Pedophilia exploits the vulnerable

            Precisely. There is your prior moral judgment. It’s not about nature. It’s about behavior. You are telling me that I should not make a moral judgment about homosexuality because people don’t choose the desire. But you can make this argument only because you have already made a prior judgment about the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior between adults. Because you think the behavior that results from the desire is not problematic, you are willing to use the desire to justify the behavior. It’s a transparent shell game.

            Religions are obsessed with sex and sexualirty and what people do in privacy. Butt out.

            And there is your real argument – just where I said it would be. It is an argument from personal Autonomy that is founded on the idea that sex is a private matter outside the scope of public regulation. It’s what people naturally desire of course – sex without commitment or responsibility. But if you indulge that attitude, you will blow your civilization to pieces within three generations.

            As the West is finding out.

          • Gill Thornton

            Carl when did you choose to be straight?

          • carl jacobs

            When did I choose not to be an adulterer? Desire is not determinative of morality. This is not a contestable proposition.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Maybe you never have had the opportunity to be an adulterer, in which case, as you admit, choice is not a consideration and neither is virtue.

          • He has to be the straight man. He has no comedic sense.

          • carl jacobs

            A Software Engineer was sent to the grocery store by his wife. She told him “Buy a loaf of bread and some milk. Oh, and while you’re there, get eggs.”

            The Software Engineer never came back.

          • magnolia

            The thought consented to becomes the word, the word consented to becomes the action. Somewhere within that sentence, though now shrouded in the mists of time I would guess…..

            Add in grace, prevenient grace and/or the prayers of his parents, grandparents, godparents, and other friends and ancestors back into the mists of time.

            We wouldn’t wish to be shallow nor mechanistic nor miss the more mystical aspects of our faith.

          • Stanley Cholaj

            Same time as you Gill that is of course if you are straight

          • Martin

            Gill

            Guess what, we all make choices all the time, shall I sin or shall I not sin.

          • Eustace

            The fulfillment of any desire that results in the infliction of harm on others can be legitimately suppressed in the interests of the common good.

            That’s as far as society’s legitimate interest in regulating individual behaviour goes.

            There’s a clear difference between homosexuality and paedophilia in that a gay relationship is predicated on informed adult consent. Each partner consents to the relationship, which causes no harm to anyone else.

            Paedophilia on the other hand, no matter how natural the desire may be to the person experiencing it, can never be predicated on informed adult consent because one partner is not capable of giving that consent.

            It’s not just a question of natural desire, but rather of what natural desires we can give expression to without harming anyone else. The right of each individual to live his life unmolested trumps his right to fulfill his desire, whatever that desire may be.

            But then you know that.

          • Martin

            UE

            Sin always harms a society.

          • Eustace

            Sin doesn’t exist. It’s all in your head.

          • Albert

            It strikes me that you and Carl are not agreeing over the meaning of the word “nature”. The fact, for example, that animals engage in homosexuality (only 50% of sheep are exclusively heterosexual apparently), does not tell us that homosexuality in human beings is natural, any more than 100% of sheep growing wool, makes it natural for human beings to do so. Still less, does observation of animal behaviour legitimise human behaviour (consider how many animals kill their sick young…).

            For the record: I don’t think homosexuals people choose their homosexual desires.

          • Cressida de Nova

            I concur with your final point.

      • Martin

        Dreadnaught

        Despite your politically correct position a person does choose to follow certain sins or otherwise. Homosexuality is a behaviour, not a nature.

        • Mercy Judgement

          quote from the oxford online dictionaries

          Involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex
          i.e. not a behaviour.

          • Martin

            MJ

            And the Oxford Online Dictionary would never follow the politically correct opinion, or would it.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin insists that sexuality – as distinct from sexual behaviour – does not exist. Reasoning closely, on the basis of his crackpot, counterfactual theory, it follows that there can therefore be no sexual attraction, either between people of different sexes or between people of the same sex. Sexual behaviour is a purely physical, mechanical activity, like inserting a key in a lock to unlock a door, or using a spanner to tighten a nut. It has no other meaning.

          • Martin

            GM

            You couldn’t reason closely if your life depended on it.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            Thank you. Your omission to point out any flaw in my reasoning is duly noted.

          • Martin

            GM

            That’s because you don’t reason.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            As usual, you slide out of addressing the point at issue.

          • Martin

            GM

            As always, you have no point.

        • Dreadnaught

          Let me assure you I am totally opposed to political correctness in the broad understanding of the term. I am if anything a Humanist in my outlook. Homosexual behaviour has been observed in many lifeforms beyond the human species and therefore if not ‘natural’ then positively of nature in all its forms.

          • Martin

            Dreadnaught

            Since nature is broken what does it matter that such behaviour is seen in a broken nature?

          • Dreadnaught

            Strange claim you make – what ‘nature’?

          • Martin

            Dreadnaught

            Both the world around us and our own nature.

      • preacher

        O.K let me unpack it for you. A person may have homosexual desires, he/she must decide whether or not to indulge in them & that is their choice to make.
        The norm is heterosexual – Fact ! – I don’t condemn people for the way they choose to live. I’ve known, & still know some homosexual folk, & guess what, they’re lovely people. They don’t flaunt their life styles, or make a display of themselves, they just enjoy their lives & good luck to them.
        But the Bible clearly states that those who ignore or break the rules that the creator has made face the certainty of judgement if they continue to follow their own desires in a thoughtless, selfish, or even through ignorance of the danger they place themselves in.
        I don’t consider myself to be in a position to judge anyone, but if I fail when asked to tell them what God says in scripture, I abandon them to face condemnation on the day of judgement, I am guilty of lack of love for them, probably through the fear of man’s opinion of my faith.
        You may not believe or care what happens to any sinful person. Indeed it seems that your cavalier attitude is summed up by the scripture that says ” Eat drink & be merry, for tomorrow we die ! “. But I DO care what happens to them after their inevitable demise.
        Goodnight Mr D. Sleep well & have a good week. P.

        • Dreadnaught

          I appreciate your concern and effort to explain your position
          but it is entire based on a book of rules not too dissimilar from the Koran. You rely on something cobbled together in scientifically ‘primitive’ times and with that reliance condemn people you dont even know. You believe that if they don’t conform to your understanding that they will suffer in eternity, and your mission is to save them. Something I am sure you mean as an act of goodness.
          But it all depends on the veracity of that book of contradiction that has been written, translated, re-translated written out again and selectively edited when the Man himself, contributed not one jot or comma, which I find very odd for a man of infinite talent.
          He never once mentions the sin of homosexuality, which was surely evident at His time, but if it is such a big issue now, it would in all likelyhood been as big a no-no as adultery which is constantly referred to.
          What would you make of it today if a man took to wandering around talking in parables in the company of strictly male company with no females among their number?
          I don’t accept that a god created everything or that he laid down a set of rules like some tenancy agreement that if breached would lead to eviction and eternal suffering. That was in the imagination of cultures that form the basis of your belief. The world has moved on, and we know too much about the mechanics of life which had they been aware of at the time, the stories would have told a different tale.

          • preacher

            Thank you for your response Dred, but as you say it depends on the truth & veracity of the Bible. As I stated, I don’t condemn, because it’s not my place to do so.
            People must decide themselves how to respond to the Bible. IMO many things change over time, some for the better, others for worse, & many things continue as they always have, as I hope you will agree.
            I see that often mankind has got worse & suffered more because of the changes that have happened in recent times. If I’m wrong – there’s no loss, but if I’m right about the veracity of the Bible, to turn away & let people suffer is an evil of the worse kind.
            I deliver the gospel & many have found an answer to those areas that they have struggled with for years, (Not just the sexual ones which many seem to find an area of rich pickings) but it’s up to them if & how they respond. No pressure, just concern for the well being of my fellow man.
            Blessings. P.

  • Dreadnaught

    The reason Tom Daley failed to qualify is nothing to do with his sexuality: it is because he had a bad day. He didn’t do anything to deserve that day: it just happened
    Despite my position sans-religio, today’s missive makes perfectly rounded and commendable sense. It’s easy to round on Daley, he is probably the most readily recognisable ‘straight turned gay’ man. The CV’s congregation can identify with him from before he made his private life public when he was ‘one of ours’ and that doubly shames him in their opinion.
    What a nasty spiteful outfit they are; so much for their love thy neighbour principle.

    • Mercy Judgement

      Hes actually bisexual, not gay and I don’t think coming out is the same as “turning gay”. He was 19 when he came out – so barely a “straight man”!

  • David

    Many here may be familiar with the teachings of the prosperity gospel, which says, simplifying, obey God’s laws and believe, and you’ll become prosperous. It too, like these crass oversimplifications and heartless condemnations here, is wrong.
    Whilst faithful obedience reflecting the Gospel of Grace, forgiveness for the repentant and then striving to live a godly life, is undoubtedly the road God wants us to travel, He does NOT guarantee an easy passage.
    On the broadest of patterns, whilst nations where a good number are sincere, observant Christians tend to prosper, particularly if the rulers are guided by godly wisdom, there is no direct correlation – cause leading to effect – that guarantees that individual believers never encounters hardships, injustices or other problems. In fact the god inspired road can be a rocky one, and the worldly wise one a smoother path, as many a psalmist laments. John Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress” brought out that latter point powerfully and graphically to an earlier generation of believers.
    So we must all be wary of the pedlars of the so called prosperity gospel, in whatever silly form it surfaces, even olympic sporting events it appears !

    • The Explorer

      Exactly. ‘Leviticus’ does suggest that the nation will be blessed if it follows God’s laws, but ‘Job’ illustrates that this does not apply to the individual. And for the New Covenant, the model is ‘Job’.

      The prosperity gospel has always seemed to me more akin to Islam than to Christianity.

      • Martin

        TE

        To be Scriptural, Job was blessed, both before and after his calamities:

        And the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning. And he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yoke of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. He had also seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first daughter Jemimah, and the name of the second Keziah, and the name of the third Keren-happuch. And in all the land there were no women so beautiful as Job’s daughters. And their father gave them an inheritance among their brothers. And after this Job lived 140 years, and saw his sons, and his sons’ sons, four generations. And Job died, an old man, and full of days.
        (Job 42:12-17 [ESV])

        And I think it is fair to say, persecution aside, Christians do tend to live lives that are blessed.

        • The Explorer

          I certainly agree that Christians have lives that are spiritually blessed. I think the prosperity gospel would struggle to account for the middle part of ‘Job’.

    • Phil R

      “obey God’s laws and believe, and you’ll become prosperous.”

      Statisically it is true for a nation, group or family. Nations, companies and familes that forllow God’s laws are far richer than those that do not. Indeed if welfare was not available it would be self evident.

      • Uncle Brian

        If I read in the city pages that the ABC bank, or retail chain, or ice cream manufacturer, has consistently reported higher earnings over the years than the XYZ bank, or retail chain, or ice cream manufacturer, may I legitimately deduce from that statement that the owners and employees of ABC follow God’s laws and that the owners and employees of XYZ don’t?

  • len

    Why does sexuality come into sport at all?. ‘Gay Diver’ indeed . ?
    Never hear of ‘heterosexual runner’, ‘straight long jumper’, ‘Bi sexual’ pole vaulter’

    When people make an issue publicly of their sexuality its their decision.. a flag waving for’ their cause’. It might be ‘politically correct ‘ to remain silent about sexual issues but ‘political correctness[ is secular ‘moral code’ and Christians must be allowed to uphold their value system also….

    • sarky

      Jonathan Edwards did…..Until he saw sense and became an atheist.

      • len

        I was an atheist once….then my eyes were opened…Once that has happened there is no way of going back. Once you know the Truth the Lie becomes impossible to live with…

        • sarky

          No they don’t.

      • IanCad

        I think you should check your facts Sarky.

        That great Calvinist hell-fire preacher; chief booster of the Barbeque Brigade, lived and died a true believer.

        “The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss.”

        From a sermon presented in 1739.

        • Andrew Price

          Lol

        • The Explorer

          Sarky probably means the triple jumper.

    • Just beware the homosexual pole-vaulter, Len.

      • len

        Beware of homosexuals waving their poles?

      • bluedog

        If the Olympics are ever held in Warsaw, we may see some pole-ish dancing.

      • Cressida de Nova

        Guffaws…!!!

  • carl jacobs

    Am I missing something here? What I read is a smart ass tweet indulging in some crass shadenfreude. But how do you get from that tweet to a disquisition on the theology of suffering? The OP is correct that suffering is intimately connected to the sovereignty and purpose of God. But the tweet doesn’t talk about suffering as a result of judgment. At all. Not even by implication. Is there history here I don’t know about? Because the charge in the OP doesn’t fit the crime in the tweet.

    • Mercy Judgement

      The tweet claims Daley didn’t win because he is gay (he isn’t gay, he is bisexual). It’s abusive and it implies a belief in prosperity gospel.

  • Lindsay

    Turning gay? More like coming out as. Gay!!! Let’s focus on NT and our RS with Jesus. We are on a spectrum of sexuality chosen by God..you are fearfully and wonderfully made lovely xxx

    • The Explorer

      Does a serial rapist have his sexuality chosen by God? Where is he on the spectrum?

      • Gareth Victor

        @The Explorer: Are you fucking crazy?

        • The Explorer

          Who does ‘we’ include? Does it include the serial rapist? If it does, the questions stand. If it doesn’t, what accounts for the serial rapist’s sexuality?

          • carl jacobs

            Yes, according to our pet troll.

            Heh heh heh.

          • Gareth Victor

            I’m no one’s pet……..

          • That’s as may be but you’re not who The Explorer had in mind.

          • carl jacobs

            He wasn’t referring to you. He was referring to Linus.

          • Martin

            Maybe he is Linus, he does change his name from time to time.

          • len

            The rapists gene , the murderers gene, the thieves gene, the adultery gene.

            See what I did?….Sin doesn’t exist any more, no one has any choice but to obey what their genes order them to do…
            IF (in your own mind at least) you can re define sin then sin disappears like mist in the morning sun.
            And the secularists call Christians ‘crazy’.

          • The Explorer

            What are the implications for punishment? Does anyone deserve to be in prison if people can’t help how they behave? And the Idea that prison should try to reform the prisoner then becomes impossible. Has secularism thought all
            this through?

          • Erik Dahlberg

            2016 and the slope’s getting more slippery

          • Eustace

            Rape harms, so even if there is a rapist’s gene, the right not to be raped trumps the right to act on a genetically programmed desire to rape.

          • Martin

            UE

            Homosexuality harms, it is a step on the path to destruction.

          • Eustace

            We’re all destined for destruction. It happens when we die. We decompose and are destroyed. Gay or straight, it comes to us all. So heterosexuality is also a step on the path to destruction.

            Of course you’ve convinced yourself that you’re eternal. But you’re not. Your body will wither and disappear like all bodies. And as for your mind (such as it is), I strongly suspect the dissolution process is already well underway.

            A few moments after your heart stops beating, there’ll be no more consciousness. No more identity. No more Martin. One can only assume it’s like falling into a dreamless sleep from which you’ll never wake. And then you’re gone. Game over.

          • Martin

            UE

            After death comes the judgement, after the judgement comes destruction or glory. You will stand before God in your body and then experience His judgement for eternity.

          • Eustace

            If Martin says something it must be true, because the mere act of him confirming a claim MAKES it true.

            This is what mental illness looks like, folks. This insistence that even his most abject utterances must be received by others as absolute truth speaks volumes about Martin’s weak grip on reality.

          • Martin

            UE

            What the Bible says is true. You are suffering from the illness called sin, it affects both your mind and your body.

          • Eustace

            More unsubstantiated claims from the usual suspect. “What the bible says is true.” How do you know that? Where’s your proof?

            If you want to know why you’re such a miserable failure as an evangelist, look no further than your inability to back up your claims with any kind of evidence. (Most) human beings are rational beings. In order to be persuaded of a claim, we need rational explanations. Nothing about the way you try to persuade us of the truth of the bible is rational. Simply shouting “it’s true!” is not good enough. In fact it’s counterproductive, because in your stubborn refusal to do anything but demand acquiescence to your unsupported assertions, you portray yourself as stubborn, zealous, unenquiring, brainwashed and mentally unbalanced.

            If there really is a God and he really does command his followers to evangelise unbelievers, you’re going to have a LOT of explaining to do when you get to heaven. Your heavy-handed, stubborn and totally ineffective attempts at evangelism must make anyone who has any contact with you flee from Christianity as something that only the mentally unstable give credence to. You’ll surely be held personally responsible for the loss of hundreds of souls who might have been converted had they been provided with a rational basis for belief.

            Still, as nutcases like you illustrate so very well the reasons why no reasonable person can be taken in by superstitious Christian nonsense, all I can do is applaud your efforts and encourage you to carry on exactly as you are. You’re the secularist’s dream, poor deluded Martin. You drive people into our arms by showing them what Christianity does to a rational human mind. Keep up the good work!

          • Martin

            UE

            No, mankind is not rational. You are not rational because you pretend God doesn’t exist. No, I can’t persuade people. All I can do is proclaim. It is God who saves.

          • Eustace

            And there you go again. “You are not rational because you pretend God doesn’t exist.” Another series of unsubstantiated claims. 1) that I am not rational, 2) that I am pretending, 3) that God exists.

            You don’t proclaim. You declaim. Like a banging drum or a clashing cymbal. The emptiness of your rhetoric makes it ring hollow. It has no depth, no substance. It’s just an endlessly repeated string of words that you’ve learned by rote and repeat without question.

            Your words only have the power to repel because they’re devoid of all reasoned meaning. God may exist and he may save, but if he does, he must have a great deal more work to do to undo the mischief done by your efforts at “evangelization” than he would if you’d just shut up and figure out your own salvation rather than trying to browbeat others into theirs.

          • Martin

            UE

            You know what I’m saying is true.

          • Eustace

            More unsubstantiated nonsense, I see. You don’t KNOW what I know. You’re merely projecting your false certainties and dogmatic beliefs onto me.

            Modifying reality to fit what you think should be true is the first step along the path to delusion. Martin illustrates the ultimate destination of that path quite perfectly. A dogmatic prison where reason, analysis and logic are banned and the strident slogan reigns supreme. That’s what Martin’s faith boils down to. Unthinking zealotry.

          • Martin

            UE

            We all know God exists.

            Perhaps you should take to heart your second paragraph. Does it not describe the PC world you seem to desire, where a crime has been committed if a person believes it to have been or where the gender of a person is what they wish it to be.

            The evidence is that you are the one in the self imposed prison.

          • Eustace

            No Martin, we do not all know that God exists. Nobody can know if an invisible and intangible God exists. Our senses do not enable us to perceive him.

            All we know is that despite a total inability to provide any evidence for God, many still believe in him. But believing and knowing are two different things. Separating the two concepts seems to be something that Martin cannot do. Such is the way of the unthinking zealot.

            If I am in an otherwise empty room with other witnesses and we see nobody but ourselves there, we can say with confidence that we are alone. All the physical evidence supports such a statement.

            If Martin in is the same room, he will claim that we are not alone, that God is there with us. He will be able to provide no physical evidence to back up his claim. God will not be visible or tangible. Yet according to Martin, he will be there anyway, and we must therefore believe in him. Because if Martin says something, it must be true. All hail Martin.

            God may be present in Martin’s head, but only in the way fairies and goblins are present in the heads of small children.

        • The Explorer is innocent. He doesn’t know anyone called Crazy.

      • Teekeey Misha

        “Rape” is not sexuality any more than “swinging” or “likes having sex with the lights off.”

        • Martin

          Nor does sexuality exist.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Nor does the material world.

          • Martin

            GM

            You’re being silly again, there is no evidence of this thing called sexuality.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Sure, and it’s you who are the silly one. The evidence of this thing called sexuality is that most people have a sexuality.

          • Martin

            GM

            You’re assuming that people have a sexuality, they don’t.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, I know that I have. I can’t prove that anyone else has. It’s a bit like dreams: I know that I’ve had them, but no-one can prove to me that they’ve had them too. They may SAY that they have, but everyone except me could be lying. They can’t prove that they’re telling the truth, nor can I prove to anyone else that I am. So denial of the existence of dreams is not only logical but unfalsifiable. Is it therefore reasonable? No, of course it isn’t. But no crank who insists on it (or who insists on denying the existence of sexuality) can be proved wrong.

          • Eustace

            Monitoring brain activity during sleep provides evidence of dreams, just as monitoring physical response to erotic imagery provides evidence of sexual orientation.

            Of course Martin would simply refuse to take both tests and then continue to make his preposterous claims. The rest of us would shrug our shoulders and ignore him.

            That’s how the religious zealot’s circular and self-supporting arguments work. God exists because the religious zealot says so, and because the religious zealot says so, God exists. Faith like Martin’s is self-sustaining and impervious to outside influences because it requires no external input at all. No evidence, no data. God exists because Martin wants him to, and because Martin wants him to, God exists.

            And Martin said “let there be light, and there was light”. Of course it’s the kind of light that only Martin can see, but that doesn’t matter to Martin, because he knows that everyone really can see his light and they’re just lying when they say they can’t.

          • Martin

            GM

            You know no such thing, you merely claim it as a cover for your sin.

          • The Explorer

            It feels pretty real when you’re having sex.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, yes, it’s a very powerful illusion. In that respect it’s just like sexuality, and we know for certain that THAT doesn’t exist because Martin has told us so, and that settles the matter for ever. Martinus locutus est; causa finita est.

          • The Explorer

            Clever stuff there, but I am reminded of the farmer’s son who went to Oxford and tried to persuade his father of the existence of three chickens.

            Two chickens on the table. Here are two. Son then picks up one. And here is one. 2+1= 3. Therefore, there are three chickens.

            Farmer takes one chicken for himself, and gives the second to his wife. The son can have the third.

            There’s a third chicken somewhere in your argument, but it would take a philosopher to work out where. Always a pleasure discussing with you.

          • Eustace

            There are no chickens arguing with Guglielmo. Just a couple of geese.

          • Martin

            UE

            Both you and GM are chickens, clucking with all your might.

          • Eustace

            Well if we’re chickens, we can’t be sinners, can we? Chickens don’t have souls.

            Either I’m a human sinner, or I’m a soulless chicken. I can’t be both.

          • Martin

            UE

            There you go, cluck cluck cluck. No understanding just lust.

          • Eustace

            Cluck cluck cluck, indeed. No understanding, just a deep-seated need to repeat the same mantra over and over again, as if repetition will make it true.

            You don’t have many friends outside your narrow little sect, do you Martin? Who could possibly stand your company except those who share your extreme personality traits and obsessions?

          • Martin

            UE

            So now you attack me personally, failing to see how anyone could be my friend?

          • Teekeey Misha

            Well, except that it does.

          • Martin

            TM

            No, it doesn’t.

          • Teekeey Misha

            1. Capacity for sexual feelings.
            2. A person’s sexual orientation or preference.
            3. Sexual activity.
            [OED]
            Check, check, check. Yup. All three of those definitely exist. Ergo, sexuality exists.

          • Martin

            TM

            So you claim.

        • The Explorer

          I disagree. Your sexuality will manifest itself in what you do and how you do it.

          • Teekeey Misha

            The “manifestation of sexuality” is not sexuality. I wouldn’t put “serial rapist” anywhere on a spectrum of genders because “serial rapist” is not a gender.

          • Homosexuality is not a gender either.

          • The Explorer

            You’re seriously telling me that despite a spectrum of 58 genders a serial rapist (who, after all, undertakes sexual behaviour) cannot be accommodated somewhere? Do we need a few more gender categories to remedy the deficiency?

            Let me rephrase the question. What type of gender, or genders, would be a serial rapist?

          • Teekeey Misha

            A serial rapist, like a serial troll and a serial idiot, could be any gender.

          • The Explorer

            How do the non-penis genders manage serial rape? Do they force the penis genders to screw them at knife or gun point?

            Presumably one can imagine oneself any one of the 58 genders, but in practice one is constrained by the tackle one does or does not have.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Is it physically possible for a male to get an erection with a threat of knife or gun?

          • The Explorer

            Sadi-masochists, I suppose. And I forgot about strap ons and dildos. Not really my field of expertise. Sadly, Teekeey has not got back to me on this one.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Gasp ! …..T M I.

    • The paedophile? Chosen by God? Born that way?

  • IanCad

    The more I hear about these here Olympics, the more I become convinced that sports are a waste of energy. Now, from the OP, I learn that there is an event for female boxers. Lord – come soon!
    Shut ’em down, close the chequebook, let Greece handle it all in future.

    • carl jacobs

      Something is going to change with the Olympics. It is running out of host cities. Perhaps the extortion racket that is the IOC has finally run its course.

      But you are right. There is a stench of Babel about the Olympics, anymore.

      • Anton

        Watch the closing ceremony. Olympic opening and closing ceremonies are religious rites of secular humanism. It becomes very obvious once you’ve been told (as a wise man told me of it). The games themselves need to be scaled down so that more than 5 or 6 nations can put them on.

    • Stanley Cholaj

      The guy lost and thats the end of it.Take it like a man ( not literary of course ) and get on with your life.

    • chefofsinners

      They were, of course, abolished once before. In 394, by Theodosus I, because they were a pagan ritual.

    • Grumpyrocker

      Gosh, you’ll be really cross when you discover women have the vote and are allowed to voice their own opinions.

  • Anton

    It is possible to agree with Stephen Green regarding what the Bible says about sexuality and with His Grace about cause-and-effect being more complex in a fallen world. But both seem to me to be attacking an individual with some relish.

    When “Jerry Springer – The Opera” went on tour a decade ago I let myself be persuaded by Christian Voice to stand silently outside the theatre in one of our major cities while people entered, holding a placard of protest. This was because of the scene in which Jesus is portrayed as an adult wearing soiled nappies who is told to “grow up and put some ****** clothes on”. I am neither ashamed nor proud that I did this, and incidentally I would do it again.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Never wanted to watch anyfhing starring David Soul since.

    • Eustace

      Did it stop a single person going to see the production in question?

      Protests tend to increase interest in a controversial play or movie. The producers of this particular production were probably very happy to have you there protesting and increasing their box-office takings.

      • Anton

        As I turned up on the night with no notice, I doubt it.

      • chefofsinners

        Producer Stewart Lee lamented his financial loss resulting from the protests, describing how he had been ‘on the verge of becoming a millionaire and had that taken away from him’. Tragic.

  • ” … perhaps “turning gay” is preferable to being one of Job’s dogmatic, unfeeling comforters.”

    Perhaps. What do you reckon, Inspector?

  • chefofsinners

    If only we had known sooner that success depended on personal piety. Holympic history would have looked very different:
    Jonah and the whale in synchronised diving.
    Moses in the modern Pentateuchathlon.
    Samson and Delilah: rowing pairs. (think about it)
    The apostle Paul in the Lord’s table tennis.
    And, of course, our Lord Himself as the ultimate 3 day eventer.

    • carl jacobs

      [Sigh] OK. I’ll do it. The ignorant American will ask about the obscure (and therefore probably British) reference that otherwise makes no sense.

      Rowing pairs?

  • qwerty

    It’s worth noting, of course, that Christian Voice is Stephen Green. The organisation is simply his personal soap box. I don’t know how many supporters he has, but I’d guess it’s not that many. Yes, by all means deconstruct his comments, but please don’t take him too seriously. He’s an extremist who doesn’t represent the vast majority of UK Christians, and if it wasn’t for the internet, he’d be consigned to obscurity.

    • Grumpyrocker

      True. There was a TV documentary about him a few years ago. His group really is very small. He seems a man with some serious problems. His wife accused him of violent abuse. And he has campaigned for marital rape to be legalised. He’s a nasty hate-filled figure, but judging by some comments on here there are plenty happy to hate in Jesus name.

  • Martin

    “Which does God hate most: homosexuality or Islam?”

    Both are rebellion against the God who made us. Are there really so few subjects available that this rather inconsequential tweet should become so important? Personally I think there are far better things that money could be spent on and watching paint dry would be more entertaining.

    • Mercy Judgement

      Religion is a choice. Sexuality isn’t a choice.

      The tweet is important as it presents Christianity as hatred of outsiders instead of love for outsiders.

      • Martin

        MJ

        Becoming a Christian isn’t a choice, it is something God does to the sinner.

        Sinning is always a choice and calling it sexuality is to deceive into believing it is unavoidable.

        • Becoming a Christian is something that God initiates and offers. We retain free will.

          • Martin

            HJ

            How do the dead have free will?

            And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
            (Ephesians 2:1-7 [ESV])

          • carl jacobs

            Well, you see. Martin. We are only MOSTLY dead.

          • A Catholic would agree our free will has been injured by original sin to the point that unless God gives us special grace we cannot free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love.

            Total depravity is disproved by Scripture. It tells us even those who are outside of the law can, “… do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts” (Romans 2:14-15).

            “For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed. And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions.” (Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.))

            “For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will… Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.” -(Tertullian (160-225 A.D))

            Catholics agree that grace is necessary even for these ignorant of the law in order for them to be just before God. However, nature is not totally depraved because man can act justly on a natural level and by nature. Grace aides and empowers our wills. We have to cooperate with this grace. God does not operate our will. Man is not His puppet. God’s enabling grace is sufficient and is made efficacious by a free choice.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Try quoting a bit more of your text:

            For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
            (Romans 2:12-16 [ESV])

            Seems to me to contradict what you are saying. And why should even the early Church Fathers be read instead of Scripture. They are as prone to error as any.

          • The remainder of the text does not contradict what Jack quoted at all. It is saying Gentiles without the Law are capable of right action and that the conscience is not totally depraved – or dead in sin.

            Jack prefers the early Fathers to the gross errors of Calvin.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Of course it contradicts what you said, it shows that those without the law are still condemned for they know what is right and do not do it. Original sin is the tendency of Man to do what is sinful despite knowing what is right, thus it is supported by the passage.

            Calvin could be wrong, just as the early Fathers were, but the Bible is never wrong.

          • Er, it says: the Gentiles:by nature do what the law requires”. How can they if they are dead in their sin? It also says: “their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Because we all have a knowledge of God and what He requires. But our sin, while condemning us, causes us to be spiritually dead and unable to respond to God.

          • But it actually says the Gentiles do by nature what God’s law requires. So they are able to follow God’s law. It also says they will be judged according to their consciences which, for some, will excuse them.

          • Martin

            HJ

            And they fail to follow God’s laws. The fact that they know what they are condemns them. No one is excused before the judgement throne of God unless they are covered by Christ’s righteousness.

          • That’s not what the passage says.

          • Martin

            HJ

            What do you thing this means:

            “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

          • “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”
            What do you think this means?

          • Martin

            HJ

            Did I not ask first?

          • No, but Jack did. Why are you dodging it.

          • Martin

            HJ

            No it doesn’t. The passage I quote, together with the preceding verses, supports my point:

            “And they fail to follow God’s laws. The fact that they know what they are condemns them. No one is excused before the judgement throne of God unless they are covered by Christ’s righteousness.”

          • Yes, but some do, by nature, follow God’s law.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Since none are righteous, none follow God’s law.

          • Cressida de Nova

            That could be pre empting Protestanism . They are Gentiles without the Law.

          • Uncle Brian

            Martin

            There are several sayings of Jesus along the lines of “Do the right thing and you will be rewarded (recompensed, repaid).” One example: Luke 14.13-14:
            But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

          • Martin

            Brian

            You are forgetting that man, in his sin cannot do good:

            For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
            (Romans 8:7-8 [ESV])

          • Uncle Brian

            Martin

            Who was Jesus talking to in these two verses, men who cannot do good or men who can?

          • Martin

            Brian

            For you to ponder.

          • Uncle Brian

            Well, Martin, now that I’ve done a bit of pondering, the conclusion I’ve reached is this:
            > Jesus means what he says.

          • Martin

            Brian

            Of course He does.

          • Martin

            Carl

            Does it say that in your copy of Ephesians 2?

          • carl jacobs

            Hrmmmm. Perhaps. I might have accidentally picked up a Douay-Rheims. You never know what traditions you will find in there.

          • God gives us all sufficient grace to accept His offer.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Funny that, the text I’ve just quoted says that God saves us. Read it again & forget what your church tells you to believe.

          • Of course God saves us! His grace is freely offered to all.

          • Martin

            HJ

            God saves, that means the dead are made alive and raised up to Heaven. He doesn’t just offer, He makes us alive.

          • carl jacobs

            Good Old Catholic Semi-Pelagianism.

          • Define Semi-Pelagianism.

          • carl jacobs

            Roman Catholic

          • Albert …. you out there?

        • Mercy Judgement

          How can something you haven’t chosen and have no power to change be a choice?!

          • Martin

            MJ

            It isn’t, hence no one chooses to become a Christian. But we all choose to sin.

          • Mercy Judgement

            So you would agree that being gay (if you don’t have sex/relationships at least) isn’t a sin?

          • Martin

            MJ

            No, because by identifying yourself with sin you are already in thrall to that sin. You have taken that sin as your own.

          • Mercy Judgement

            Isn’t that just telling the truth. Saying you are gay merely means saying that you are attracted to people of the same sex? Where is the sin? The alternative (telling no one) can be very harmful and is part of the reason gay teen suicide rates are so high.

          • Martin

            MJ

            Saying you are ‘gay’ is saying that you have accepted the temptation as an intrinsic part of who you are.

          • D.M.S.

            The sin can be found in the 1 chapter of Romans.
            KJV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, etc.
            But with you reprobate mind I’m sure that you will disregard what you’re reading.

          • D.M.S.

            That is correct. But they’re not allowed the thought of samesex lust either. That is also a sin.

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      Homosexuality is no more rebellion against God than heterosexuality is. It may be rebellion against Martin’s eccentric beliefs, but that matters not one whit. Nothing worth losing one second of sleep over.

      • Martin

        GM

        Oh so someone has woken you up to spout your silliness have they. Trouble is, my ‘eccentric beliefs’ are based on what God has said. You stand condemned as one who encourages others to sin.

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          Trouble is, your eccentric beliefs are based on your fantasies, which you prefer to reality. They cannot be based on what God has said, since God would never talk such hogwash.

      • chefofsinners

        Eccentric to you. Orthodox to most Christians for most of the last 2000 years.

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          Maybe so, but orthodoxy is no guarantee of correctness. It cannot make erroneous beliefs true.

  • Mercy Judgement

    Whereas I completely agree with the spirit of the article. I don’t agree that Daley’s sexuality has nothing to do with his sport. He has given several interviews in which he makes clear that it has been his fiancé’s support that has kept him diving and earned him a place at yet another Olympics. He’s won two Olympic medals and has a partner who loves him. Does Stephen Green?

    He is continually attacked by the Christian right because he is a public and popular figure whose existence destroys any credibility for their anti gay theology.

    • Martin

      MJ

      I don’t see how he destroys anyone’s credibility.

      • Mercy Judgement

        Christian Voice, Christian Concern etc maintain that gay (and bisexual) people don’t really exist.

        • The Explorer

          So Tom Daley’s an illusion?

          • Mercy Judgement

            Like I said, their theology isn’t credible.

            They would say that he was a sexually deviant straight person, but that clearly is not the case.

          • No. They would simply say he is a sexual sinner.

          • Mercy Judgement

            Well this tweet suggests that Christian Voice believes he chose to be gay (hes actually bisexual, not gay) which suggests they believe that orientation of sexual attraction is chosen.

            The head of Christian Concern famously said that Tom Daley was looking for a father figure whilst campaigning for the death sentence for gay people. She also recently complained at the Church of Englands talks on the subject that the existence of gay people and homophobia went unquestioned.

          • Mrs S wilson

            I wonder if you are mixing up Christian Voice with Christian Concern? I had never heard of the former till now, and agree that this was an ungracious tweet at best, and should never have been written. But I have never heard Andrea Williams of CC ever calling for the death penalty for gays, and wonder where you got that from?

          • Mercy Judgement

            Sorry I am referring to both groups. My post was referring to another further up.
            Andrea Williams campaigned for Jamaica to retain the death penalty in 2013. Seeing recent statements encouraging bullying of children with LGBT parents – I doubt she has warmed since then!

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/uk-evangelist-says-tom-daley-is-gay-because-his-father-died-9013365.html

          • Mrs S wilson

            Having done some research just now, i cannot find that Jamaica has the death penalty for gays, and did not have in 2013

          • Anton

            I don’t think anybody suggested that. The Jamaica discussion was about whether that country should retain the death penalty for murder etc.

          • Mrs S wilson

            Sorry Anton, but Mercy Judgment specifically said that Andrea Williams campaigned for Jamaica to retain the death penalty for gays in 2013. As they did not have a death penalty for gays, how could she campaign to retain it?

          • Anton

            I can find no such post above. Where did Mercy Judgment do that? Please quote the exact words and state the time of the post (which you can find by hovering the cursor above the ” **** minutes/hours ago” tag).

          • Mrs S wilson

            It was posted by Mercy Judgment 2 hours ago and I am looking at it as I write

          • Anton

            Do you mean these words posted 2 hours ago (at the time of this typing) by Mercy Judgment?

            Andrea Williams campaigned for Jamaica to retain the death penalty in 2013. Seeing recent statements encouraging bullying of children with LGBT parents – I doubt she has warmed since then!

            These words do not state that Andrea Williams campaigned for Jamaica to retain or enact capital punishment for gays, and the link to the Independent newspaper article provided by Mercy Judgment in the same post makes this clear. You are misunderstanding what was posted.

          • chefofsinners

            Look at the previous post by Mercy Judgment par. 2, first sentence which says “…whilst campaigning for the death sentence for gay people.”

          • Anton

            Ah, thank you! I did not realise that Andrea Williams was the head of Christian concern. Mercy Judgment’s statement is indeed incorrect. I shall explain myself to Mrs Wilson.

          • Mrs S wilson

            Anton, please look a little farther and see his post, three hours ago, which is quite explicit, and which preceded my first reply

          • Anton

            Thanks to our resident Chef I have found the relevant quote. I had not realised that Andrea Williams was head of Christian Concern. Mercy Judgment is incorrect in saying that Andrea Williams campaigned for that.

          • Mercy Judgement

            I appologise I was wrong, it is “only” ten years hard labour for anyone who has gay sex or displays any form of intimacy (eg holding hands).

            Hardly much better.

          • No. One chooses to act on sexual desire. That’s when it becomes sin.

          • veronicazundel

            It becomes sin when a person is treated as a commodity for one’s own satisfaction. There are many respectably married Christian men who do that.

          • …. and women.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Hey…steady on !

          • Tis true ….

          • Mercy Judgement

            Well I agree that sexual behaviour is chosen, but CV, CC and many other right wing Christian groups maintain that everyone is straight (ie orientation of attraction is always to the opposite sex). Daley threatens their credibility as their views are clearly nonesense.

          • The Explorer

            What’s their take on people who go after chickens or sheep?

          • Mercy Judgement

            I haven’t come across their campaigns against bestiality.

          • The Explorer

            Bestiality, or same-sex bestialty? That’s my question

          • D.M.S.

            Clearly nonsense. Then you’re stating that God/Jesus is clearly nonsense. Because that’s where these Christian groups got their belief, straight out of the Christian bible from God/Jesus.
            God/Jesus creates everyone heterosexual.
            We can only go forth and be fruitful when we are heterosexual.
            Even an intersex person will know if they are actually more male or female by the time they are 18 years of age. Considering that they are not allowed sexual relations until marriage.

          • veronicazundel

            That is the way of Nazism: to claim that a certain class of people do not exist, or aren’t really people, and then make that a reality.

          • The Explorer

            That’s the sequence. First decide that they aren’t really people. Then you can ensure that they do not exist. If they don’t exist in the first place, there’s no need to kill them.

          • carl jacobs

            They would say that he was a sexually deviant straight person

            Actually we would say he has exchanged the natural for the unnatural. It’s not about some alleged notion of identity but about the Created Order and intended purpose.

            … but that clearly is not the case.

            According to what authority?

          • Mercy Judgement

            Hes a well known public figure – his relationship is clearly not (just) about sex or getting a sexual thrill. There is genuine love there. It is apparent because they are seen in public and commented upon. It is not some nasty perversion!

          • carl jacobs

            Perversion is defined according to the Created Order. It is not defined according to your perception of the relationship.

          • Mercy Judgement

            My dictionary defines perversion as

            Distortion or corruption of the original course, meaning, or state of something.

            or

            Sexual behaviour that is considered abnormal and unacceptable.

            It is apparent that neither is true about their relationship.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s fine. What your dictionary says isn’t relevant. When it has the authority of Theopneustos then maybe I’ll pay attention to it. When a Christian uses the phrase “sexual perversion” he is making an implicit reference to Romans 1. You can’t demand I use whatever definition you deem convenient to your cause. You have to answer the argument I am making.

          • Mercy Judgement

            It is relevant if we are speaking in English. I am a Christian, but my language is English. You were replying to my post. I am explaining that I am speaking in English and using English definitions.

            Romans 1 makes no mention of gay or bisexual people and I don’t see its relevance. I think Romans 2 is more pertinent, but I expect you convieniently haven’t got to that bit yet.

            I am saying that his relationship clearly isn’t about immoral sexual thrills.

          • carl jacobs

            You distorted the position your were opposing. As in …

            They would say that he was a sexually deviant straight person

            And you used this distortion to justify your initial claim. As in …

            their theology isn’t credible.

            To recap, I said that homosexuality exchanges the natural for the unnatural and is therefore perverse. You said “It is not some nasty perversion!” Why did you say this? Because “his relationship is clearly not (just) about sex or getting a sexual thrill. There is genuine love there.” Let’s grant that is all true. The nature of the relationship does not legitimize the structural defect of the relationship. Why? Because the relationship violates the Created Order. The perversion is structural. It doesn’t have anything to do with “abnormal or unacceptable” sexual behavior as determined by whatever authority you are implicitly citing. It has to do with God’s purpose in creation – specifically God’s purpose for sex in creation. My argument assumes the definition contained in Romans 1. You have to respond in accordance with that definition. You can’t just assert your own definition and declare victory.

            In a way, you are correct about Romans 1. The Scripture offers no support for this ontological differentiation according to sexual desire. Male and female created He them. There is nothing more. Man was created with a specific nature and he corrupts it to suit his own desires. It is the high handed rebellion of the creature who shakes his fist at heaven and shouts “Who are you to make me thus? I shall do as I please.”

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            “Male and female created He them.”

            Precisely. The majority are heterosexuals males or heterosexual females, and a small minority are homosexual males or homosexual females. Quite easy to understand. Simplicity itself.

          • carl jacobs

            Now, if only you had some Scriptural support for that assertion. The testimony of Scripture against homosexuality is universal from Genesis to Revelation.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I don’t need any scriptural support. I know it already before I even open the Bible.

          • carl jacobs

            How do you know that God has created some to be homosexual? You cannot infer nature from the presence of desire. Just because I have a desire, it does not therefore follow that I am not entitled to act upon it. Neither does that presence of that desire prove that I am supposed to act upon it. To understand God’s intent in creation, you must go to the Creator. He must reveal it to you. God specifically declares homosexuality an example of creatures willfully suppressing self-evident truth. Just as the natural use of man with woman is self-evident, so also is the power and glory of God self-evident. It couldn’t be more clear.

          • sarky

            Can’t see it for looking!

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Really? He has never mentioned that to me. Nor do I have any other reason to believe it. In fact, I’m not convinced that the statement is even meaningful. In what way can being sexually attracted to other people of the same sex be a wilful suppression of self-evident truth? That sort of thing might SOUND impressive to a certain kind of person, but it doesn’t make any sense.

          • carl jacobs

            Well, it certainly made sense to Paul. And Paul had a rather more significant authority behind him than that which we can muster today. I suggest you take up your complaint with him.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Paul seems to have believed that everyone was naturally heterosexual and that heterosexual people who gave up worshipping God and turned instead to worshipping images of mortal men, birds, quadrupeds and reptiles (Romans 1:23) consequently, as a divine punishment inflicted on them, gave up their former “heterosexual lifestyle”, re-directed their libido to people of their own sex and took up homosexual behaviour instead. (He didn’t, of course, use the actual words “heterosexual” and “homosexual” or any Greek cognates, which didn’t then exist.)

            We are not obliged in 2016 to subscribe to that quaint theory, and I certainly don’t. When I find a gay person whose sexual history it describes – and it is nothing like mine or that of anyone else whom I’m aware of knowing – I’ll be sure to let you know.

          • carl jacobs

            As always, it returns to a question of authority. Men reject right authority in order to justify their deeds. As in “Who are you to make me thus? I shall do as I please.”

          • Eustace

            But who is the god YOU say wields authority over us?

            Where is he? I can’t see him or sense him in any other way. All I know about him is what YOU say.

            Sounds to me that the person wanting to wield authority over me is YOU.

            And why should I obey YOU?

          • Old Nick

            Today if you would hear His voice, harden not your heart, as in the provocation and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness..

          • Eustace

            I haven’t heard him today. Didn’t hear him yesterday either. Or the day before that. In fact I’ve never heard him, nor have I seen or felt or smelt him.

            I’m forced to the conclusion that there’s nothing to ignore. Except Christians and their fantastical ghost stories.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            As far as I’m concerned, we do neither Paul nor anyone else a service by attempting to impose his clearly limited understanding of homosexuality – which, it should be noted, is really quite peripheral to his message – as one of the parameters for our thinking today. As the late biblical scholar, Professor Robert P. Carroll, expressed it, “The long history of Christian persecution of homosexual people cannot be justified on the strength of such a slender piece of opinionation.”

          • carl jacobs

            The only way Paul could have a “clearly limited understanding” of homosexuality is if he is speaking in his own authority. If Paul is speaking with the authority of God (as in Scripture as in God-breathed), then there is no “clearly limited understanding” because God as Creator has perfect understanding both of man and the Creation in which man was placed. That’s why I keep returning to this word “authority”. This entire argument revolves around the quest to substitute one disagreeable authority for a more compliant one.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Reading that passage in Romans 1, I can see for myself that, if what Paul is talking about is homosexuality in general – as most defenders of a “traditional” view insist that he is – then his understanding of it is clearly limited. His theory simply does not accord with reality and that is sufficient for me, no matter what attempts are made to validate it by attributing “authority” to it.

          • veronicazundel

            Paul live 2,000 years ago. He had no knowledge of homosexual orientation. We have to interpret his words in the light of modern, God-given knowledge.

          • carl jacobs

            And to what authority would you have me turn for this divine “modern, God-given knowledge”?

          • Why, the Roman Catholic Church, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            Anton

            [points at Jack]

            Slap him, please.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Woohoo!

          • magnolia

            Yes, what an ignoramus St Paul was. Never had Gender Studies at ultra modern universities to light him on his way. Had to make do with those old Hebrew scrolls, the classics, and Gamaliel. Never came across any Greco-Roman homosexual behaviours in his lifetime. (Cough cough, splutter…) All this theological stuff about the flesh & what did he know?

            This is classic.

          • Mercy Judgement

            Paul just refers back to Leviticus. It is hardly a detailed treatise!

          • veronicazundel

            To believe that gay people should have the same right to a loving, faithful relationship, you do not have to believe that God created them gay. We allow disabled people to marry without having to believe that God created them disabled. Being gay may be a result of a fallen world – we have no way of knowing – but that should not preclude allowing gay people to be included in the institution of marriage which some Christians say they value so much.

          • carl jacobs

            To be faithful to God, I have to assert that what He says is true. That includes the truth about human sexuality, and marriage. That includes the overarching concept of sin. Homosexuality is not a disability. It is not properly analogized to a disability. It is toevah. It is a behavior that proceeds from a temptation to do evil. I don’t know where the temptation comes from. I don’t know why some are more susceptible than others. Those questions are relevant pastorally, but not morally. The fact the people want to behave in a certain way is not moral justification for that behavior. The fact the adults willfully consent to the behavior is not justification for the behavior. We are not the determiners of our own moral boundaries.

          • “I don’t know where the temptation comes from. I don’t know why some are more susceptible than others. Those questions are relevant pastorally, but not morally.”

            Good answer.

          • Mercy Judgement

            And is it pastoral to write an abusive tweet because you have determined that your victim is an unrepentant sinner and therefore fair game?

          • Mercy Judgement

            But it clearly is not a behaviour. If it were a behaviour why would Tom and Dustin be engaged to marry? They don’t have to marry to have sex.

          • veronicazundel

            In approximately three or four verses. The testimony of Scripture for love and compassion towards those who are socially excluded is many thousand times that amount.

          • carl jacobs

            How many verses do I need to know that the behavior is condemned and the underlying desire is evil? How many verses in the Bible condemn burning children in the fires of Molech? One? Do I need more? This isn’t about accepting people. This is about refusing to justify behavior. Acceptance is not identical to saying “Your truth is true for you.” Love and compassion do not require me to suspend moral judgment, Confer with John the Baptist and the wife of Herod. Was John unloving and unaccepting?

          • Mercy Judgement

            Carl – you were replying to my initial post!! Now you are criticising me for not agreeing with your own private definitions of words?

            I follow Jesus. The “Created Order” sounds like paganism to me.

            I wasn’t commenting on the rights and wrongs of his relationship. I was only saying that its existence destroys the credibility of those who say that gay relationships are only about sex, that nobody has a homosexual or bisexual orientation etc

            I am going on what the actual text in the letter to the Romans says.

          • Rhoda

            Chapter 2 of Romans begins, in Greek, with the word “διο” which means “wherefore” or “on account of which” ; this grammatically refers the reader back to the previous verses of Romans 1 (Chapters do not always provide natural breaks, as they were added later) .
            Did you read as far as verses 5-11 in chapter 2?

          • Mercy Judgement

            I’ve read the whole bible many times and am convinced in the grace, truth and ressurection of Jesus Christ.

            Where I believe Carl is in error here is a) suggesting that the main section of 1 refers to gay people when according to the passage itself it is talking about pagan worshippers (see v23) and b) he is using a passage written telling us *all* of us are in the same boat to condemn someone he considers less holy than himself. He is not alone in this. The “you” in 5-11 is not the pagan Romans, but the Christian church in Rome. In this case the “you” is not Tom Daley but the people who condemn him.

          • “Perversion is defined according to the Created Order.”

            Naturally, Carl.

          • You accept Natural Law, Carl?

          • carl jacobs

            One detects the presence of a sneaky treacherous RC trap in this question…

          • Anton

            Ask him to define it!

          • Carl already has: ” … the Created Order and intended purpose.”

            A body of principles inherent in God’s creation, accessed by reason, that have universal application in determining whether human conduct is right or wrong,

          • veronicazundel

            No, he has not exchanged anything. He always was gay. No one ‘turns gay’ as a choice. Why would they, with people like you around?

          • D.M.S.

            Your itching ears. Are telling you only what you want to hear.
            God/Jesus only talks about married heterosexual relations in scripture. All other sexual relations are a sin.
            Where in scripture does it state that God/Jesus states anything different than a man will leave his mother and father and take a wife and they shall become one?

          • sarky

            I wish Martin was….

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Of course you do, You don’t like being reminded of your sin.

        • Martin

          MJ

          They don’t, they are just sexual sinners.

          • Mercy Judgement

            Well then you share their ignorant views.

          • D.M.S.

            That’s God/Jesus view as well. That sin can be found many places in scripture.

        • D.M.S.

          They’re wrong, they do exist. Satan exist so the sin of the lgbt does exist.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    I think Tom Daley is absolutely lovely. Such a nice lad…

    • IanCad

      As would also – I daresay – the Lord Fondlebum and Mr. Slope.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        well I think he is wholesome and cuddlesome…

        • chefofsinners

          …And winsome and lose some.

          • veronicazundel

            Nice one.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            very good riposte mon brave…

    • DanJ0

      When I heard the shout from the room next door “Tom’s bottom! Tom’s bottom!”, I shouted “I know! I know! It’s fantastic!”. But then the awful truth dawned. 🙁

      • The Explorer

        You must wish that his name was Tom Daily.

        • DanJ0

          He actually produces little Facebook videos of exercises called Daley Routines. They’re basically soft porn. The last one was called “How to give your butt a workout”. You can imagine the comments underneath. He’s either very, very naïve, or he’s got a fine sense of humour.

          • His vids have NOTHING to do with soft porn.

          • DanJ0

            No, you’re quite right of course. I only watch him doing ab crunches and side leg extensions in nothing but shorts to perfect my own exercise technique. Similarly, I only watch his shirtless nutritional videos to learn about fresh lemon as a super food. Obviously the Aga must have been stoked up, and the kitchen a bit hot and stuffy, otherwise his shirt would obviously have stayed on. 🙂

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        Naughty monkey!

      • Matt Arnold

        ROTFLM”B”O

  • Martin

    Sarky

    And it will be responsible for your worst experience.

  • Martin

    Sarky

    That isn’t your worst experience.

    • sarky

      Oh believe me it was. You ever been to Nottingham?

      • Eustace

        I have. You have my sympathy. But it does get worse. Try Swindon.

        • The Explorer

          Swindon’s a railway junction. Should be good for coupling.

          • Eustace

            If you want to couple with a fat drunk blonde called Sharon or Tracy, I’m sure Swindon is paradise on earth. I found it quite hellish, but one man’s caviar is another man’s poison.

          • The Explorer

            Ask Sarky. He was the one with the dodgy experience in Nottingham.

          • sarky

            Unfortunately not just Nottingham…

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Your problem has long been obvious to us.

          • The Explorer

            I’ve tracked down the Nottingham girl in question. She’s citing you as the father. There are six other possibilities, but a DNA test will resolve it.

            For the others you allude to, I need a little more data. Not names, just places.

          • bluedog

            It’s beginning to sound as though sarky has a repertoire not unlike Sir Michael Jagger, currently awaiting the birth of his eighth recognised child.

          • sarky

            Oh great!! Looks like I’m going on Jeremy Kyle again!!! I’m telling you that wretched lie detector was wrong!!!

          • chefofsinners

            My sympathies are with Sharon and Tracy.

          • Eustace

            So that’s what you call your penis, is it? Your “sympathies”.

            Run, Sharon and Tracy, run! Or waddle at least. There’s a mad Russell Brand lookalike of a Christian coming for you with his sympathies in hand!

          • chefofsinners

            Good effort by your standards, but for the plural. Multi-talented I may be, but I have to disappoint my public by confessing that the hydra rumours are false.

          • sarky

            Hydra? I heard more of a Lampton worm.

          • The Explorer

            Was she too drunk to know her own name?

          • Eustace

            Go out in Swindon on a Saturday night and find out for yourself. Ask all those fine specimens of British womenhood collapsed on the pavement in pools of their own body fluids what their names are.

            I doubt you’ll meet many Binkies or Jocastas. They’re all away in the Caribbean at this time of the year and in any case, rarely visit Swindon unless on jaunt over from Cheltenham for
            a “mingle with the plebs”-themed pub crawl or hen night.

            As well-brought up young ladies (by British standards), they always take the precaution of throwing up BEFORE staggering out of the club they’ve spent the night taking pills and washing them down with champagne in. Public vomiting is a demotic pastime they wouldn’t dream of indulging in. Hence the likelihood of meeting only with Sharons and Tracys as you pick your way through the pools of stomach contents that decorate Swindon’s otherwise soulless streets on a Saturday night.

            Public vomiting is part of a Swindonette’s weekend routine, habitually accompanied by public urination and/or defecation, preferably by the front door of a Boots or similar high street brand store. The purpose is to scent mark their territory in order to attract Garys and Rays to mate with, again preferably in public, and one after the other to ensure the maximum chance of fecundation. And it seems to work. Swindon, and Britain as a whole, are full of Sharons and Tracys and Garys and Rays and their alcohol-stunted mini-me offspring. As far as reproductive strategies go, it’s a winning formula, if the goal is quantity rather than quality.

            Britain leads the world in teen pregnancies. And foetal alcohol syndrome. I knew there was an explanation for the persistence of Christianity and the growth of evangelical mega-churches in your country!

          • The Explorer

            Doesn’t welfare for single mums have more to do with it than Christianity?

          • bluedog

            You’re showing your age, Eustace. Sharon married Gary thirty years ago resulting in Dylan and Courtney. Tracy married Ray after an embarrassingly long ‘engagement’ (Ray couldn’t commit) with the result of little Britney and Tyler. Note also that Taylor has emerged as a bi-sexual alternative to those old favourites Leslie and Vivian.

          • sarky

            Actually teen pregnancies have halved!!!
            As for quantity over quality, we have plenty of quality, just look at the Olympic medal table. Not bad for a bunch of Sharons, Tracys, Garys and Rays.
            P.S. How did France do???

          • chefofsinners

            For an alleged foreigner you display a remarkable familiarity with the 1980s Viz cartoon strip ‘Fat Slags’. Plagiarise! Plagiarise! That’s why the good Lord made your eyes.

          • Eustace

            Half the blood that flows in my veins is as British as yours. Not the best or brightest half, granted. But even the smartest human shares at least 97% of its genome with a chimpanzee, so being 50% French is good enough. Every gene that counts is bleu-blanc-rouge.

            As a punishment for a misspent youth, I was exiled to my mother’s primitive and backwards land to complete my postgraduate studies. I think my parents thought that experiencing the true awfulness of British life as lived everywhere on that muddy isle except in a few oases of relative civilisation like my grandparents’ home would make me realise how lucky I was to be French.

            They were right.

            I therefore spent most of the latter half of the 1980s in British exile, and never did any bagnard suffer more. So there ain’t nuffin’ you can teach me ’bout the era of Fatcherism, mate. Been there, done that, escaped to tell the story.

          • chefofsinners

            Ah! The backstory deepens.
            Most of us had broken free from parental control by the time we were postgraduates.
            We share 90% of our genes with a cat and 60% with a fruit fly.
            My family came to England with William the Conqueror. The British are genetically indistinguishable from the French.

          • Eustace

            If the British were genetically indistinguishable from the French, they’d be significantly better looking than they are, don’t you think?

            My father’s family hails from the west bank of the Rhine. Yours, if indeed your ancestors really did “go over with the Conqueror”, comes from a point somewhat further to the north. A debatable and marshy area where Viking mixed with Slav to create a race of putty-coloured, soft-featured and inherently plain people perfectly adapted to life among the salt-marshes and tidal mud-flats.

            Like most major migrations, their shift southwards was probably caused by climate change. A series of high tides would have dislodged them from their northern sandbanks and sent them searching for another large and muddy estuary they could slop about in to their hearts’ content.

            They found what they were looking for in the lower reaches of the Seine valley, where they founded a milch-cow duchy much along the same lines as the Holstein they’d left behind. But the absence of the sea on one side and constant harrying by Frankish communities to the south, appalled at how the arrival of these web-footed mud-men from the sea had lowered the tone of the neighbourhood, meant they never really felt at home there. So as soon as the first opportunity presented itself, they upped sticks and fled north across the Channel to an environment much more suited to their way of life.

            That narrow island battered by constant rain, bounded by endless marshy and grey coastlines, with a damp interior consisting largely of knee-deep mud and oozy woods with a funny smell of acidic decay could have been made to measure for them. Tidal Holstein writ large.

            There they stayed and interbred with other bovine Holsteiners who’d preceded them a few centuries earlier. A little French and Celtic blood crept into the mix leading to the odd outbreak of character, intelligence and personal beauty among them (e.g. the Tudors and one or two other notable families), but mostly they just plodded stoically onwards, blending in with their muddy landscape and creating the England we know today. The marshwiggle kingdom that used to be ruled by a human family who always sought their brides from continental Europe in an attempt to keep the bloodline pure.

            I see that tradition has died. So don’t be surprised if little George grows up to be very tall, somewhat green and rather morose of outlook…

          • chefofsinners

            You are by far the most racist person who posts on this blog.

          • Eustace

            And you are by far the most humourless, which is saying something.

            But then it’s often the way. He whose entire “literary” output is comprised of little more than one quip after another habitually finds it difficult to see irony and parody in another’s words.

            There’s nowt as unfunny as a Christian comedian, eh?

          • chefofsinners

            I don’t really think you’re racist. I was being ironic.

        • Matt Arnold

          Swindon – tried it once. Discovered the Magic Roundabout by complete accident. Didn’t know what the heck was going on! Panic! Shut eyes and just went for it. Came out unscathed, though it was hair raising! Swore I’d never go there again.

      • Kain Hammer

        Not cool dude i live there

  • An interesting interview of a ‘gay’ Christian by Father Josiah Trenham:

  • veronicazundel

    I want to ask ‘Christian Voice’ at what point they decided to be heterosexual?

    • Martin

      You should rather ask why they try not to sin.

      • Mercy Judgement

        Do you consider their abusive tweet to be sinful?

        • Martin

          MJ

          Is it abusive?

    • Well go ahead and do so. Who’s stopping you?

      • tonycutty

        She could but they won’t answer 😉

    • Grumpyrocker

      Christian Voice is so heterosexual they believe that marital rape should be legal.

    • Matt Arnold

      You could also ask at what point Stephen Green decided to continually beat his heterosexually married wife and why he’s now divorced. Hardly a paragon of virtue who can cast stones at others for their sexuality when he himself has taken the sanctity of marriage and abused it, and his now ex-wife horrifically…

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351585/Stephen-Green-rails-immorality-voice-Christian-Britan-private-wife-beater-says-partner.html

    • D.M.S.

      They didn’t all humans are created heterosexual.
      Everything else is a choice.

      • Veronica Zundel

        So millions of people around the world ‘decided’ to have a sexual orientation that would get them excluded, persecuted and in many countries even killed? Where exactly is your evidence for this?

        • D.M.S.

          God/Jesus Christian scripture!

  • DanJ0

    Daley has been getting a lot of homophobic abuse on Facebook in the last day or so. The perils of being a celebrity and on social media, I suppose. Nevertheless, it’s not very edifying to watch.

    4 years of very hard work and it was all lost in a few minutes. That’s pretty tough going. At least the prelims showed that it was just a bad day and not a lack of talent. Hopefully he’ll stick with it for Tokyo.

    • Martin

      DanJ0

      Of course it is all very pointless hard work.

      • DanJ0

        Hardly. He could have got a gold medal for Team GB. On the basis of the prelims, he could have got a silver one. He won a bronze in the 10m synchro through some of that hard work. He also won the British and European 10m championships this year. But he desperately wanted to win an Olympic gold.

        • Martin

          DanJ0

          How exciting, wowee, yawn.

          • DanJ0

            Thanks for sharing.

        • Eustace

          Martin doesn’t like Tom
          Daley or any Olympic athlete because he thinks they draw attention from the sole object on which we should all be focused, which is Martin, as the physical manifestation of God on earth.

          We should all be worshipping Martin and hanging off his every word, not wasting time on frivolous sports that don’t glorify Martin in any way.

  • carl jacobs

    We’d love you more without the tattoos.

  • Kain Hammer

    The fact is jesus die for our sins. So long as Tom believe he will live without comdemnation and will not be condemned its in the bible and its part of the freedom in chirst course check it out you may all learn something

    • See where Calvinism leads: Once saved – always saved.

      Total depravity is the foundation. In Calvinism, the doctrine that God predetermined who will and will not be saved and the doctrine that man is not able to resist or exercise any choice in the matter, are necessary because of the total depravity. As man is completely incapable of choosing God, has no say at all, God must do everything for man. These views then inevitably lead to the doctrine of limited atonement, the view that Christ did not die for the sins of the world but only the sins of the “elect,” i.e. those predetermined by God to be saved.

      Remove total depravity from the picture and the whole structure of Calvinism collapses.

      • carl jacobs

        OSAS is Arminian doctrine. It has nothing to do with Calvinism.

        • Jack understood Armenian’s believe they can lose salvation by withdrawing their cooperation from God. Don’t the doctrines of Total Depravity, Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace mean God decides who to save? Those so chosen, once they enter a state of grace, will never leave it but will persevere to the end?

          • carl jacobs

            Perseverance is not OSAS.

          • Fair enough but doesn’t “once saved- always saved” and unconditional election and irresistible grace amount to the same thing?
            Our eternal fate is entirely in the hands of God regardless of any choice on our part. What’s the point of evangelising, sharing the Gospel or endeavouring to persuade others that their action is offensive to God? God causes some to do evil and others to do good. Those chosen by God will be saved regardless; those not so elected will continue to sin and be damned. Given total depravity, Linus, for example, is not morally responsible or culpable for any of his sinful actions because he cannot do otherwise.

          • carl jacobs

            Perseverance refers to a continuing act of God to insure the Elect do not fall away. Example. Men are saved by faith alone. Why do they persevere in the faith? Because Gd acts to make it so. That’s why Jesus can say that He will lose not even one of those He was given. God guarantees the result.

          • I know the logic, Carl, and it rests on total depravity. It still comes back to the same point. Our eternal fate is entirely in the hands of God regardless of any choice or cooperation on our part.

            Those elected by God will be saved regardless of any action or choice on their part. The way I see it, and Catholics are not obliged to adopt any position on predestination, is that God, who is Love, will hold out the offer salvation to all. He does sufficient to initiate saving grace in all of us and, in ways that are mysterious, He knows those who respond and continually bestows additional efficacious graces on them. He also knows those who will not and, whilst He will keep making the offer, there will come a point when He leaves them to their fate. He knows who is saved and who is damned because He is Transcendent. Scripture is written from His perspective, not ours.

            God is no less sovereign because man has to be willing to accept His offer of love and mercy. Salvation is His action alone, through these freely bestowed graces, we can take no credit – yet we do remain free to reject them and some do. When I read scripture this is the message I encounter.

          • chefofsinners

            That’s a pretty good summary.
            I see no need to break my mind trying to understand the mysteries of God. Faith begins with the acceptance that no-one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. If these doctrines are contradictory to the human mind, that is a sign of their divine origin.

          • Eustace

            “Jack understood Armenian’s…”

            Well this takes Jack’s incoherent gibbering to a whole new level, doesn’t it?

            The Armenian’s what? His church? The Armenian Catholic Church is in full communion with Rome, therefore your allegations of heresy against its members are gravely untrue.

            Orthodox citizens in that part of the Caucasus do not hold the beliefs you ascribe to Armenians either. Nor do secular Armenians, although some of them may worship an idol called Kim Kardashian.

            If you’re going to convince anyone that you’re a serious theologian rather than an armchair Wikipedia expert-cum-blowhard, you might want to check your spelling from time to time. If an American Protestant can be bovvered, why can’t you?

          • The Explorer

            Could just be that the spellchecker isn’t up to speed with theology.

          • chefofsinners

            Pissoir

          • Eustace

            Pissotière, you mean.

    • The Explorer

      The Book of James says “the devils believe, and tremble”. Belief , by itself, is not enough: it must result in changed behaviour.

      • Eustace

        If there is such a thing as a devil then logically it must believe. If devils are fallen angels, and angels do not reproduce and were all created by God in heaven, they must have first hand experience of their creator. Seeing is believing.

        Lucky angels. They get to base their decision whether or not to rebel on real evidence. We have to rely on rumour, dubious stories and hearsay.

        • The Explorer

          Yes. James’ point is that genuine faith, to be efficacious, will manifest itself in good works. The faith of the devils does not manifest itself in good works.

        • chefofsinners

          The evidence you have is eye witness testimony, fulfilled prophecy, creation, conscience and changed lives.
          Your privilege is to interpret the evidence and make up your own mind; to place your faith in God or in something else.

          • Eustace

            Where’s your “eye witness testimony” then? You mean the gospels? Second or even third hand accounts written at least a generation after the events they’re supposed to describe are not “eye witness testimony”. They certainly wouldn’t be accepted as such in a court of law.

            And “fulfilled prophecy”? So all I need to do to get a new religion off the ground is to plagiarise an old one and make a few of its random predictions come true, do I? Jewish legend spoke of a messiah, so let’s come up with a messiah and lo and behold! my religion must be true because it “fulfills a prophecy”!

            Creation? So the fact that I exist means that God must too? The only way I can exist is if God exists? There are no other possible explanations for my existence? I can think of several alternative explanations, one in particular having a lot of physical evidence to back it up, whereas there’s no physical evidence for God.

            Conscience? An instinct that evolved to help social animals live together and cooperate to increase their chances of survival is evidence of God? It looks more like an evolutionary adaptation to me.

            And then we come to the least convincing argument of all: changed lives. A Christian who says “I was unhappy and now I’m full of joy” is telling you what you want to hear. That’s evidence of nothing except your desire to believe.

            Your “evidence” doesn’t stand up to even the most basic level of scrutiny. And you have nothing better to offer?

            Like I said, there is no evidence for God. I would be ashamed to offer such weak and easily refutable arguments as justification for a belief.

          • chefofsinners

            So you’ve decided how you interpret the evidence and placed your faith in your interpretation.
            Why do you keep asking so many questions?

          • Eustace

            “…you’ve decided how you interpret the evidence and placed your faith in your interpretation.”

            As do you. You’ve decided how to interpret what you claim is evidence and placed your faith in your interpretation.

            The problem with that approach is that your “evidence” isn’t evidence. It’s merely a series of unsubstantiated claims.

            It’s important that this be pointed out to anyone who may be investigating Christianity or questioning their faith. Understanding that your religion is based on nothing more than a desire to believe may help to influence some to leave it behind, or at least start a train of thought that will lead in that direction.

            Were Christianity a neutral faith that didn’t condemn people for being who they are and seek to turn society and governments against them, I would simply ignore it. If people want to waste their time on fairy stories, it’s their own business. But Christians aren’t content to worship their imaginary God and let others live their own lives as they see fit. They seek to constrain, forbid and impose their morality on us all. The fewer Christians there are, the freer we’ll all be. I owe it to myself and my community to expose Christians for the bigots they are. On this site it’s easy.

      • Matt Arnold

        No wonder that well known Reformer, Luther called James a “book of straw” 😉

        • The Explorer

          Indeed. It seems to make the case for works. But if works are an out working of faith rather than a necessity of salvation, the difficulty is diminished.

          • Matt Arnold

            And what are those works? Do justice, love mercy (take note (non)Christian Voice) and walk humbly before your God.

          • The Explorer

            Rather more than that as I remember. “If your brother is naked etc.”

            This mercy issue. When Christ warned of Hell was he showing a lack of Christian mercy, mistaken or parody the of his time?

    • Mercy Judgement

      Whereas I would welcome him to become a believing brother, the U.K. Has freedom of religion. Therefore he should be free to be an atheist without receiving abuse (verbal or physical) from Christians.

      • Kain Hammer

        I Agree with you fully on this

    • Grumpyrocker

      That’s a lovely post. I can see the love of Jesus radiating out from it. I wonder why more people aren’t Christians.

    • pascal78

      So all you have to do is believe to be saved? That’s real protestant heresy. What about good works? What about seeking the true Church? What about prayer and fasting? What about trying to give up sodomy?

      • Matt Arnold

        Ah the “Protestant heresy” – so here we have the revelation of who this person is :). It appears Pascal78’s “true Church” is the one he belongs to and no protestant belongs to – the Roman Catholic Church. A but elitist aren’t you?. Nice work my friend, but you’ve got a shock coming when the “true Church” is revealed.

        As I know Kain , sodomy isn’t his particular thing, so for him to try to give it up is the same as me trying to give up flying by flapping my none existent wings.

  • Kain Hammer

    No wonder I have such a hard time at interfaith meetings. Try to get people to understand that christian are not biggiots and cruel vile people when I read comments like these of persecution and hatred. I am aware not all of you here are like that and I thank you for standing up for modern day christian values.
    To these with hatred and persecution of others in your harts you are alone god sees the evil in you and for that I pity you

    • The Explorer

      Are modern day Christian values different from those at the time of Christ? What is the authority for changing them?

      • Matt Arnold

        So do your women keep silent inchurchand wear head coverings?

        • The Explorer

          No. And we don’t wash one another’s feet, or ride donkeys.

          I saw a photo of a church in India built in Victorian gothic. Where does it say a church must be in gothic style? On the other hand, we are commanded to worship together.

          It’s a good point you make. It’s like putting the ceremonial law of the OT into abeyance while retained NT the moral law. How to apply Paul’s words about women is still a live issue: hence the controversy about female bishops in the C of E.

        • magnolia

          The actual word translates as “gossip” not “talk”. So women should not gossip in church. Nor should men but the letter was written first to a specific church, though the principals are more widely applicable. In that specific church women gossiping was a problem, presumably. In some churches it still is, and the principal still obtains. James is also stern on the “no gossip” stricture.

          Does the tweet disobey this. Well, yes. Have I ever? Well, yes. Do many of our churches. Again, yes. So am I a hypocrite to criticize Christian Voice. Yes, partly, but whoever said Christian practice was easy? We have to practice self-control, even of the tongue, and fail and retry…..and not go with every impulse!

    • What are these ‘modern day Christian values’, and who has the authority to decide that others should follow them? As far as Christians are concerned, God’s word is unchanging and His values are not based on popular opinion.

      It is safer for all of us to base our values on the word of God, and encourage others to do the same. Encouraging someone to follow his or her desires in contradiction to the word of God is not an act of love, because it could lead to the destruction of their soul

      • Matt Arnold

        Every value is based upon human interpretations of Scripture, which change throughout time. Remember that at one time the consensus was that it was a curse to keep ones “sword from bloodshed” (Jeremiah) and thus the Crusades happened. And don’t give me the BS that they weren’t real Christians. They were, following a particular interpretation of Scripture.

        This is why there are tens of thousands of denominations. All are Christian but have different interpretations.

        Sadly someone who says we should follow Scripture alone doesn’t often realise that they are themselves following an interpretation by humans called Sola Scriptura. Wesley was better in that he had the Wesley an quadrilateral, Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience. Unfortunately someChristianinterpretations don’t accept the transformed person has the ability to experience God, and their denomination is so young (or are non denominational) that they can’t balance their head knowledge based faith with real life experience.

        • 1. It is possible for Christians to have disagreements about certain bits of the scripture, for example, “will the rapture take before or after the tribulation?” Believing one thing or another, will not necessarily affect your salvation. In such cases it is best, I think, for Christians not to become too intransigent while presenting their individual points of view, but be willing to accept others who believe differently.

          2. Sexual immorality, on the other hand, has serious consequences for a person’s eternal destiny (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). There is no ambiguity in the Bible in this area, and prior to the 20th century, there were no disagreements among Christians about what was right or wrong.

          3. Tradition, Reason and Experience have their place in shaping Christian thought, but if anyone comes up with ideas, which contradict the Scripture, then, as Paul instructed, we should not receive them.

          4. Crusades – I will not comment on whether the Crusaders were true Christians or not, but it is doubtful that people who embarked on that venture had much knowledge of the scripture, given the literacy levels at the time. Very few people owned Bibles, and the Bible had not been translated into native languages.

          5. Jeremiah 48:10 was a prophetic word concerning the destruction of Moab, not a general principle for Christians to follow.

          • Matt Arnold

            1 agree
            2 disagree as a good amount of time spent researching sexuality and Christian history will tell you otherwise. Study to show yourself approved of God.
            3. Which “Scriptures” was Paul referring to when he wrote that verse (eg 2 Tim 3:16)? You see, all they had was the Hebrew old testament when he wrote that. Add in the confusion regarding which books were canonical at various times in church history and it’s not as clear cut as you say.

            4. So that gives them license to murder? If ignorance is an excuse, your argument is null and void regarding the sexuality of those who aren’t Christians.

            5. But don’t you see? That is your interpretation of it. The church at the time interpreted it differently and so the Crusades were Bible backed.

            We interpret Scripture according to the context in which it was written and the context we are in now.

          • “We interpret Scripture according to the context in which it was written and the context we are in now.”

            To interpret the scripture, you need to have knowledge of it, and my argument is that the Crusaders lacked knowledge. Today, we can read the Bible for ourselves.

          • Matt Arnold

            Rapture theology based on a single verse? Is any quality, systematically and rigorously determined theology based on a single verse? If so, then it’s not really very deep, and purely based on a subjective interpretation of it.

            Your argument for ignorance of Scriptures back then is false because those who chose to interpret the Scripture of Jeremiah knew Latin!!! That’s the whole point – the people of today don’t know how to interpret Scripture for themselves as been trained by Church to only accept the ministers word or that of book publishers and writers.

          • “those who chose to interpret the Scripture of Jeremiah knew Latin…”

            This proves the point that the soldiers who went to fight were ignorant and easily misguided by leaders who wilfully distorted the teachings of Christ. Today, we have no such excuse.

        • magnolia

          Christians follow Jesus. If he did not engage in bloodshed it is fairly clear, is it not? He is our pattern and guide. People who look behind this scrabbling around for other ideals are engaging in casuistry. It is not all as complex as you suggest for some of us.

          • Matt Arnold

            Christians follow interpretations from pastors and book writers.

            The issue here is: Was the tweet from (non) Christian Voice helpful, loving, pure, noble, righteous, or was it pure bile from a darkened heart towards another human being? I believe it was the latter and thus was not of Christ or a true Christian Voice. Being the latter, something pretending to be a Christian Voice when it isn’t should be avoided and shunned.

          • magnolia

            You ask me a very easy question! The tweet was all too typical of twitter, which does not bring out the best and nicest aspects in most people, I have noticed. Something to do with the brevity. A truly twittish tweet, which was just ungracious, without much mitigating factor for previous provocation (the gay poster boy bit presumably) had virtually no discernible relation to the less than perfect dive, which was still a whole load better than anyone here or at Christian Voice could achieve!

            I confess the diving doesn’t really greatly hold my attention. Prefer the tennis and equestrian stuff! And there we had some exciting gold medal winners!

      • Matthew Jaggard

        I assume you’re purposely misreading that. It seems fairly clear to me that Kain was talking about Christian values in a modern world – the article gave good examples of this from Jesus. There is no change in “modern Christian values” but some seem to have forgotten how to love sinners.

        • I agree that we should love sinners and indeed all of us are sinners saved through the sacrifice of Jesus. I consider it an act of love to explain to people – in gentleness and respect, but also without compromise – the Biblical perspective on moral issues.

        • The Explorer

          I disagree. ‘Modern-day Christian values’ suggests to me that these are different from Christian values in the past. The contributors Kain disagrees with are still locked into those old values and haven’t moved with the times.

          • Dreadnaught

            Christian values of the past included stoning to death for transgressions – you don’t do that now: the Muslim fundies however…

          • The Explorer

            Paul was stoned by angry Jews, and Stephen was stoned to death, again by Jews. Not aware of any stoning undertaken by Christians in the NT, or of any instructions under the New Covenant that we should so.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Many anti Christians equate the OT with the NT not understanding that Christians follow the NT.

    • pascal78

      The New Testament was written by Catholics for Catholics. Therefore it can only be interpreted in a Catholic sense. If you take excerpts out for your own interpretation as say the modern ‘Thought for the day’ liberal Christian then you can mould it to suit your own tastes.

      • Matt Arnold

        Ah, special knowledge which can only be understood by those “in the know” – sounds like gnostic heresy to me.

        And don’t forget that at every stage in history, those who disagreed with the consensus were always called liberal heretics :). Even Jesus was a heretic to the established status quo.

        • pascal78

          Wrong. Those who dissented from the true Church were called heretics and rightly so. The only special knowledge is there plain to see for everyone. It’s in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s not gnosticism. And remember except for invincible ignorance, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

          • Matt Arnold

            Wrong. You don’t understand Church history lol.
            Bunyan, Luther, Calvin, in fact were called heretics. Terry reading Foxes Book of Martyrs to learn more about the history of your faith.

            Speaking of “invincible ignorance” further, do you understand Missio Dei? I suggest you gen up on that too.

            Which denomination of Church do you belong to?

      • Elaine Ambrose

        And I thought it was written by Jewish and Greek Christians, in Greek, for the early church . . .

        • pascal78

          What’s your point?

  • pascal78

    “Turning gay does not seem to have done Tom Daley any favours” I see no conflict. Why should sin be rewarded? Many sinners enjoy the good things of this life. Some don’t. The homosexual lifestyle , propaganda and agenda should be criticized because it is hated by the author of life. Almighty God. That’s it.

    • Grumpyrocker

      Jesus criticises the attitude of folks like you a lot. He doesn’t mention being gay once. You have your priorities very wrong.

    • Grumpyrocker

      I can imagine your angry little face as you typed that. “I’m such a Christian” I bet you thought. No. No you’re not.

    • Elaine Ambrose

      I wish you people would stop referring to being gay as having a lifestyle. Lifestyle is about what shoes you choose, what wallpaper you hang, what restaurants you visit – lifestyle is about how much money is in your pocket, and has nothing to do with sexuality or sexual orientation.

      • pascal78

        No it’s not. Homosexuals do have a lifestyle and it is disordered. But many fight against the tendency and are happier for it.

    • What an Almighty Bigot. God must be really proud.

      • pascal78

        You should so respect when you talk of the things of God.

        • As respectful as Bible Bigots like you offer equal respect. Anyway I will pray for you.

      • Eustace

        Pascal78 is God. He must be. He’s casting stones.

        Take this opportunity to get it from the horse’s mouth and ask all those questions you always wanted to ask of God.

        Like why you owe him a lifetime of enforced abstinence.

        And why did he choose smug and heartless straights to inform you of his sentence without appeal or explanation?

        Of course don’t expect a straight answer. He rules by divine right and therefore probably won’t feel compelled to tell you anything.

        It’s called “divine mercy” you see, otherwise known as put up, shut up, or burn.

        Of course God’s game is ultimately self-defeating. Apparently, despite the torture he visits on you, he loves you passionately. So if you disobey him and are damned, he’ll suffer the eternal pain of knowing that the object of his passion is suffering eternally.

        Of course the downside for you is that you too will suffer for all eternity, but as you both know you won’t be able to obey his commandment anyway, and that you feel no guilt in disobedience, trying to obey would be a pointless exercise, wouldn’t it? Repentance is impossible when you know you’ve done nothing wrong. So your only possibility of reprieve – and God’s only possibility of enjoying your company for the rest of eternity – is closed to you. God created you specifically for damnation. Apparently he wants to weep for you for all eternity. Who knew his sadistic side was complemented by an equal helping of masochism?

        As you’re damned when you die and can’t repent because you know you’re doing nothing wrong, at least if you choose to live your life as you see fit, you may get a few years of happiness. Better than nothing, eh?

        But don’t waste time listening to me. God is here and for the first time since Job (or is it Moses – I’m hazy on the particulars of biblical patriarchs) is actually interacting with us! Seize the opportunity and ask away.

        His answers should be pretty interesting…

        • Our Father who aren’t in HEAVEN the Nightclub.

        • The Explorer

          If Christ is God, then He’s been interacting with humanity more recently than Job or Moses.

    • Eustace

      Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

      So now we’ve established that you are in fact God (because if you’re casting stones, you must be without sin, and only God is without sin), perhaps you could tell us why you hate us so much. It would only be fair considering the price you demand of us for the purchase of salvation.

      • pascal78

        Do I hate you? I don’t even know you. Do I hate sin? Yes I hate Isis when they decapitate children. I hate homosexuals when they commit sodomy. I hate the sin not the sinner. That’s it.

        • The Explorer

          You don’t know him? Keep it that way.

        • Matt Arnold

          But do you know every member of ISIS or every homosexual? You’ve just refuted your own statement that you hate sin and not sinners. Crazy. Hating homosexual people is hating people – full stop… If that’s the Jesus way, why should I follow it? If you say because I’ll go to hell,if your version of heaven is filled with people who hate others, is that not a hell in reality?

          It’s not what you say that people remember, it’s how you treat them. Look at the person of Jesus and how he dealt with those caught in adultery, cheating tax collectors, women of ill repute, unclean lepers, demon possessed – compassion. Then look at how he treated the self righteous, religious ones who were eager to condemn people.

          It’s not what you say, it’s how you treat people in words and deeds.

          And next time you look at someone lustfully (and you will if you’re not asexual), remember this conversation and how you are treated by God.

  • Grumpyrocker

    Stephen Green’s little hate mob really doesn’t deserve the oxygen of publicity. This wife beater and pro-rape campaigner should be consigned to the dustbin of 2000s bigotry.

    Lots of comments below are angry bigots that are very loud about their “Christianity” but ironically show us how little there is of it in them. Where’s the love? Not in you lot that’s for sure, preoccupied with small bits of the old testament. I bet you eat shellfish and wear mixed threads though.

  • michaelkx

    well I will put my penny worth in: 1/ God loves the sinner, but hates the sin that distorts his creation. 2/ you only have to read Psalms 73:

    • Elaine Ambrose

      That is merely your opinion and understanding . . . God says, “Your ways are not my ways and your thoughts are not my thoughts.” Do not presume to speak for God . . . That is classically taking his name in vain.

      • magnolia

        Quoi? Do you not see the contradictions within what you say?. Few would disagree theologically with michaelkx on what the texts say. Are you saying God does not love everyone? He is not presuming to speak for God but actually accurately representing it.

        • michaelkx

          that is the point

  • No wonder so much hate resides in the world when God has created such vile distortion of HIS words by people purporting to be Christian. All religions kills spirit not raises it, and comments here only prove this. No wonder churches are emptying, youth are fleeing such rubbish and bigotry lives on. God loves the sinner, not the sin, is such unintelligence, hurtful, and demeaning. I have had to put up with this abuse for 50 years since I came out in 1967 and let me tell you, I have received much more non-judgemental love from secular non-believers than those encased in church teachings.

    • sarky

      Us non believers tend to value people for who they are without our views being clouded by religious BS.

      • Peter Cooper

        Yeah, right.

        • sarky

          Don’t believe me??,

          Just read on.

          • Peter Cooper

            No. I disagree with your spurious claim that “us non believers” tend to value people for who they are. The rest of your sentence belittles the beliefs of others with a sweeping bigoted generalisation. You are “hoist on you on petard”.

          • sarky

            I can value you as a person whilst not agreeing with your beliefs.
            How is that any different from ‘love the sinner not the sin’?

          • Dreadnaught

            Always safer to make clear your comments represent no one other than yourself. It’s the simple realisation that the majority of ‘believers’ are incapable of original thought and argument because they rely so heavily on their acolytes and ancient texts.
            Len and Martin always speak as themselves albeit through their own interpretation of the words in the Book while others.

          • sarky

            Good point!!!!

          • len

            How about ‘Sarky alone says’ at the beginning of each comment?.
            Thereby not involving anyone else.

          • Dreadnaught

            Nnnnnnoooooooooo – One chuffin DoDo is enough per blog.

          • len

            LOL.

      • len

        You have no means to properly value people because you are spiritually blind…

        • sarky

          I’d rather value people on what I find in front of me, than on the say so of a bronze age book.

          • len

            Truth is timeless. What you value will all disappear like mist in the morning sun…

          • sarky

            What. Like, truth, honesty and friendship?

          • len

            You haven’t grasped the truth yet Sarky, all else follows from that

          • sarky

            I’ve grasped ‘your’ truth and let go quickly like you would with any other thorny harmful thing.

          • len

            Pity ,its your only hope sarky

          • sarky

            I thought that was obi wan?

          • len

            Not sure what you did there Sarky?

          • sarky

            Not a star wars fan then?

          • I wish you would Len . . . and take the Book of Judgement with you.

          • len

            LOL One day , but not yet….

    • len

      Of course the secular world loves you.

      ‘You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world
      means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend
      of the world becomes an enemy of God.’

      God loves us not for what we are but for what He can make us.

      It is not love to leave people IN their fallen condition.

      • LOL. What poppycock. *fallen condition”
        You couldn’t make it up!

        • len

          You seem to have created your own god?

          • Since you Len are representative of YOUR God, is it any wonder. GOD in your form is a comic book creation, a sky pixie, mine is more homo friendly, made in my own creation. Get back to the Ark and the liccle animals.

          • len

            Oh dear..Think we have been here before….
            Best leave you in your deception, the shock of the truth will obviously be too much for you.

            You’re not a friend of our pet troll ‘Eustace’ are you?.

          • Nope. No friends of those holding GOD HATES FAGS banners either Len. Have a rest, your arms must be aching holding it up for Jesus.

          • len

            You seem to equate Truth for Hate?.
            What an upside down world we live in?.

          • I think you better get back to BARGAIN HUNT len, your teas getting cold. Aint that the truth.

          • len

            What’s’ Bargain Hunt’?

          • sarky

            It’s that programme that’s on while you’re watching loose women.

          • len

            I think you are telling me your daily routine here sarky LOL.

    • Dawn Pieta

      I couldn’t say it any better myself, love in Christ from a Christian lesbian and proud of it! I went through so much shit (sorry there is no other word for it!) when I was young because of the MAN made church. God is love and He alone will judge. I still have a deep faith in God and not in MAN! 🙁 x

    • The Explorer

      Ask Him.

  • len

    We seem to have several problems emerging from this debate about Tom Daley and lines have been drawn and battle commenced.
    ‘God loves sinners’ is a misleading statement.IF God loves sinners why change?
    And what is a sinner? It is only by using Gods Word that sin can be defined.Man has no way to evaluate sin because the guidelines have become so blurred that there are ‘no absolutes’ in secular morality.In short ‘anything goes’ if enough people agree to it Paedophilia will one day be’ an acceptable practice’ if the moral downslide continues to its ‘logical conclusion’.
    Speaking Gods Truth has now become’ Hate Speech’ as Orwell predicted would happen one day.

    ‘Being Judgemental’ is a PC crime ‘ speech crime’
    Gods Word is the only’ anchor’ in this world where good has become’ bad’ and bad ‘good’ and Gods word becomes the only light in this fast darkening world.

    We should make sure we have not created a ‘god’ in our image to align with our fallen selves.

    • I am delighted to live my life *fallen* if standing up straight is like yours Len.

      • len

        Oh deary me, you will die in your sins then by your own admission…

        • sarky

          That’s ironic, because I call my bed ‘your sins’.

          • len

            Who you talking to sarky, not ‘swarmy’ I hope?

          • sarky

            Is that an attempt at a ‘gay’ joke Len?

            If so you’ve just shown yourself up more than I ever could.

          • len

            Joke ?.There are enough on this blog so I don`t have to make them?

        • Lovely! I can’t wait!

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      Well said. No question about it, we all need to get thoroughly screwed up about gay divers. If we don’t, then it must follow, as the night the day, that paedophilia will one day become an acceptable practice. None can fail to recognize the ineluctable logic of that.

      • len

        I think you missed it altogether (bit like Tom) this isn`t altogether about gay divers.

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          Point taken. All those who aren’t getting screwed up about gay people in general (not just divers) and their sexual relationships need to start doing so pretty sharpish. Otherwise ruin and desolation will ensue.

          • len

            I think awareness is the issue here.To stand back and see where civilization is heading?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Standing back and seeing where civilization is heading, I see no indication whatever that western European civilization is heading towards the acceptance of paedophile practices. Doubtless there is a small minority who argue that it should, and that is certainly not a new phenomenon, but there is no reason to believe that they will ever get their way. Normal gay people and their relationships have nothing to do with it.

          • len

            Once man decides what moral guidelines are acceptable to him(in his own opinion) anything, literally anything can become acceptable.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yes, well, we’re all free to make any alarmist but groundless predictions that we want.

          • len

            think you missed the point(again) but perhaps you do not want to see?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            See what? What have I missed?

          • The Explorer

            Three-chickens logic.

      • Onas

        “Ineluctable logic?” Are you suggesting there is no distinction between people in gay consensual relationships and people who sexual abuse vulnerable young people. Don’t make a virtue of what you are and a vice of what you are not. And actually talk to (and listen to) a gay Christian or two. You might learn something of God that you are currently missing.

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          I’m suggesting no such thing. I’m mocking Len’s suggestion that acceptance of normal consensual gay relationships, instead of getting screwed up about them, is going to pave the way to acceptance of paedophile practices.

          I am a gay Christian myself. Are you a foreigner by any chance? If so, you may find it difficult to understand Merseyside irony.

          • Onas

            Ha Ha! Sorry! Failed to pick up on your irony, The fact is a lot of people say things like that and actually mean it! I suppose I am a foreigner – I’m in Leeds – but more importantly new to this discussion. Please forgive me for misreading you.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            That’s OK. As some people used to say to me, “You’re from the right part of the country, but the wrong side of the Pennines.”

  • many a true word etc . . .

  • Jon Sorensen

    – Christian Voice thinks they are right about gays
    – Christian commentator thinks “Christian Voice is just plain wrong” about gays

    Look at this objectively one must think how can I verify who is right/wrong.
    And if the explanation goes to the Bible one must think how can I verify if the Bible is true.

    For example if the Bible says about gays
    “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death”

    How can I verify if that source is right/wrong?

    • len

      Pre Christ Law/ After Christ Grace…

      • Jon Sorensen

        Where can I check that your opinion is true? After all Jesus seem to have said that he did not came to change the law… not a jot or tittle or something…

        • len

          ‘For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.'(John1:17)

          • Jon Sorensen

            Where can I check that John opinion is true? He seem to have disagreed with Jesus

          • len

            Jesus did not condemn anyone…except the self righteous.
            Jesus came to give men the chance of salvation…Men at that time knew they were ‘sinners’ because of the culture at that time.
            Man today has no knowledge(or very little knowledge)of the concept of’ sin.’ So sin has to be made an issue as ‘a starting point’ to salvation.

            To say to someone today that they need to’ be saved ‘is to cause bewilderment in them.”Saved from what?” they will say.
            Then the whole Christian Foundation has to be re laid.(IF they are interested)
            The Creation / the fall of man/ the restoration of man through Christ’s atonement at Calvary etc.

          • Jon Sorensen

            How do I know this is true? Jesus seem have condemned more people than self righteous… like non-believers…

          • len

            Jesus told the Truth to non believers but He did not condemn them.

          • Matt Arnold

            Then precisely why is Christian Voice condemning Tom Daley? Especially when it appears that the man behind “Christian Voice” is a wife beater and divorced: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351585/Stephen-Green-rails-immorality-voice-Christian-Britan-private-wife-beater-says-partner.html

            Hardly a paragon of virtue who can throw stones at others, or point out the plank in people’s own eyes, when his attitude towards someone within his marriage was one which was not loving!

          • len

            Only perfect people can speak then?….

          • Jon Sorensen

            You should read the Bible. Jesus clearly told that non-believer will not go to heaven but downstairs.

          • chefofsinners

            Jon
            You keep asking how you can know Christianity is true.
            Christianity is a faith. You either choose to believe it or you choose to believe something else.
            Weigh the evidence and make up your own mind.

          • Jon Sorensen

            I’m asking how you or len decided that Christianity is true. Where do you ground your truth? It appears that you can’t even answer that, and the faith is just an excuse to believe in Christianity. Just as muslims use faith to believe in Allah…

    • The Explorer

      Good question. I suppose you can say that a culture that put those instructions into practice (Israel) triumphed over those who practised sacred sodomy (Canaanites).

      Just as a society that practises fertilisation of the soil and crop rotation will probably thrive better than one that relies on child sacrifice to ensure a good harvest.

      • Jon Sorensen

        “Just as a society that practises fertilisation of the soil and crop
        rotation will probably thrive better than one that relies on child
        sacrifice to ensure a good harvest.”

        I agree that working societies thrive better than one that that relies on [God’s] child [Jesus]
        sacrifice. But you did not answer my question

        • The Explorer

          Trial and error. Some things produce more successful societies than others.

          If I say your birthday is 4th July and you say it’s another date, why should your date for your birthday be more correct than mine?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Christians did not now Tlaloc, and claimed others practiced child
            sacrifice. Maybe just Christians bad mouthing others.

            You are still avoiding my question “How can I verify if that source is right/wrong?”

          • The Explorer

            My answer is my question about your birthday. Why should your date be right and mine be wrong? Think about it. From it flows the principle of divine revelation.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Birthday? irrelevant….

          • The Explorer

            Our dates are guesses. You are the one who can supply the correct information.

            Religions are guesses about God. Unless God supplies the correct information through revelation.

            How do we know it’s revelation, when Islam makes the same claim? That’s where the Incarnation comes in, which Islam doesn’t have, and the Resurrection. If that happened, we may have confidence in divine revelation.

          • Jon Sorensen

            So we don’t know if incarnations and resurrections have happened. I guess we can’t be confident which gods have given us revelations, and no way to ground religious “truths”

          • The Explorer

            Can we know any historical event?

          • Jon Sorensen

            Sure, but how would know if a historical event was a supernatural or just natural?

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      Use your own judgment.

      • Jon Sorensen

        How would a Christian know if his/her/ze judgment is correct?

        • len

          Using Gods Word,The Bible

          • Jon Sorensen

            How do I know that your opinion that the Bible is Gods Word is true? Muslims seem to disagree with you?

          • len

            Muslims have made up their own religion which is based on misquoted bible verses and Mohammed’s revelations . Not many people can understand the Koran.

            The Bible is not my opinion but Gods Word.How do I know it is Gods Word?. Because only God could have given the prophecies in the bible.The bible is a super- natural book relayed to Humans by a Spiritual Being who stands outside of Time with Divine Knowledge of events past present and future.

          • Matt Arnold

            But the Koran also makes those claims about supernatural revelation. Read up the history of Muhammed and how the Koran came about.

            There are other books “Channelled” by mediumship which come to humans from spiritual beings who make many claims.

            My point is that to rely on the internal referencing cuts not the mustard with arguing whether or not the Bible is what it claims to be. You do point to prophecies, but fail to elaborate on that – missing an opportunity which needs to be explored further for anyone to take your argument seriously.

          • len

            There is a gate and a path Christ and the Christian Journey..’.Pilgrims Progress illustrates this very well.
            Whether as person can be bothered to investigate Bible prophecy for themselves or needs to be spoon fed is an argument not worth having…

          • Jon Sorensen

            Christians (like Muslisms) have made up their own religion which is based on misquoted [OT] bible verses. So there is no difference.

            So it is your opinion that The Bible is not Len’s opinion but Gods Word. So how do you know that? Where do you ground the truth?

            “Because only God could have given the prophecies in the bible.”
            I doubt it. What is the best fulfilled prophecy you claim the Bible has?

            “The bible is a super- natural book relayed to Humans by a Spiritual
            Being who stands outside of Time with Divine Knowledge of events past
            present and future.”
            So why does bible have then historical error? Like Augustus’ census where people with permanent how who had to travel to census place? Clearly a big mistake from “Spiritual
            Being”.

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          That’s something that no-one can ever be sure of, since no-one is or ever was infallible. We just have to do the best we can.

          • Jon Sorensen

            So if you can’t be sure why did you pick Christianity, not Islam, Mithraism, Scientology etc? Did Christian parents/marketing make you do it?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yes, I was baptized and brought up as a Christian.

          • Jon Sorensen

            Once children are immersed and brainwashed in a religion i.e. Islam in an early age they rarely will/learn to exam their own religion critically….

  • len

    Does the God of Love also Hate?.
    If you truly’ Love’ then you must also’ hate'(shock horror Un P C alarm bells ringing)

    Psalm 5:5, “The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity,”
    It does not say God hates’ iniquity’ but those who’ do iniquity.’.
    Might seem a small point but it is a huge implication.

    To Love Good is to hate Evil.There is no middle ground. If we become Christian but retain our sinful nature and imagine God still smiles upon us we have created ‘a god’ in our own image.Jesus suffered incredible agonies to defeat sin (for us) and we must look upon sin as God does or we fool ourselves as to our true condition.

    As for ‘the lost’ the Gospel of salvation is available for all who seek salvation…

  • Dreadnaught

    I find it rather surprising that there has been no reference to the performance and gender/sexuality of Caster Semenya. According to some she is one of God’s creations, born with female genitalia with internal testes and a surfeit of testosterone but no ovaries and womb.
    Is anyone going to say She(?) made a ‘lifestyle’ choice to be born this way or will pass it off as a punishment for some misdemeanor committed by her parents?

    • len

      Undoubtedly there are those born with mixed male /female characteristics but this surely is a tiny minority?.

      • Dreadnaught

        Is there a biblical reference for this?

        • len

          Not sure?. Only One I can think off of the top of my head is eunuchs but this was castration.

          • Dreadnaught

            The bible mention some eunuchs born that way or others [priests] who opt for celibacy.
            Matthew 19:12, Jesus discusses eunuchs who were born as such, eunuchs who were made so by others, and eunuchs who choose to live as such for the kingdom of heaven. Clement of Alexandria wrote in his commentary on it that “some men, from their birth, have a natural sense of repulsion from a woman; and those who are naturally so constituted do well not to marry”

        • “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs who were made by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way because of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:12 HCSB)

          And let no eunuch complain,“I am only a dry tree.” For this is what the Lord says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant—to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever.” (Isaiah 56:3-5 NIV)

          • Dreadnaught

            Just posted the same reference which naturally begs the question God’s own image’ etc?: but not many here bother quoting this obvious contradiction while they figuratively speaking, throw homos of tall buildings (or diving boards over an empty pool) with impunity as they believe they have biblical backing for so doing.

          • The spirit of the eunuch is created in the image of God. God is Spirit. The physical or mental disabilities that people suffer from – as a result of the fall – does not change this fact.

          • Dreadnaught

            Now you moving the goal posts when I thought we were making progress.

          • To move goal posts is not my intention. Please explain what you mean.

          • Dreadnaught

            I don’t believe in the spirit or soul world.

          • len

            All Humans and animals have ‘souls’ which are mind will and emotions.
            Humans have spirits which are either alive or dead to God.

          • Dreadnaught

            I’m going to ‘stick’ at this juncture.

          • From the Christian perspective, we believe that God is spirit. We are created in His image as far as our spiritual attributes are concerned and so we were uniquely created to relate to God. The fall shattered this bond, and also produced all sorts of sicknesses and deformities. The sacrifice of Jesus made restoration of the relationship with God possible.

          • Dreadnaught

            The basis of this is in the OT and of this I am well aware but it fits into my concept that religion is designed by humans to control other human through fear largely for the benefit of the ‘ruling class’ of the time. That said, and after much revision it still forms the basis of Western culture which of now of tolerance of ‘the other’ which was completely absent in the times of the Levitican authors.
            I’m glad I live now and not then as even as a hetero, my views would have lead to my bloody demise long ago.
            I don’t understand why Christians still base their prejudices in the time frame of Moses [if he existed] and before.

          • HedgehogFive

            O extinct pigeon of Mauritius:

            I would surmise that those Daesh fellows don’t go for biblical backing. Rather, they regard the Bible as having been altered by the Jews and Christians, since it differs from the Quran in places.

          • There are many extinct birds from Mauritius:

            Dodo
            Blue Pigeon
            Broad-billed Parrot
            Grey Parrot
            Mascarene Coot
            Mauritian Duck
            Mauritius Owl
            Mascarene Swan
            Mauritius Night Heron
            Red Rail
            Bourbon Crested Starling

            Is Dreadnaught one? The Blue Pigeon is a fair and delicate species compared to his avatar.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Dodo is my favourite extinct bird:)

          • Jack has never met one but hears they are good fun.

          • Cressida de Nova

            You need to buy a bigger hat:)

    • Hermaphroditism is not the same as transgenderism or homosexuality.

      • Dreadnaught

        Thanks for that.

    • magnolia

      Caster Semenya is off topic. Unfortunate surname given the topic. I happen to think it is a salient one, but that is a personal view not a professionnal one. It IS very important for female athletes not to be competing against male athletes disguised, as testosterone gives an unfair advantage in female running!

      If it had been kept amateur there wouldn’t be these problems. Money causes all kinds of problems.

  • The Explorer

    When I was an atheist, I declined to praise homosexuality for purely pragmatic reasons. Gay sexual practices seemed to me risky, with male homosexuals on average having a lifespan twenty years or so shorter than that of their straight equivalents.

    If God’s rules are not arbitrary, but are based on our welfare, then that may be at least part of the reason for the biblical strictures on homosexual behaviour.

    I am asked sometimes why anal sex is okay for heteros, but not for gays. I’d say it isn’t safe for anybody, of either gender, and carries inherent risks absent from vaginal sex.

    • pascal78

      I hate this discussion of anal sex. It makes me want to vomit. It expresses a hatred of God. It is akin to to Isis beheading or crucifying a child. An act equally evil.

      • The Explorer

        I hate it myself, and I apologise for introducing it. But it needs to be done, or discussion simply focuses on love and beauty and complete equivalence of all sex acts.

        I don’t doubt, by the way, that love can exist between gays, but there are many forms of love that do not/should not find sexual expression.

        • pascal78

          Thank you for your comment. Actually sodomy is not the greater evil than heresy. Because as I just learned, St Thomas Aquinas states that sexual sins are against persons whereas heresy is a rejection of a truth revealed by God and is a direct attack on the Divine Person.
          God bless.

          • The acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equivalent to sex between a man and a woman, and the acceptance of gender theory, are heresies. Both reject God’s created order and design and replace it with man’s perverted ideas.

        • Matt Arnold

          But my friends who are a gay couple don’t indulge in anal sex because “it hurts!”. Not every gay person practises this, that’s a broad brushstroke statement.

          Conversely there are plenty of heterosexual couples who engage in it, and highly enjoy it. Is it wrong for them? Of course not. Practised safely, it’s highly enjoyable (so I’m told).

          • The Explorer

            Note, I didn’t say all. American statistics, however, suggest around 85%.

            The practice is increasing with hetero couples, as belief grows in the equivalence of all sexual acts. However, there is the risk of tearing the anal sphincter, anal prolapse, long-term incontinence etc. The list is long. Statistics for heteros will probably become clearer in the future. Still relatively early days.

          • Jack would say anal intercourse is morally wrong – man on man, man on woman, woman on woman (with a dildo) or woman (with a dildo) on man – as well as posing significant health risks.

          • pascal78

            Not just a health risk but more importantly a Moral risk.

          • pascal78

            It’s just the worship of sexual pleasure for its own selfish sake. That is not what God intends it to be. The attraction when un-perverted is designed for the procreation of the human race. The people created by heterosexual intercourse are desired by God to fill Heaven and to replace the fallen angels who are now in Hell. While they (the devils) wander around the world seeking to drag others with them down to Hell. They do it by getting us to sin.

      • James60498 .

        I too hate it. It makes me really nauseous.

        BUT. I have no doubt that it would have the very same effect on many of those who support “gay marriage” and think that it’s normal too. Surely men cannot think it’s fine for their sons to be doing this with other men.

        As disgusting as it is, perhaps talking about it is the way to wake some people up from their liberal induced coma.

        • Are same sex acts between women just as repulsive? Would we want our daughters to engage in these acts?

          • James60498 .

            For various reasons I don’t feel capable of answering this question.

            I was responding to comments on one specific act. I will have to leave an answer to your question to those who know more about the kinds of acts that may be involved.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Judging from this blog it appears that there is a male acceptance of lesbianism in that it does not have the same abhorrence factor as men sodomising men. As women count for so little amongst a lot of men I don’t think lesbianism would ever cross their minds….unless they arrived home unexpectedly and found the wife having sex with another woman. They seem to find this upsetting.

          • The Explorer

            Men (I’m talking unregenerate homme moyen sensuel rather than members of this blog, who are a-typical) who would be revolted by a two-men video are fine with a two-women video. A chance to see two naked women at the same time.

          • Jack isn’t sure. There is something universally abhorrent about male on male sodomy

          • Cressida de Nova

            It all depends on your reading list ,how many languages you speak and how many musical instruments you play. There is no interest in or time for perversion:)

          • Very wise words, Cressie.

  • Hi

    Well the actual specifics here are that it is almost certainly impossible to prove a correlation between someone being gay and success or failure in life. There’s too many other factors. Christians fail and have bad days as well don’t they?

    But as the thread has gone onto the wider topic of gayianity with the usual arguments I’ve read before , I don’t see the need to add, but I do not understand :

    1)the hate the sin love the sinner meme. How can you love , let alone like someone, if you see what they are or what they do is a wrong and a terrible sin? That is clearly an impossible thing to do.

    2). Also why do Christians seemingly focus about homosexuality , above anything else , especially when fellow Christians are being killed around the world. This topic seems to create a zealous passion I don’t detect in other topics discussed in the threads.

    • chefofsinners

      Hi Hannah
      Christians hate the sin in ourselves.
      We accept God’s definition of sin and try to influence society for what we believe to be good.
      This has often been used as an excuse by those who are just spiteful. Humans are weak. Forces of sexual attraction and repulsion are strong, so they often overwhelm and make bullies out of people who should know better. Christian doctrine has sometimes been warped to make homosexuals a special category of sinner, but we are all sinners.

      • Hi

        I’ve up voted this because you are providing the explanation and understanding of the Christian worldview, so thanks for that.

        Whilst not wanting to create a pointless argument , I have been told in the past I am demon possessed for being a lesbian by [charismatic] Christians. I’ve also had people on my blog posting YouTube videos of people who’ve apparently gone to hell in a near death experience, but comer back, with the suggestion that’s where my deceased family are. Okay if that’s Christianity that’s Christianity, I’d rather stick to my religion.

        By way of an explanation of my position, I cannot agree on the idea we should loath ourselves because of sin. Judaism does say that we can be good or bad . The emphasis is on “repairing the world” ( Tikkun olam), via practical engagement with the world and performance of the Mitzvot. Judaism calls people to teshuva (return to God ) which is our version of repentance , especially at Yom Kippur.

        • pascal78

          Christianity does not teach self loathing because of sin. That’s a protestant idea. The Catholic and true position is closer to your Jewish one. That’s it.
          God bless

          • Hi

            I think chef is a Methodist , hence the wig and hat . I am respecting his worldview as best I can. I’m attempting this with you too.

          • Uncle Brian

            I’m impressed, Hannah. You must have a very sharp eye for shades of theological subtlety. From an offhand remark he once posted on one of Mrs Proudie’s threads, the Chef or Chief is evidently not a Catholic. But a Methodist? How can you tell?

        • chefofsinners

          Charismatics talk a lot of crap. You are no more demon possessed than I am when tempted by sin.

          At Yom Kippur one goat died and one was set free. There is the importance of atoning for sin alongside God’s desire to free us from sin. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

    • The Explorer

      It may be because of the wider issues homosexuality raises, above all the separation of the sex act from procreation. Hence demographic decline.

      From that, the need for immigration because of the shortage of young people. From that, the problem of too many old people, and the number of Islamic immigrants and how that will change the culture in the future.

      Also the decline of marriage and the proliferation of single mums, with the implications for the welfare state.

      I think all these issues/fears hover in the background when homosexuality is discussed.

      • Hi Explorer

        The thing is to my mind lack of children and single mothers cannot be blamed on gay people. It is heterosexual couples who aren’t “bonking for Britain” (that could be a UKIP campaign poster).

        Russia- much beloved by some here- has the same problem. But unless it convinces heterosexuals to have sex without contraception , the population is still declining. Despite pointing fingers at gay people.

        Also I think some people here bristle with indignation when the subject of gay and lesbian couples having children is raised.

        So the issue of increasing the “ingenious” Anglo Saxon population does not seem quite right .

        In conclusion to my mind you are using gay people as a scapegoat for societal changes. But you should be telling heterosexual people to have more children.

        Indeed, gays, haven’t stopped any of my heterosexual family from having a family: 6 brothers and sisters and over a dozen plus nephews and nieces, with 3 on the way. They have fulfilled the commandment to have children (although technically under Jewish law you can’t stop until you have at least a boy and a girl).

        • The Explorer

          I’m not trying to scapegoat gays. Child-free hetero sex came first. That created tolerance for gay sex. That order.

          • Hi

            I was using the impersonal “you”there! As if I’d be nasty to my favourite explorer!

          • The Explorer

            Or me to one of my oldest internet friends.

            It is weird, though, isn’t it, how long a thread gets whenever gay sex is the topic?

    • pascal78

      Do you have children? If you do have they ever done something terribly wrong? You will hate what they did or are continuing to do but you will love them nonetheless. THAT’S what is meant by loving the sinner and hating the sin. Now do you understand the meme as you put it?
      2) Christians don’t focus on homosexuality only. But this is the topic of this current discussion.
      God bless.

      • Hi

        I don’t have children, as I am a lesbian, with a girlfriend, but I DO have a large family.

        I cannot see the analogy you make, TBH. How do you ascertain if someone has sinned? Is holding hands in public with a person of the same sex a sin? Or is it sexual activity in a bedroom? How do you know? Where you there with a camera?

        On point 2 , I’ve noticed that on “gay” topics there’s more commentary here than other threads . And that this arouses an almost primeval passion that I don’t see in other discussions.

        • pascal78

          Hi Hannah. First off what does TBH mean?
          I tried to explain the teaching of love the sinner and not the sin by the analogy of a parent with an erring child. You cannot see the analogy and I am sorry for you. You must be leading a very one dimensional life. Which is sad given your life giving and ancient heritage.
          God bless

          • len

            TBH. To Be Honest

          • pascal78

            Oh! Thanks for that Len. But are we not supposed to be honest anyway in all that we say?

          • len

            agreed…

          • Hi Pascal ,

            TBH : to be honest

            With the analogy , I think it’s the word “hate” which to my mind has a very strong connotation when used in the English language . Maybe it should be rendered “love the sinner, disapprove of that sin”. I’d understand that at least.

            As for leading a one dimensional life , I think you need to understand that [trying ] to be an observant Jew and being a lesbian doesn’t lead to a boring or unchallenged life.

          • We ought to hate sin – by this I mean all sin, not just sexual ones, whether it is a critical spirit or a tendency to gossip – especially when we find it in ourselves. Otherwise we will not be motivated to change.

      • Mercy Judgement

        Only a deeply abusive parent would tell their child, when they had failed to achieve a medal, that it was because of some other way their child had disappointed them.

        I think most parents would prefer a live gay child than a dead straight one.

        • Pascal gave the example of a child who had ‘done something terribly wrong’, not one who had failed to win a medal. There is a difference.

    • Uncle Brian

      Hello again, Hannah. I’d started typing a reply when the Chef’s comment suddenly appeared. He has answered your first point much more eloquently than I could. On your second point, I agree with you. I find it a bit odd myself that so many regular commenters here should have so much to say about it. It seems to rank right up there almost at the top of the medals table, losing by a whisker to Muslim terrorists (gold) and why only Calvinists are saved (silver).

      • Hi,

        Indeed. And we’re missing inspector. I’m surprised at his absence. This is a topic he usually gets stuck into.

        • Uncle Brian

          It’ll probably turn out that the Inspector’s been putting in a bit of overtime down at the Mouse and Wheel. Either that, or his computer has been sabotaged by the usual suspects. I hope it’s the former rather than the latter.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Well I think Tom Daley is a lovely boy regardless…

          • The Explorer

            They probably got his computer as soon as they saw this topic come up.

    • Mercy Judgement

      1- because this isn’t actually Christian. The Christian version is “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”. No sign of that from Stephen Green.

      2- because it is something that doesn’t impact most Christians so it doesn’t cost them anything to condemn it.

  • Jill

    Stephen Green is in effect quite correct. What he shouldn’t have done is tweeted this on behalf of Christian Voice, nor in response to Tom Daley’s disappointment, which is distinctly unChristian.

    ‘Turning gay’ does nobody any good. Once one has got over the lie that some people are ‘born that way’ the sexual behaviour puts them at tremendous risk, both mentally and physically.

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      We don’t in fact know whether either gay or straight people were “born that way”. There are any number of theories about the cause(s) of sexual orientation, but none of them have been proved. People are free to adopt any theory that appeals to them, but no-one actually KNOWS. What we do know is that people do not choose their sexuality, and that deliberate attempts to alter it (e.g. through “ex-gay ministry” or “conversion therapy”) are very seldom if ever successful. As for “turning gay”, I wonder how one does that.

      • Jill

        Dear Gugli – I’ve missed you! How are you?

        I know all that, as you well know, but in this particular case Tom Daley wasn’t going to be labelled either straight or gay, because he didn’t really know, but he got sucked into the life by gay enthusiasts which is dangerously addictive.

        As for the ex-gay ministries, many have had a good success rate. Withdrawal from any addiction is never easy.

        • Hi

          I understand that things such as exodus international closed down and admitted it had a failed.

          • Jill

            Yes, sadly after four decades Alan Chambers fell off the wagon and returned to his former gay life. That doesn’t mean that all others will do the same. There are other Christian ministries which offer help to strugglers.

          • Hi

            My understanding is that exodus stopped because they admitted they couldn’t revert or more accurately convert , gay people into straight and it had been a massive failure. This can be seen that from trying to” pray away the gay ” to accepting gay people exit , but suggesting they be celibate.

          • Jill

            Perhaps this will help you, Hannah.
            http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/39991-6-lessons-from-the-collapse-of-exodus-international

            There is nothing wrong with celibacy. It’s a lot safer than gay sex.

          • Hi

            unfortunately the link said something like” subscribe now for $1 “. I see the link is charisma news. On the assumption this is something to do with charismatic Christianity, I would ignore this info anyways.

          • Jill

            How very odd. I have certainly never paid a dollar, or any other sum of money, nor would I, and when I clicked the link the article came up straight away. Here is the link again, just in case:

            http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/39991-6-lessons-from-the-collapse-of-exodus-international

          • Hi

            I realised it was trying to get me to subscribe and support them for a dollar. I happily clicked the “no thanks” button.

            The author of that article, Michael Brown, is a messianic Jew. So I don’t agree with him about Jesus and I don’t agree with him about gays either.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            You are right. See my reply to Jill on this point.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            You ought to get your facts straight, Jill. Alan Chambers did not fall off the wagon and return to his former gay life. He remains married to his wife Leslie, and has been faithful to her. What he did was to confess that he had been misleading the world by pretending that his sexual orientation had changed from homosexual to heterosexual and by holding up his marriage as proof of that. He has also confessed that, despite his former claim to be one of “tens of thousands” of people who had changed in this way, he doesn’t know anyone who has. That is in line with the admission of John Smid, who directed Love In Action (Exodus’s oldest and largest affiliate) for nearly 22 years and was on the board of Exodus for 11 years, that during all that time he never found a single homosexual man who became heterosexual, although some shoe-horned themselves into orientation-discordant marriages, as both he and Chambers had.

            Such confessions and recantations by leaders of the “ex-gay” movement are not a new phenomenon: they have been a regular occurrence throughout its history. I have discovered more than 40 such cases, spanning its now more than four decades of existence, and beginning with three of Exodus’s original founders. One of them, Michael Bussee, is credited with inventing the term “ex-gay”; he wishes that he could go back and un-invent it.

          • Jill

            Oops, I beg his pardon, I’m sure. I can’t claim to have your colossal memory, Gugli, and it’s a while ago now. It doesn’t alter the fact, though, that many, many people have changed and cast off the burden of homosexuality, whether to remain celibate or go on to marry. Indeed, it often happens without any therapy at all. The Atlantis report is a very useful read in this respect.

            It would be very difficult to quantify this phenomenon as often they are reluctant to ‘come out’ for fear of a backlash from the gay community or because they don’t want their children bullied, etc etc. and there is the longer term element of further changes in the future, which is always a possibility. I have heard numerous testimonies myself to this effect. I have also read accounts of people brought up by same-sex parents and the disastrous effect this had on their lives. (My very first boyfriend had been brought up by two maiden aunts, and goodness me, he – and they- never stopped fussing around me. He had to go!)

            So for every Alan Chambers there are plenty who tell the opposite story.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Jill, it seems that there are some convincing cases of people’s sexual orientation changing spontaneously from homosexual to heterosexual (and vice versa), but for males, at any rate, they are the exception, not the rule, and the evidence that change of that kind can be deliberately engineered, e.g. by “ex-gay ministry” or “reparative therapy”, is very poor. For anyone hoping for it to happen to them, the most realistic expectation is disappointment; they might as well wait for all their lottery numbers to come up. Homosexual people can decide to go celibate, just as heterosexual people can. They can also shoe-horn themselves into heterosexual relationships, just heterosexual people can shoe-horn themselves into a homosexual relationships. (I see no good reason in either case why they should, and I consider it immoral to try to pressure them in any way into doing so.) To misrepresent such changes of “lifestyle” as changes in sexuality is misleading and dishonest.

            When the late Dr Robert Spitzer tried to find cases of people whose sexual orientation had changed from homosexual to heterosexual through religious or secular “ex-gay” programs, it took him the best part of two years – with the full co-operation of providers of such “therapy”, be it noted – to find just 200 cases which were prima facie sufficiently convincing to merit further examination, and finally concluded that 120 of those cases stood up to investigation. For a country the size of America, with a gay adult population of at least 2.1 million (if we make the extremely parsimonious estimate that only 1% of people are homosexual) that number, after such a long search, is minuscule, which rightly led Spitzer to conclude that such change is very rare. (I am here leaving completely out of account both all criticisms of his methodology and his later retractation of his original, very modest conclusion.) And that unconvincing old chestnut about “ex-gays” being afraid to “come out” won’t do here: Spitzer was an accredited psychiatrist, so subjects had the protection of professional confidentiality.

            I am amused by your comment “So for every Alan Chambers there are plenty who tell the opposite story.” Ten years ago I would doubtless have been told that for every Michael Bussee, Gary Cooper, Jim Kaspar, Jeremy Marks, Jeff Ford, Rick Notch, Bruce Grimsley etc. (the list could go on) there were plenty who told the opposite story, and the names of Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas, John Smid, John Paulk and Tim Rymel would have been thrown at me. Now they have switched and are telling the same story. As Dr Ralph Blair of Evangelicals Concerned rightly said, “The ‘ex-gay’ movement has been the movement of a revolving door.”

          • Jill

            Yes, yes, I dare say, but none of this alters the fact that sexuality is fluid, it is not fixed, and if people genuinely want change they should have the opportunity to do so. Spitzer eventually caved in because of battle fatigue, I believe.

            I doubt if this report will find its way into the mainstream media, as there are too many vested interests. But the truth has a sneaky habit of eventually getting out, and I sincerely hope that the current popularity of homosexual behaviour, with its attendant astronomic rise in various ills, will fizzle out and people like Tom will no longer be trapped into a box labelled ‘gay’ and unable to escape.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            SOME people’s sexuality is fluid, no doubt – I don’t dispute that – but most men’s, at any rate, clearly is not, and there is no known means of making it fluid if it isn’t. ADULTS must be allowed, if they wish, to dabble in the “ex-gay” myth. I would strongly advise them against it, and would warn them of the probability that, like others before them, they will sooner or later come bitterly to regret wasting years of their lives on a demoralizing wild-goose chase – but as Sir Oliver Lodge wrote more than a century ago, “The essence of manhood is to be free – for better for worse, free.”

            Spitzer “caved in”, as you put it, because he realised that his study didn’t really prove what he had originally claimed that it did. He was already voicing doubts in 2006, three years after it was published. By the time that he issued his retractation (April 2012), Alan Chambers had publicly estimated the failure rate of “sexual orientation change efforts” as something around “99.9%” (a percentage which he has since revised to 99.9 recurring); and John Smid, who had run Exodus’s largest and oldest-established affiliated ministry for nearly 22 years, had confessed that he was still as homosexual as ever (although he had for years been proclaiming otherwise) and that he had never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual. Such developments would give any honest person pause, especially since we know that a large proportion of the subjects in Spitzer’s study came from Exodus ministries, and that Chambers himself had been one them. Spitzer himself was, of course, prevented by professional confidentiality from naming his subjects or from discussing what any identifiable individual had told him, and this would have put him in a difficult position when it came to discussing his reasons for retracting.

            But as I have already pointed out, even if we prescind from Spitzer’s later retractation, the length of time that it took him to find his minuscule number of “successful” subjects was sufficient to show that change of sexual orientation, if it occurred, was a very rare phenomenon, as he admitted all along.

            Tom Daley is no more trapped in a box labelled “gay” than you are trapped in a box labelled “straight”. That is just silliness. If he were to decide that he had got things wrong and that he didn’t after all want to be in a gay relationship, he would be as free to change his so-called “lifestyle” as you are to change yours.

            There haven’t been many critiques yet of the New Atlantis report, but this one is worth reading. I am sure that there will be more in due course.

            http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2016/08/23/the-new-atlantis-study-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-thats-not-a-study/

          • Jill

            The link didn’t work, but I have already seen Throckmorton’s response and didn’t think much of it. He seems to think that because therapy is not successful for everybody then it shouldn’t be offered to anybody. Should this then be applied across the board?

            Theologian Ian Paul has a much better review.

            http://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/what-does-science-say-about-sexuality/

            You have to laugh at some of these people who say homosexual urges cannot be changed, or at least diminished, They are often the same people who think that it is perfectly okay to spend valuable NHS resources on mutilating the bodies of people who think they are transgender, which nearly always doesn’t work. The problem is in the head, not the body.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, I’m sorry about the link not working. I’ve just tested it and it worked perfectly for me.

            The point here is not just that this “therapy” for a non-illness is not successful for everybody, but that the evidence that it is successful for ANYBODY is extremely poor. We can’t prove that it NEVER works for anybody, but the same can be said of Christian Science healing, spirit healing, psychic surgery, pyramid therapy, crystal healing, astrotherapy, the Bates system (“better sight without glasses”), short-wave therapy, and just about any other form of quackery that you care to name. But as I’ve said, adults who wish to dabble in it must have the freedom to do so, at their own risk. I wouldn’t hesitate to warn them that they’re wasting their time – and in many instances that means wasting what should be the best years of their lives – but it’s up to them.

            As for gender reassignment surgery, I am strongly disposed to agree with you about it. It certainly doesn’t change people’s biological sex, just as “ex-gay” programs don’t change people’s sexual orientation. Some years ago the late Hungarian-American psychiatrist Thomas S. Szasz said on television that he couldn’t see that turning men into fake women or women into fake men was a solution to anything. I thought then that he was probably right, and I still do. I have long avoided using the term “LGBT” because I can’t see why the T has been tacked on: it belongs in quite a different category. Trying to reject one’s biological sex is far more comparable to trying to reject one’s sexual orientation. “XGT” (“ex-gay and transgender”) would, in my view, be a far more appropriate initialism.

          • D.M.S.

            Well mr I don’t know what lgbtpnb is I’ll enlighten you liar.
            L= lesbian
            G= gay
            B= bisexual
            T= transgender
            P= pedophelia
            N= necrophillia
            B= beastiality
            They are all considered sexual orientation in today’s society.
            In Christian society they are all a mental illness.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Thank you for that. Considered by whom? Let me give you an equally arbitrary catalogue:

            L= lesbian
            G= gay
            B= bisexual
            T= transgender
            P= pedophelia [sic – paedophilia?]
            N= necrophillia
            B= beastiality [sic – bestiality?]
            H= heterosexual

            lgbtpnbh, for short.

          • D.M.S.

            Being a heterosexual is NOT a mental illness.
            Being a heterosexual is being a normal human being.
            Being a practicing lgbtpnb is being mentally ill.
            Considered by whom?
            Answer: Most of the world.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I agree that being heterosexual is not a mental illness. Being homosexual is likewise not a mental illness. That is why neither belongs in your little catalogue.

            Being homosexual is being a normal human being, one of a normal minority.

            Being a practising “lgbtpnb”, or even a practising “lgbtpnbh”, sounds to me a most unlikely phenomenon. If there is such a mental illness, I have never knowingly met anyone who suffers from it. I suggest that it exists only in your imagination.

          • D.M.S.

            God/Jesus states that when a man has sexual relations with another mane like he would with a woman it’s an abomination unto God/Jesus.
            And God/Jesus has given them over to a reprobate mind.
            The only sexual relation that God/Jesus mentions and approves is one woman only married to one man only.
            All other sexual relations are a sin.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            You are free to believe that if you wish.

          • D.M.S.

            Then I can only come to the conclusion that you are not a Christian. You have chosen your own path of destruction.
            Take care.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Come to any conclusion that you please.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            P.S. By the way, Jill, I am certainly not one of those people who say that homosexual urges cannot be changed, or at least diminished. Serious depression can greatly diminish homosexual urges, as it can heterosexual urges, and both can, I believe, be at least temporarily eliminated by “chemical castration”. And there is one sure way of permanently eliminating either homosexual or heterosexual urges: remove a person’s brain. Success guaranteed.

          • Jill

            Well, I suppose the full frontal lobotomy is one approach …

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          Jill, if a 19-year-old – and that was Tom Daley’s age when the issue arose – starts a consensual heterosexual love affair with someone, we don’t hear people suggesting, no matter whether or not they think the match a suitable one, that they got “sucked into the life” by “straight enthusiasts”. It isn’t any more reasonable to say a similar thing about a 19-year-old who starts a consensual homosexual love affair.

          I agree with you that withdrawal from any addiction is never easy, but that is as irrelevant to being gay as it is to being straight, since neither can properly be called an addiction.

          You have made the claim before about many “ex-gay” ministries having a good success rate. I asked you what that success rate actually was and where the information was available, so that others might verify it for themselves if they so wished. You didn’t tell me.

          I also asked what, in your opinion, would constitute success in this context. I realised that it might not be entirely fair or reasonable to expect you to produce off the cuff a definition which included everything that you meant to say, while ruling out any unintended implications. So I gave you a very specific and precise scenario: that of someone who has completely ceased to engage in homosexual behaviour of any kind, but whose sexual attractions and desires continue to be just as “same-sex” as they ever were; and I asked whether, by your criteria, that would count as success. That, at any rate, was a very straightforward and uncomplicated question, easily answerable with a simple “Yes” or “No”. Your reply to it was:

          “How can one define success? How long is a piece of string?”

          In the light of the above, any assertion of yours about the alleged success rate of “ex-gay” ministries is, as near as makes no difference, quite meaningless.

          • Jill

            Your memory never fails to astonish me, Gugli. I have no recollection of that particular conversation, although it sounds like something I would have said, and I stand by it, having heard many testimonies to that effect.

            As for what criteria I would count as success, it is far from straightforward. I am no shrink, and could not possibly assess how hard or easy it is for people to recover from addictions.

            What annoyed me about Tom Daley was the way he was pounced upon as a poster boy for the gay lobby when he was far from knowing his own mind, and got sucked in. Do read the new report just out, especially the part which concerns me, ‘Compared to the general population, non-heterosexual and transgender subpopulations have higher rates of mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, and suicide, as well as behavioral and social problems such as substance abuse and intimate partner violence.’ http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016

            Why is that perceived to be a good thing? I don’t get it.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            So, Jill, you still cannot tell us where you got your alleged information about the success rate, or what, by your criteria, success in this context means, which renders any claim of yours about the success rate meaningless for all practical purposes. Since homosexuality is not an addiction any more than heterosexuality is, your talk of recovery from addiction is here a complete irrelevancy.

            I have not yet had time to do more than very rapidly peruse the report to which you refer, but I would draw your attention to the following passage in its conclusion:

            “While non-heterosexual and transgender individuals are often subject to social stressors and discrimination, science has not shown that these factors alone account for the entirety, or even a majority, of the health disparity between non-heterosexual and transgender subpopulations and the general population. There is a need for extensive research in this area to test the social stress hypothesis and other potential explanations for the health disparities, and to help identify ways of addressing the health concerns present in these subpopulations.”

            So the authors do not claim to have definitively demonstrated that the social stress hypothesis is either true or false. By the way, I am suspicious of any report in which “non-heterosexual AND transgender individuals” are combined, since despite the popularity of the initialism “LGBT” (which I have long avoided using myself), homosexuality and transgender – although there is a small degree of overlap between them, as between heterosexuality and transgender – are in themselves two very different phenomena.

            I would add that I don’t know of any systematic study of the health of people who have squandered years or even decades of their lives vainly striving to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual; who have spent their lives unattached, not of their own free choice, but because they have been terrorized by abusive anti-gay religious doctrine; or of those who have spent their lives pretending both to themselves and to others that they are heterosexual, and have shoe-horned themselves into orientation-discordant marriages with people of the other sex. Nor am I aware of any systematic study of the health of their heterosexual spouses, who have been trapped in these counterfeit marriages and have thus been deprived of the genuine heterosexual relationships that they should have had.

          • Jill

            I don’t want to be drawn into lots of red herring discussions, but I do wonder if Tom Daley had been a serial womaniser instead of declaring himself as gay, and Stephen Green had declared that his womanising hadn’t done him any good, anybody would have even bothered to challenge him.

            Who knows what caused poor Tom’s poor performance. He may have some inner turmoil, he may not. Some sufferers are spurred on to greater things by it and some are pulled down. We simply don’t know what is the case here.

            What is known, however, is that gays are many, many times more promiscuous, which in itself doesn’t bring happiness and contentment. We also know that tormented minds will often give rise to brilliant people. So really, Stephen Green’s remarks can neither be proved or disproved.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I can’t claim to know the answer to that question, but I find the apparent implication that being a serial womanizer is the heterosexual equivalent of declaring oneself gay extremely odd.

            I am, of course, aware of the amount of promiscuity on the gay scene (and also of the amount of promiscuity among unattached straight people, especially men), and I agree that that doesn’t bring happiness or contentment. But no-one has a right to assume that anyone who declares himself gay must be promiscuous: there are plenty of gays who aren’t.

      • “As for “turning gay”, I wonder how one does that.”

        By acting on same sex desire wherever it comes from or however it is formed. If we understand the term “gay” as indicating an acceptance of the desire as normal and morally acceptable, then one can “turn gay” as opposed to resisting the urge to act on the desire.

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          Ah, so you are making a distinction between being homosexual, meaning simply being attracted to people of the same sex, and being gay. You are not the first to have done that, and a good case can be made for it. The American psychologist George Weinberg suggested that to be gay was not just to be homosexual but “to view one’s sexuality as the healthy heterosexual views his.” Certainly I can think of some homosexual people to whom I would find it difficult to apply such a positive-sounding word.

          Using the phrase in that narrow sense, I would unreservedly recommend homosexual people to “turn gay”, rather than to waste away their lives pining and fretting because they are not heterosexual, or to try to shoe-horn themselves into a heterosexual “lifestyle”. But adults must be free to make their own decisions, including ill-advised ones.

          • And if that person considered acting on the desire contrary to God’s will and resisting the temptation a cross they must patiently bear, what then?
            Jack wouldn’t recommend a live of pinning or fretting either, nor attempting to express desire for a person of the opposite sex if they just do not feel this. That would be dishonest. However, there are other options.
            Why recommend opposing God?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            If a homosexual person considers that forming a gay relationship is contrary to God’s will and that resisting the “temptation” to do so is a cross which they must patiently bear, that is up to them. I do not subscribe to that belief and would not encourage anyone else to do so.

          • Yet “Gay Pride” and “Equal Marriage” is all about promoting acting on same sex attraction as normal and healthy – and often before a true sense of sexuality has emerged. This positive message to young people facing the confusions of puberty is unhelpful. Isn’t promoting abstinence in young people the better path – whether it be same sex or opposite sex?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I certainly wouldn’t encourage young people, whatever they thought their sexuality to be, to engage in premature sexual experiences. But nor would I encourage them to adopt a negative attitude to either heterosexuality or homosexuality, or tell them that if they turned out to have a homosexual orientation, they were morally obliged to lead a life of perpetual sexual abstinence whether they liked it or not.

          • But would you want to teach them about same sex acts and give out the message that these are equivalent to sex between a man and a woman? What morality would you seek to impart about human sexual relationships?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I wouldn’t even discuss with them the question of whether homosexual acts are “equivalent to” heterosexual acts, since that is pointless. It’s no more meaningful in any useful sense than discussing whether my clothes or my job are “equivalent to” anyone else’s. I certainly think that accurate information on same sex acts should be made available to teenagers; anyone who thinks that if it’s denied them they won’t contrive to get it anyway, or that withholding it will prevent anyone from growing up homosexual who would otherwise have done so, is living in some fantasy world.

            As far as I am concerned, committed sexual relationships congruent with their sexuality are as much to be encouraged for homosexual people as for heterosexual people.

          • Then Jack wouldn’t want you teaching children. Without a clear moral framework, placing sex within a marriage between a man and a woman, for the purposes of love to sustain them while they procreate and stay together in a partnership to raise children, all sex amounts to is consenting adults taking and giving pleasure to one another. Separate sex from its purpose and moral chaos ensues.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            That is not a view to which I subscribe.

          • Jack acknowledges and accepts that.

          • The Explorer

            Back in the palmy days of industrial disputes, the Clegg Commision etc, equivalences between one occupation and another in order to determine pay levels were very much the order of the day.

            Equivalence was sought between gay marriage and hetero marriage. That’s why annulment on the basis of non-consummation (non-penetration) had to be dropped. There was an issue of what constituted non-penetration between two women and two men. Since it could not be resolved, conventional marriage terms had to modified to ensure equivalence.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I am an unequivocal supporter of committed gay relationships and therefore of the civil partnerships legislation. I am not a supporter of gay marriage: I regard gay relationships as perfectly good in their own right, so I consider the attempt to “validate” them by making them into an imitation of straight ones to be both unnecessary and misconceived.

          • The Explorer

            Good answer. However, the rage for equivalence exists. Egalitarianism makes it inevitable.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Only if people are so dim as to think that equality must mean uniformity (or apparent uniformity).

          • The Explorer

            People are so dim. Trust me.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            That’s what I’m afraid of.

          • dannybhoy

            But homosexuality and by products are condemned in the Scriptures, because God ordained heterosexuality in order that we might go forth and multiply.
            Lovers of their own sex cannot multiply. So it’s really a dead end. Now if the issue was how one became a homosexual it would be a different discussion. I don’t condemn a person because they are homosexual, but I can’t condone it either.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Certainly the few biblical writers who mention homosexuality, or to be more precise homosexual behaviour, do seem to condemn it. We are not obliged to agree with them. I don’t.

            No, you are right, gay relationships can’t result in reproduction. (Thank you for telling us that, just in case we didn’t realise it.) That doesn’t mean that they are a dead end; it just means that reproduction, unlike the case with heterosexual relationships, isn’t one of their functions. You appear to assume that sexual love is simply a means to an end, a kind of ruse to ensure reproduction, and can have no meaning or value apart from that. Nothing requires me to believe that, so I don’t.

            How one becomes a homosexual would indeed be a different discussion, and quite as fascinating for the scientifically curious as how one becomes a heterosexual. But no matter what anyone may believe, theorize, surmise or feel inclined to think, no-one actually knows the answer to either question. I am glad to hear that you don’t condemn a person because they are homosexual, but can’t condone it either. Likewise, I don’t condemn a person because they are heterosexual, but I can’t condone it either. That is because, in the latter case as in the former, there is nothing either to condemn or to condone.

          • dannybhoy

            “(Thank you for telling us that, just in case we didn’t realise it.) ”
            :0)

            “You appear to assume that sexual love is simply a means to an end, a kind of ruse to ensure reproduction, and can have no meaning or value apart from that.”

            I don’t assume that, but sexual attraction between heterosexuals normally leads to pregnancy, unless man or nature interferes. In the best outcomes a man and woman fall in love not just for sexual reasons but emotionally and intellectually too. As they grow older together the physical side wanes and the appreciation and love for each other, as people deepens.
            I didn’t say that two people of the same sex can’t love each other, because I know it happens. My life is ordered by my faith and belief that Creation is true, and therefore God’s order is clear. We know that He did not create a third sex, but we also know that homosexuality has existed for a long long time.
            As for condemning or condoning, a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim has to accept the teachings of their faith, and in all three cases heterosexuality is God’s way, homosexuality is not.
            Christians and Jews condemn homosexuality because their faith condemns it, but we don’t reject the homosexual, only the behaviour.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Thank you for your reply.

            “We know that He did not create a third sex, but we also know that homosexuality has existed for a long long time.”

            Although I fully agree with both the clauses of that sentence, I can’t see any logical connection between them. It really doesn’t make any more sense to me than if you had written “We know that He did not create a third sex, but we also know that heterosexuality has existed for a long long time.”

            “Christians and Jews condemn homosexuality because their faith condemns it…”

            It would have been more accurate to say that SOME or MANY Christians and Jews condemn homosexuality because they consider that their faith condemns it. There are both Christians and Jews who don’t.

          • dannybhoy

            “I can’t see any logical connection between them. It really doesn’t make
            any more sense to me than if you had written “We know that He did not create a third sex, but we also know that heterosexuality has existed for a long long time.”

            My dear chap, the connection and the implication is obvious.
            Heterosexuality is what made this conversation possible. God could not have said to Adam and Steve “Go forth and multiply” because neither Adam nor Steve had the requisite equipment to do so.
            So not only is heterosexuality the norm, it essential to our existence on this earth.
            Had you said, “My sexuality has nothing to do with my value as a human being in my own right.” I would have agreed with you. To make our sexual leanings the defining mark of who we are is wrong. We are more than our sexuality surely?

            Yes there are Christians and Jews who don’t condemn homosexuality, but let’s be clear; the source books of both faiths condemn it. There is no example of an approved same sex relationship therein.
            Astonishingly, the Scriptures relate the story of incest between Lot and his two daughters, and the offering of his two daughters rather than his guests (the two angels) to the rapacious Sodomites.. Genesis 19.
            But no same sex relationships..
            However, we (hopefully) relate to each other on the basis of our humanity, not our sexual orientation.
            ‘Don’t ask -don’t tell’ is still a good approach.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            My dear chap, the connection and the implication are anything but obvious. Yes, the Adam and Eve story is a story about how the human race began and was propagated. So obviously it had to begin with a heterosexual couple; it couldn’t be otherwise, nor is there any good reason to want it to be. Yes, heterosexuality is essential to our existence on this earth and always has been. Does it follow that ALL members of the human race need to be heterosexual? No, it does not. The human race consists of males and females, the vast majority of whom are heterosexual, and a small minority of whom are homosexual. The two sexes which we have are quite sufficient to account for that reality. Where does the bizarre notion of a third sex need to come into it? It is completely gratuitous.

            “To make our sexual leanings the defining mark of who we are is wrong. We are more than our sexuality surely?”

            I quite agree, but I don’t know why you have raised that issue. I haven’t, even implicitly.

            I agree also that you won’t find any examples of approved same-sex relationships in the Bible. But since I regard them as good anyway, I am no more perturbed by failure to find them in the Bible than by failure to find them in Shakespeare’s or Molière’s plays, in Mozart’s or Rossini’s operas, or in Dickens’s or Trollope’s novels.

          • dannybhoy

            Does it follow that ALL members of the human race need to be heterosexual? No, it does not.
            True, but would it hurt if all the human race were heterosexual?
            No.
            Would it hurt if all the world were homosexual?
            Yes.
            What you’re arguing for is tolerance and I am all for that. To me that tolerance means that I won’t harm anyone, ostracize anyone or make fun of anyone. But as an evangelical Christian I will continue to proclaim
            Romans 3>
            “For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”
            So now we can shake cyberhands, content that we know where each other stands, and that we agree to disagree on some issues.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            “Would it hurt if all the world were homosexual? Yes.”

            That, at any rate, is one point on which we are both in complete agreement.

            Does it hurt for a small minority to be homosexual? No.

            Thank you very much for your reply. I wish you a good evening.

          • Mercy Judgement

            They are actually about promoting equality for LGBT+ people and opposing violence and abuse (like Stephen greens tweet).

          • Stuart Phoenix

            I suppose god talks to you on a daily basis seeing as your such good mates. You should post a photograph of the 2 of you when you’re having a chat maybe post a selfie. does he have a selfie stick. Pleae gethim to shove it right up your arsethen come with your informed opinion on shirtlifters you absolute moron or should I say mormon

          • Cressida de Nova

            What is a heterosexual life style?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Any lifestyle that involves either heterosexual relationships or engaging in heterosexual sex. There are as many possible heterosexual lifestyles as there are homosexual ones. (Which is why talk of “THE heterosexual lifestyle” or of “THE homosexual lifestyle” is ignorant nonsense.)

    • Stuart Phoenix

      Only a gay person can qualify to make your statement.SO I trust you are a fudge packer and if not….. like your religion you are basing your comments on your opinion and level of perception and intelligence rather than fact. Your generosity really does know no limits. Repeatedly basing judgements on a belief system, hersay and rhetoric is the reason we have bigotry in the world. Christian behaviour is one thing religion sadly isn’t anything other than manmade for the weak to deny conviction in oneself and to be frank reserved for the pityful.

      • The Explorer

        You seem to be suggesting that only personal experience can qualify for expertise. How far does it go? To treat cancer, the surgeon must have cancer? Only drug addicts are qualified to talk about drug addiction? To write about medieval history, you must be over a thousand years old?

      • Jill

        Fudge packer? What a revolting expression. You are basing your comments on religion on total ignorance.

        No, my ‘opinion’ is based on fact and simple biology. Having watched somebody dear to me die a wretched death from Aids, forgive me if I don’t jump for joy when somebody young and impressionable gets lured into a gay lifestyle.

  • Homosexuality, transgenderism, feminism – they are all connected.

    God created us male and female. We humans are male and female. The Bible associates man with the actualizing power of the divine and the woman with the receptive power of the creation. When a husband enters the bride, a new life springs forth. When God enters creation, the Life of the World springs forth. The Incarnation of Christ is revealed.

    A father is the “principle” or “source” of procreation in a way a mother is not. Both mother and father are active agents of conception, but the father, being male, initiates procreation; he enters and impregnates the woman, while the woman is entered and impregnated. There is an initiatory activity by the man and a receptive activity by the woman. Thus, while father and mother are both parents of their offspring and both necessary for procreation, the father has a certain priority as the “source” or “principle” of procreation. This is complemented by the mother’s priority as first nurturer, due to her procreating within herself and carrying the child within herself for nine months.

    This is why nature, creation, and the Church are always feminine. We speak of Mother Nature, Mother Earth, and Mother Church. These signify the receptive womb or matrix awaiting divine life. In the Judeo-Christian faith, God the Father created the world as something separate from himself, whereas in Near Eastern societies, the mother metaphor pictures the mother-goddess giving birth to the world (which makes it an extension of the deity’s body). Calling God Mother undermines the Christian doctrine of creation by implying that God and the world are made of the same stuff and virtually indistinguishable. So, we need Father in order to get to the right doctrine of creation. without we end up with pantheism.

    Is this why Saint Paul associates the rejection of God with homosexual behaviour in Romans? Whenever we reject the sacramental vision of God as life giving Groom and creation as receptive Bride, homosexuality results. It also leads to a break between sex and procreation and to a sterile, self centred and contracepting culture. The way we think leads to the way we act.

    Sexuality has a divine signification pointing toward human salvation and felicity. Without this, it loses meaning as a creative act in cooperation with God.

    • pascal78

      I agree. And our culture is the most self centred ever and doomed.

    • Ivan M

      Matriarchy is the state of nature, patriarchy is the condition of civilization – Lawrence Auster

    • Beautifully put.

    • John Heizer

      If “God created us male and female,” then how do you explain people who are obviously born intersex or XXY (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome)?

      • The same way other genetic mishaps occur. Nature makes mistakes in a fallen world.

        • Mercy Judgement

          Ergo it isn’t the individuals fault and you shouldn’t be condemning them!

          • The Explorer

            On that basis, should anyone be in prison? I suppose we can say that some people are a danger to others, although it’s not their fault, and must be locked away. Prison then is purely for the safety of the law abiding. Punishment, retribution, reform of criminal etc cease to have meaning.

          • Onas

            Interesting question and a subject in itself. “Reform” is still worth aiming for – an offender can sometimes overcome whatever it was in nature or nurture that led them to offend. “Retribution” is a bit of a misleading concept – “Restoration” is more useful. “Punishment” is inflicting suffering on someone to reform them, so again a misleading concept – the suffering element to punishment is a means not an end in itself.
            The main point is that we don’t put people in prison because they are evil, that is a judgement God alone can make. We put people in prison partly to protect ourselves, partly in the hope of effecting a change in the offender and partly because we may feel the need to express some sort of outrage at what has been done. Evil has nothing to do with it . There is a lot of evil done which is totally legal – like taking more than our fair share of the world’s wealth and finite resources.
            Jesus wasn’t messing about when he told us not to judge others, amongst other things it puts us in peril of kidding ourselves that we are the “good guys” when we need to be constantly discerning our thoughts, words, actions and their consequences. And I still think the Gospel has much to teach the criminal justice system.

          • Who’s condemning them?

    • Mercy Judgement

      The bible says men and women are equal – how then is feminism an evil?

      • The Explorer

        Where does it say it?

      • IanCad

        Were they equal, God would have stopped at Adam.
        This equality nonsense is a creation of man.

      • Dominic Stockford

        “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Genesis 3:16

      • D.M.S.

        That’s easy women are supposed to succumb to their husbands in marriage.
        Feminism doesn’t allow that.

    • David

      That was skilfully, well expressed Jack.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    From Surpised by Joy, by C.S.Lewis, Chapter 7.

    Here’s a fellow, you say, who used to come before us as a moral and religious writer, and now, if you please, he’s written a whole chapter describing his old school as a furnace of impure loves without one word on the heinousness of the sin. But there are two reasons. One you shall hear before this chapter ends. The other is that, as I have said, the sin in question is one of the two (gambling is the other) which I have never been tempted to commit. I will not indulge in futile philippics against enemies I never met in battle.

    [He then goes on to explain how practically everything among the boys in his school as driven by social climbing.]

    And that is why I cannot give pederasty anything like a first place among the evils of the Coil. There is much hypocrisy on this theme. People commonly talk as if every other evil were more tolerable than this. But why? Because those of us who do not share the vice feel for it a certain nausea, as we do, say, for necrophily? I think that of very little relevance to moral judgement. Because it produces permanent perversion? But there is very little evidence that it does. The Bloods would have preferred girls to boys if they could have come by them; when, at a later age, girls were obtainable, they probably took them. Is it then on Christian grounds? But how many of those who fulminate on the matter are in fact Christians? And what Christian in a society so worldly and cruel as that of Wyvern,would pick out the carnal sins for special reprobation? Cruelty is surely more evil than lust and the World at least as dangerous as the Flesh. The real reason for all the pother is, in my opinion, neither Christian nor ethical. We attack this vice not because it is the worst but because it is, by adult standards, the most disreputable and unmentionable, and happens also to be a crime in English law. The World will lead you only to Hell; but sodomy may lead you to jail and create a scandal, and lose you your job. The World, to do it justice, seldom does that.

    If those of us who have known a school like Wyvern dared to speak the truth, we should have to say that pederasty, however great an evil in itself, was, in that time and place, the only foothold or cranny left for certain good things. It was the only counterpoise to the social struggle; the one oasis (though green only with weeds and moist only with foetid water) in the burning desert of competitive ambition. In his unnatural love-affairs, and perhaps only there, the Blood went a little out of himself, forgot for a few hours that he was One of the Most Important People There Are. It softens the picture. A perversion was the only chink left through which something spontaneous and uncalculating could creep in. Plato was right after all. Eros, turned upside down, blackened, distorted, and filthy, still bore traces of his divinity.

    • Ivan M

      It is pretty hard to get worked up about what happens in boarding schools, except that much of the sexual activity was a surrogate for ritual humiliation. That set of perverts including Keynes, have much to answer for in extending their predations throughout the Mediterranean coast from Tangiers to Trieste.

      • dannybhoy

        We had bullying, but as far as I remember homosexuality was never mentioned. Our pubescent fantasies revolved around matron…

      • magnolia

        “Pederasty….very little evidence…that it …produces permanent perversion.”

        I think that there was little such evidence in his time, as it was less studied. That is hardly so now however, when we know that it is of its nature, very sadly, most often a constantly and consistently repeat offense, and we also know the extreme psychological damage frequently inflicted.

        I also find the phrase “when at a later age girls were obtainable they probably took them” a bit chilling, as the language doesn’t differentiate between a living human being and a jar of lemon bonbons, and he was a better writer than that. Reads as if trying to be in with the cool guys at the expense of humanity.

  • len

    There seems to be a certain amount of confusion (from all directions) about whether Christians can speak about sin or are they themselves committing the sin of being ‘Judgemental’ (all secularists know this one) or ‘throwing the first stone’ even ‘bigoted’ seems popular as an accusation as well.

    St Paul, Jesus, the disciples. the apostles they all spoke of’ sin ‘not to condemn necessarily but as a warning because sin entangles, ensnare,s then enslaves souls. The primary reason that Jesus came to earth was to free His Creation from the power of Sin.
    So will i carry on proclaiming this warning….. imperfect as I am?,….you bet!.

    • John Heizer

      Then speak against sin (the concept) and refrain from speaking against sinners (which involves judging individuals). The moment you point an accusatory finger at a “sinner” you have passed judgment on that person/group.

      • pascal78

        What about Jesus’s command to rebuke the sinner? Doesn’t go down well in our PC culture does it?

      • len

        Fence sitting is such a tedious business …don`t you think?
        Get off that fence and stand up for something …for Gods sake!.

    • dannybhoy

      Judgement takes place within the church Len, as in matters of discipline, teaching and theology..

  • HedgehogFive

    We are informed that young Mr Daley is bisexual.

    Modern theory insists that for such a person, choice of either a same-sex or an opposite-sex partner are completely equivalent, morally, socially, or whatever other category one can come up with.

    But one does suspect that the older man’s Hollywood glamour led young Mr Daley “up the gay garden path” while we was still impressionable and also vulnerable, having received an awful lot of bullying.

    • Ivan M

      Bisexuality is a con. Upward of 30% of males prefer the rear-ending position. A similar number not exclusive of the rear-enders revel in sexual dominance. The bisexuals are just enlarging the scope of their action. This necessitates some kind of theorising in justification of unbridled lust, but anyone who falls for trannies should be able to see through this.

    • John Heizer

      You are informed of this falsehood by whom? Mr. Daley states that he is gay. Therefore he is gay, not bisexual. And he had several boyfriends and had come out as gay LONG before he met Mr. Black. You obviously know nothing about this subject.

    • dannybhoy

      Whatever.
      In the context of athletics and the Olympics, Tom Daley did not achieve the prize he had trained for, and for that he deserves our sympathy.

      • len

        Tom got it wrong.Stuff happens.But we have the opportunity to learn from our mistakes this side of Heaven…

        • dannybhoy

          He got what wrong? He had an off day like all athletes do, yes.

      • HedgehogFive

        Your reply, at least, is reasonable, so I have up-ticked it.

        • dannybhoy

          I live for upticks…. :0)

  • Cressida de Nova

    Lively and interesting commentary on this post. Enjoyed !

  • rob mckay

    As a Christian I am ashamed of the comments made by Christian Voice. But then we as humans are still evolving. It wasn’t that long ago Christian communities based on the Bible opposed Blacks marrying Whites. We no longer see that anymore because old interpretations of the Bible has given way to new and liberating interpretations.

    • YeshuaReigns

      While I am not a supporter of Christian Voice we should not just interpret the Bible however we feel like. We should interpret the Bible with correct hermeneutics using scripture to interpret scripture with the Holy Spirit to guide us. Homosexuality is clearly a sin in scripture but the blacks marrying whites thing is a red herring because it was never a correct interpretation to begin with considering all the nations of the earth are descended from Noah’s family.

      • tonycutty

        YR, if that is your opinion – that homosexuality is ‘clearly a sin in Scripture’ – then I would say that it is quite possible that your hermeneutics/exegesis of those passages is not necessarily complete. Not that anyone’s ever is, of course, but… Anyway, there are many well-documented, spiritual Christian scholarly interpretations that strongly suggest that in fact those passages do not mean what we have thought that they meant for all this time. There are some useful links on this page: http://www.freedhearts.org/#!books-resources/n99tr if that’s any help. Remember to err on the side of Love! Peace, bro 🙂

        • D.M.S.

          And Satan will make sure that mankind believes in what mankind states as fact, lol.
          Even Christ Jesus stated that when He leaves that the wolves will come to devour those that believe in Him.

      • rob mckay

        Well Yeshua, if being a homosexual is condemned in the Bible, which both 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 seem to imply. Then it would be of no value or benefit for a gay or lesbian person to become a Christian or even remain a Christian. As medical science informs us, you do not choose your sexual orientation, that’s a given. So even if a gay Christian endeavours to live a celibate life (no sex) it is of no difference to scripture, you are what you are and you will be denied entrance into the Kingdom of God. A gay Christian is still a homosexual believer. You have not changed his sexual orientation, only biology can do that.

  • Angeangel

    I am ashamed too that Someone /Organisation should call themselves Christian Voice and not speak like Christ. God help us; I didn’t even put a fish on my car in case I made a mistake driving, as I would not be able to explain that Christians aren’t perfect just forgiven. Father I pray that Christian Voice will have a revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ and will only be able to speak as Jesus does

    • len

      I am ashamed of Christians who follow’ PC procedures.’

      Islam (as wrong as it is) actually believes they have something worth dying for.How many Christians can say the same?.

      • Albert

        Sorry Len, how does being just plain mean to a homosexual person equate to Christian martyrdom?

        • len

          I suppose truth can seem’ a bit mean’ to some?Best keep the Gospel quiet then and say nothing that will cause offence and pretend that is’ love’.

          • Albert

            How, precisely, is the original tweet “speaking the truth in love”?

      • Guglielmo Marinaro

        Well, if anyone believes that being anti-gay is something worth dying for, I think that we should treat them with kindly tolerance and compassion but certainly not encourage them.

  • dannybhoy

    “Jesus separates calamity and suffering from moral wrongdoing: there is no automatic imputation of guilt. Death, disaster, suffering and failure do not damn the victim with the stain of particular sin: none is pure (including Stephen Green), and none is more worthy than another of suffering. To be innocent and righteous, as Job undoubtedly was (Job 9:15, 20; 10:1-7), is not to be exempt from calamity. And to be corrupt, perverted and guilty is no guarantee of retribution:”

    I think we live in a cause and effect world. The Cosmos is held together by God but in physical terms it “does its own thing” unless God has need to intervene.
    Similarly with human beings. We are created in the image of God through biological reproduction, and every soul is precious to God. But we are all subject to imperfections, whether physically or emotionally. We can’t blame God for these things but we can be confident that if we allow Him into our lives as Lord, He will walk with us through all our days and direct our paths.
    Tom Daley is a fine diver, a champion diver. He deserves our respect, applause and sympathy as a fellow human being.

    • len

      Tom Daley is a fine diver(sometimes)but he has become a role model for our youth.
      Christians must speak the truth in love.But none of us Christians are perfect and we sometimes get a little carried away.
      But I would rather speak the truth and offend someone that to keep quite and let them assume that I agree with their lifestyle choices which the Word of God clearly says keeps that person entrapped in sin.

      • dannybhoy

        We’re not discussing his lifestyle here as it wasn’t a Moral Olympics.
        If we knew Tom Daley personally or met him, we could share our faith and belief that he is a sinner just like us. But this is an athletics event for which he has trained and he didn’t achieve his goal.
        A Christian handing him the towel might say to him.
        “Tough Tom. You failed because you’re a homosexual and a role model for young homosexuals.” but I doubt it would go down well….

        • len

          You miss the point Danny. ‘Gay Diver’ Tom made this an issue.

          • dannybhoy

            from the Guardian..
            “Nineteen months on, Daley is more focused than he has been in a long time. He is training for the World Aquatic Championships (which start next week in Kazan, Russia) and, more importantly, for the 2016 Olympics in Rio. “I feel much more mature going into 2016 than 2012,” he says, having completed his morning diving session. We’re sitting in the auditorium above the diving pool. Daley has changed from trunks to shorts, salmon-pink T shirt and trainers, and is talking about why Rio should come at the perfect time for him. “Divers tend to peak between 22 and 24,” he says. “I’ll be 22, so I should be approaching mine. I am stronger now, jumping higher, spinning faster, moving quicker than I ever have. I’m in love with diving right now.”
            https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jul/18/tom-daley-i-always-knew-i-was-attracted-to-guys-olympic-2012-diver

            No mention of being a gay diver or doing this for “gayness” there Len. I do not support homosexuality in any way, but that is a separate issue to him representing his country as a diver in the Olympics.

          • len

            How many Olympians have made an issue of their sexuality?

            I know the original Olympians were Greeks who gloried in their homosexuality and the games were to honour Zeus.But what about today?.

          • DanJ0

            Quite a few are ‘out’, as it goes. I think a couple of our gold-medal-winning women’s hockey team are, well, a couple.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I take it that you don’t feel the need to conceal your sexuality, whatever it is. By not doing so, do you make it an “issue”?

  • len

    Christians must learn to speak the truth and not submit to Politically Correct agenda.

    The reason that the Church is dying is because the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been so’ watered down’ it has become meaningless and can barely compete with other charitable organizations.

    The Christian foundation has been very effectively wrecked by secularists and almost unbelievably the Church has assisted secularists in doing their work by compromising the Word of God.

    Without ‘sinners’ the Gospel becomes meaningless.Without sin the Cross becomes meaningless.Without sin salvation becomes meaningless.

    Sin no longer exists in the secular world they have ‘done away with it’.

    Is this hate speech? Or is this’ truth speech.’

    ‘Jesus called people to repent before he even called them to believe! Mark writes, “…Jesus came
    into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of
    God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15). Christ preached, “Repent first — and believe.”‘

    http://www.tscpulpitseries.org/english/1990s/ts990802.html

  • Inspector General

    Yes, poor show, Christian Voice. One is quite sure young Daley is carrying the burden of homosexuality rather than opting in.

    That said, the true crime of the militants of that genre is to seek to impose their whatever on a society that really doesn’t need it. Keep it to yourself, gay types, there’s good fellows!

    So let’s lay off the lad, what. Leave him be.

    By the way, the Inspectorate has moved to the north of England as is its wont during the damp summer months. His hosts, tiring of the Inspector’s devotion to this the greatest site in Christendom, have come up with an imaginative and extremely successful ruse to prevent him from doing so. A touch screen PC for his personal use for the duratation and NO mouse! Anyone who has every had the misfortune to come across this technology front up will tell you it’s the devils work. You may not be hearing from your Inspector again during his sodjorn…

    • len

      Wondered why the silence Inspector, anyway must get going with my sandwich board…work to be done 😉

      • DanJ0

        the end of the summer is nigh

    • chefofsinners

      Putting the sod into sodjorn.

      • dannybhoy

        I just read it, just thought it…

    • IanCad

      Just kick back Inspector, and come back refreshed.

    • Lake District? Next year, if you’re up this way, we’ll have to arrange to meet up. Could be amusing, what!

      • Inspector General

        {SHUDDER!}

  • Mike

    It’s hard to tell what puritans love more, homosexuality or the apocalypse.

  • IanCad

    Coming up to six hundred and fifty comments. No doubt about it, sex, or at least, non productive, unhealthy sex, is the hottest topic on the blog.

    • dannybhoy

      Well to be fair, it often leads into other related issues and I think that’s what bumps the numbers up.
      I remember as a callow youth entering the Merchant Navy, being fascinated by the homosexual contingent on the ship. Never seen them before and knew nothing about homosexuality.
      Which just goes to show how how times have changed.

  • Inspector General

    Here’s Green being beaten around the ring (boxers talk, don’t you know) by radio controlled Iain Dale. Mr Dale (who believes himself to be married to another man, would you believe), is very hot on what is what because the law says it is so. Whether Mr Dale would have been so guided had he been around pre 1967 is not known to the Inspector. Shall we say probably not…

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/08/23/listen-radio-host-confronts-christian-activist-who-said-tom-daley-lost-because-he-turned-gay/

    • And we get the usual from those hostile to Church teaching:

      “Who are you to judge? What’s it got to do with you?

      “You call yourselves Christian Voice, but you haven’t sounded very Christian in this conversation.”

      “You’re a bit obsessed with Tom Daley… you’ve done quite a bit [about him] … I just can’t think why you’re so obsessed with Tom Daley. People will have their own theories I guess … How long have you been so obsessed with Tom Daley… is it something you can grow out of?”

      “Why is it you call yourself Christian Voice? To my mind, you should be done under the Trade Descriptions Act. If Christianity is anything, it is about spreading love.”

      Yawn …..

      • Inspector General

        There’s a thing Jack. A test case just waiting to be heard at court. Does Christianity contradict the Trades Description Act regarding ‘love’. Whatever love is. Need to get it in soon, mind. We will not be a member of the ECHR forever, and thus this kind of inanity will disappear from our glorious land, literally, for good…

  • JD

    there is nothing redeeming about any of you pathetic excuses for humanity – you worship a non existent deity… and use the fairy tales of a fictional character called jesus to justify your horrific and abusive behaviour on others who live proud, honest lives, all in the name of hatred called religion…. i hope you all die horrible deaths and rot in the ground … ’cause you bigoted scumbags there ain’t no heaven and you all know it deep inside.

    • Inspector General

      You’re an ARTIST then, not just an artist, but an ARTIST. Now that speaks volumes about you…

      • magnolia

        You might be interested in this research, Inspector. I think that an ad hominem messenger shoot is how they plan to tackle this research:

        http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016

        Important research done neutrally that backs up what you already knew, but it is important that the methodology was used….

        • Inspector General

          Yes. One has oft come across this kind of work. Always on line of course. Not even the most respected of our press would ever publish. Not now.

          The Inspector recommends articles that approach the subject at the oblique. For example, arguing that Attention Deficit

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          Just to be clear: that paper contains no new research or findings. It is a selective review of other people’s research. Here is one well-informed preliminary critique by a psychologist who is also a committed Christian (there will doubtless be others in due course):

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2016/08/23/the-new-atlantis-study-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-thats-not-a-study/

          • Inspector General

            “Every generation has a new disease that meets a trend. For the ’90s and into today, that disease is ADHD. It seems that every child who has trouble sitting still is suffering from it. I am not saying that there aren’t real cases…”

            And so it was. One remembers the time well…but today it’s LGBTQ. How things change…

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            How profound.

          • Inspector General

            Yes, we are such a weak creation in reality. Running down the street quite mad with the rest of the herd.

            Few of us are able to take to the sideline and watch the spectacle and see it for what it is…

          • Veronica Zundel

            If you think being LGBTQ is a new invention, you are extremely ignorant of history. It has been around as long as humanity.

          • D.M.S.

            It wasn’t around with Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel.

          • Inspector General

            One dares say you are right, madam, We could go further and say there has never been a better time to be LGBTQ. However, the militants are trying to seize control of society and that is simply unacceptable…

          • D.M.S.

            Yes, you are correct ‘ Sin’
            has been around since the start of Adam and Eve.
            The start of humanity.

          • D.M.S.

            There are no facts that the lgbtpnb is created the way that they are…..

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I have nothing to say about “the lgbtpnb”, since I have no idea who they are. All that I am saying is that no-one knows what it is that makes most people heterosexual and a small minority homosexual. You are, of course, as free as everyone else is to speculate to your heart’s content and to BELIEVE anything that you like.

          • D.M.S.

            God/Jesus says differently.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            You are obviously very, very privileged. God/Jesus has never imparted such information to me.

          • D.M.S.

            Then you must not be reading your Christian Bible..

          • tonycutty

            Actually, there are many recent research findings that suggest that sexual orientation is indeed genetically transmitted, i.e. people really are ‘born that way’. Here’s one of many such research papers, from a reputable journal, that suggests just that: http://tinyurl.com/gsqdpdz

            Alternatively, try Googling these keywords together:

            genetic evidence for sexual orientation

            and something will come up. Do your own research; form your own opinions, don’t just take my word for it. But the evidence is there if you search for it. As with all scientific explorations, there is evidence in both directions, but the reading of the evidence can be fascinating if you have the mind to do it.

          • D.M.S.

            All 100% LIES,
            But that’s what we get from our secular, Godless world.

          • tonycutty

            DMS, your reply lacks grace; my comment was a gentle pointer indicating that perhaps – perhaps! – there is indeed such evidence.

            And the other thing is this: I wrote: “…the reading of the evidence can be fascinating if you have the mind to do it”. This is not a lie, therefore your figure of ALL 100% LIES (capitals intended I presume, were you really shouting as you typed that?!) anyway that figure is inaccurate. It is indeed fascinating if you have the mind to do it. This is true. That is not a lie; therefore the lie quotient here is less than 100% at the very least.

            One thing further. If you are going to categorically state that there are no facts, then when someone politely and gently points you towards what could indeed be facts, the very last thing you should do as a representative of Jesus is to lash out like you did. You could at least be polite, sir. Surely that’s not too much to ask?

          • D.M.S.

            That’s exactly the answer I expect from a Godless society!

          • tonycutty

            This will be my last post to you, as it’s clearly a waste of time trying to engage you in any meaningful conversation. Oh, and please feel free to have the last word.

            I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more pointless set of trolling as you have done on here. If you’re trying to represent your Jesus in a good light, you are failing terribly. If Jesus is like you, and you no doubt think that you represent him, then nobody in their right mind would want to listen to your advertising.

            Troll away.

          • D.M.S.

            Christ Jesus died on the cross for everyone’s sins.
            We cannot lead a Sinfilled life and still expect to enter the kingdom of heaven. Only celibate single Christians and one Christian woman only married to one Christian man only will be able to enter the kingdom of heaven.
            All others will enter hell for eternity by their own choice.
            If you consider that trolling then so be it.

          • D.M.S.

            There is no evidence and there never will be.
            God creates all human life.
            God does not create human life that He hates.
            All practicing lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders, paedophiles, necrophiles, beasties, are a choice and they always will be.
            Only mankind can make the lgbtpnb who they are, through their lies.

          • tonycutty

            Why are you being so rude?

          • D.M.S.

            God doesn’t make wrong people.
            Satan does.
            Heterosexuals are God/Jesus people.
            All other sexual orientations are Satans people.
            But Christ Jesus is the only one that can save all us from our sins.

          • D.M.S.

            Then serial killers and rapist and paedophiles, etc; are born that way also.

          • Inspector General

            There is much in what you say. One’s own research into the subject finds there is enough anecdotal evidence to show that homosexuality does run in families. However, this line of research is being all but suppressed, is this man’s suspicion. The homosexual militants responsible know what is at stake – the mass culling of suspect foetus’. On this one agrees with them – we don’t need another reason to murder babies…

    • magnolia

      Let’s hope you were on something when you wrote this. You thik- quite wrongly as it happens- we are full of hatred. You counter this by abuse and by wishing us all painful deaths to show us what real redeemed (your word) humanity (again your word) look like. What love!!! Not.

      You talk of pride as though it is ipso facto great. Those living with proud people just about always beg to differ on that one.

      Your comments lack integrity and wisdom. I hope you are a nicer person than these comments suggest.

      • Inspector General

        He’s still in his immaturity, Mags. We can but hope the young bender will in his foolish pride realise that he is contributing to the hate in the world…Of course, he doesn’t have to buy into his chosen lifestyle, but then, when our politicians are falling over themselves in their slavish devotion to the condition…