What is a family?

THERE are those who see techniques such as in vitro fertilisation as the first step on a slippery slope to the Brave New World.
Some believe the issue of IVF treatment for anyone outside the traditional family throws the whole nature of family into doubt.
The family, according to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Is the natural and fundamental unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.
But does the definition preclude a homosexual couple or a single person raising a child created through reproductive technology?
The nuclear family is far from a recent western European invention. The unit of intimate partners, often with children, has been the core of virtually all societies. But same-sex couples, and single women who want children are also social realities.
Homosexuality was condemned by both Christianity and the ancient Greek philosophers.
Although the philosopher Plato was supposedly homosexual, he argued that, since neither animals nor birds indulge in it, nor should humans.
But he also regarded monogamous marriage, with parental responsibilities, as a threat to social solidarity. He recommended instead that wives and children be shared in common.
According to Plato’s philosophy, the basic laws of the universe were timeless and simple. Parenting was a community matter, not confined to parents.
Science has made parenting possible, in theory, for everyone.
But what is the authority of science? Is it the best type of knowledge we possess, or just the most influential?
Jean-Paul Sartre said: “Man is condemned to be free”. On the other hand, our freedom obliges us to make something of ourselves; to live authentically or truely. Life is not a technical or mechanical process. There is a far deeper reality to existence.
The vital ingredient — the essence of us — seems to be that mysterious element called soul. It distinguishes us from all other beings on the planet.
Benedict De Spinoza argued that, with our souls, we should see everything from the perspective of eternity. He influenced John Locke, who in turn argued that subjugation of people on sexual grounds was invalid.
Many of those who philosophically followed — including Voltaire, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and Soren Kierkegaard — questioned the standard definitions of family.
The Moral Majorities of the 19th and early to mid 20th centuries were pretty clear that families entailed a male and female parent and at least a couple of kids. Child-rearing was considered tough but necessary and rewarding work.
The Techno Age radically altered our lives, allowed us to die more slowly, possibly surrounded by machines rather than family and friends, and threw up great ethical dilemmas.
N OW we have the age of ethical debate. Some scientists claim human cloning is achievable with relative ease. The spiritual and ethical implications are challenging.
So are the questions surrounding IVF availability outside traditional relationships.
First we have to define what family really means.
Single parent families are prevalent, divorce is common, many parents avoid marriage, a significant number of marriages have no children, and many lesbians and gay men establish long-term and committed relationships.
We know the traditional family is not always a haven from the perils of the world, but is sometimes a site of violence, exploitation and danger, especially for women and children.
American minister Mark Kowalewski and religious scholar Elizabeth Say examined the up and down sides of homosexual relationships in the book Gay,Lesbians and Family Values.
They concluded that many couples had constructed pluralistic family values filled with love, care and humor despite “virulent bigotry and ignorance of extremists who claimed restrictive values of family”.

Advertisements

79 thoughts on “What is a family?

  1. Looking forward to reading the responses to this one, waiting for “the usual suspects'” with the old back and white interpretations of “the one true word” as they see it.

    Like

    • Hi Michael

      Jesus said that the gate is small and road is narrow. The road to destruction is wide and broad and many will enter. While there is some scope in the interpretation of scripture; the interpretation must not spring from what we want it to be rather what we understand it to be. It may not always be the popular or “modern” stand.

      Like

      • Hey Dom,

        But as you so rightly pointed out on an earlier thread the bible was written by and for a primitive culture and really has no use for the 21st century.

        Like

      • But it should consider new knowledge. Could you imagine the sight of someone on the QE2 standing on the ships Bow looking for the edge of the earth. Of course these days we would use radar to automatically turn us away from it – wouldn’t want to fall off now!
        Yep, waiting for homosexuality is a sin!

        Like

      • Hey Dom,

        Sure you did, it just needed to be interpolated a bit

        But thinking it over you might have a point – the path of acceptance and tolerance does seem pretty narrow sometimes whereas the road of discrimination and prejudice seems to be able to accommodate a multitude at times.

        Like

      • Michael,
        Presumably you are implying that the Biblical world view was akin to looking from the bow of the ship to avoid falling off the edge of the earth.

        Except the Bible never made the claim that the world was flat. If you think it did, please provide the texts to support your argument; chapter and verse please.

        Like

      • Didn’t actually say that it did Mr Davinci, had your short attention span allowed you to read just a little further you may have seen a clarification

        “Broad reference to knowledge of the time Dom.”

        Perhaps a little too subtle for that thundering, well researched, intellect of your’s Mr Davinci.
        Sadly, it was a preemptive comment in regard to how some people go for the literal interpretation of (their chosen) Scripture when it suits them to defend outdated views. i.e. Homosexuality is a sin, then quote: Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10…..etc written thousands of years ago ….by men.
        I mean, going for the literal, you wouldn’t really insist that we marry our late brother’s wife or inherit her, like the female of our species is a piece of property, would you?(Genesis 38:8, Deuteronomy 25:5, Matthew 22:25.) Or do you actually believe we should? it is after all written in the bible.
        Looking forward to your usual misunderstanding and twisted interpretations Mr Davinci – try reading this v e r y s l o w l y, might help(?).

        Yes, I know I’m being highly facetious with you, but I find you incredibly ARROGANT!

        Like

      • The following was posted on Malcolm Turnbull’s site by one Rik in 2011. It reflects much of my own thinking. At a time when de facto marriages were prolific, it seemed that these people wanted more than a de facto relationship, but exactly what marriage meant to them I do not know. Something other than God’s blessing, I presume.

        Quoting from http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/survey-results/against-same-sex-marriage-for-civil-unions

        Against Same Sex Marriage – For Civil Unions

        “I’ve deliberately omitted the word ‘marriage’ out of respect for a word, steeped in tradition, which has over many centuries become associated with male & female legal/religious union. A radical mindshift to make marriage all inclusive would mean tampering with our language.

        “If we, as gay people, find a need for a religious ceremony we already have the option of this through the Metropolitan Community Church., with parishes/branches/Houses throughout Australia.
        The radical, gay, ratbag agitators within my community, insisting on Gay marriage has done nothing but alienate us from mainstream Australian society. which is, on the whole, I believe, both tolerant & accepting of same sex unions.

        “An amendment to the current Marriage Act would also benefit our anti-discrimination legislation.
        I certainly do not expect legislation over religious bodies demanding they sanction or recognise same-sex unions but I do expect my government, in a civilized, first world country to afford me the same human rights and responsibilities as many of those far less advanced countries than ours.

        “I therefore plead for all members of my Parliament to consult widely with your respective communities and urge all Australians, no matter what their socio-econominc status to comment and change the policies of our elected representatives.”

        Like

      • Hey Michael

        I know what context you were writing your piece. Where does the Bible indicate that it was based on knowledge that one can fall off the edge of the earth?

        Like

    • there needs to be some PC super hero comic. Hang on ………

      “For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie”

      now what would a really really very or extremely powerful delusion look like…?

      a physicist, a cousin, asked my ten year old son a question about maths problems yesterday. a philosophical question, “how do you know the answer is true?” It was amusing watching a Phd physicist ask a ten year old a philosophy question.
      hOw do you knOw? Because “God” said, is One answer. For the crippled witness to this quasi debate, of PC hectoring and bully boy rhetoric. time is racing everyone to the edge.

      Like

    • Hi Bubba

      If we look at the atheist tradition;

      In the atheistic communist state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics a person could end up in prison for being openly gay.

      in the 1960s and 1970s, the Castro regime persecuted openly gay Cubans

      When the Chinese Communist Party, which officially espouses atheism, came to power in 1949, homosexuality was deemed a sexual crime and then classified as an abnormal.

      Dave Muscato, the Public Relations Director for American Atheist in 2013 made so not so nice comments on the gay community.

      So we would have to surmise there was no gay marriage in these societies.

      Now of course you, in the great atheist tradition, will disown anything negative that was done in the name of atheism. We are looking at tradition though and it does look like that homosexuals were treated badly in societies controlled by atheists in the past.

      Like

      • “Now of course you, in the great atheist tradition, will disown anything negative that was done in the name of atheism.”

        Dom, the reason “we” do this, is because it is fallacious to conflate atheism with communism (or any other political ideology). I am not required to be a communist because of my absence of belief in gods. Some communists are are believers.

        Homophobia is just that, regardless of your religious beliefs or lack thereof. Whatever Dave Muscato said against gay people, there is a rational, compassionate response in rebuttal.

        Like

    • Hey Dom,

      Indeed.

      Still leaves my question unanswered – who’s traditions? I grew up in Darumbal country. Should we use the indigenous kinship model of family ?

      Like

  2. “Although the philosopher Plato was supposedly homosexual, he argued that, since neither animals nor birds indulge in it, nor should humans.”

    Plato couldn’t have spent much time observing farm animals, then.

    Like

    • The article, from my understanding, would indicate homosexuality was due to the environment rather than an animal being born homosexual;

      Some findings from the article;

      Unlike most humans, however, individual animals generally cannot be classified as gay or straight: an animal that engages in a same-sex flirtation or partnership does not necessarily shun heterosexual encounters.

      Captivity Effect

      What is more, homosexuality among some species, including penguins, appears to be far more common in captivity than in the wild. Captivity,scientists say, may bring out gay behaviors in part because of a scarcity of opposite-sex mates. In addition, an enclosed environment boosts an animal’s stress levels, leading to a greater urge to relieve the stress.

      Defend Nest

      In some birds, same-sex unions, particularly between males, might have evolved as a parenting strategy to increase the survival of their young.

      Like

      • Yes, Dom, and I suspect (not know) that there are various reasons amongst humans. The article points to bisexuality in the pre-maturity stage, and plenty of our young folk get ‘crushes’ on same sex figures, and may not out-grow it. I know also of straight women who have been abused in a straight relationship and would never trust a man again, turn to women for a gentler sexuality. Men who have been hurt by women are in much the same boat..

        But I consider too the women taking on traditional male roles, and the men who value their ‘new age’ side of owning tenderness. I wonder if we are not, under God’s beneficence, moving to less distinction, a lessening of population growth, a love between people that is not lust but a true committed caring.

        Like

      • I was only repeating what was in the article Bubba. Maybe you should take it up with Emily.

        Like

      • I looked further into the sheep study and the gay community are not happy. They believe the goal of the study is to eradicate homosexuality by targeting the area in the brain that causes it. They found gay men had smaller hypothalamus. They also linked autism to a smaller hypothalamus in a separate study.

        http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/in-brief/2011/molecular-mechanisms-children-with-autism-have-small-hypothalamus

        These are not my findings or opinion.

        Like

      • Hey Dom,

        Well no you weren’t just repeating what was in the article.

        You were giving us your understanding of what the article was saying.

        You know that bit up there on the screen where it reads “The article, from my understanding…….”

        So Emily isn’t relevant unless that’s a pen-name of yours.

        Like

      • True Bubba. My understanding from what that article was saying was homosexuality was due to the environment. Did you get a different understanding from the article ?

        Like

      • Hey Dom,

        Well the article does include comments like “A recent finding indicates that homosexual behavior may be so common because it is rooted
        in an animal’s brain wiring……..”

        I don’t understand how you’d then come to a conclusion that “that article was saying was homosexuality was due to the environment”

        Yep the article mentions the environment and stresses placed on the animal as a reason that animals in captivity display more same-sex behaviour than animals in the wild but it certainly does not attempt to argue that homosexual behaviour in animals is entirely environmental.

        My understanding would be that if the article takes a position at all it is that sexuality is naturally fluid. The article also points out that there are some advantages to homosexual behaviour (particularly for species with a high degree of social cohesion). This would give rise to an argument that there is an evolutionary advantage for a species where social groups include those with a predisposition for homosexuality.

        In summary I think that there is a good chance that your understanding of the article is merely a reflection of your biases on the topic rather than a balanced summary of the article as a whole

        Like

  3. Coming from a meditteranean family it is pretty easy. My family is made up of couples, male and female. These couples have children and so on. I have 12 uncles and aunties. Many cousins. I have family who are single, divorced and a few gay. This all stands on marriage abd a male/female couple. Any tradition shiws this to be true. Asians, africans, latino etc. it is onky recently we have isolated ourselves into suburbs. But family remains the same.

    Like

    • I watched a program the other night on Gay Bathhouses. The one that was featured is in England and is owned by a senior couple who later married on the show. They have been together for decades, but as you can imagine neither of them are monogamous. Their Bathhouse affords them many an extramarital pleasure. It was stated that an estimated 70% + of English gay couples are not monogamous. One old boy, a regular at the Bathhouse, sees his Sunday visitations as a hobby. His partner of thirty-five years reluctantly turns a blind eye to his unfaithfulness. He, at least, does not care for sleeping around and he revealed that he was originally married to a woman and has children from that marriage. Says for a long time he was unhappy in his marriage and did not know why until the day he beheld his current partner. He fell head-over-heels and just had to have him. That’s when he knew he was gay. His unfaithful partner loves the Bathhouse though, and especially because there is no woman around to say no, he can’t!

      Interestingly, his unfaithful partner believes he’s a product of his past. Says he was sexually abused at twelve years of age by a Pedophile Ring. Very sad.

      Although the owners of the Bathhouse finally got married after being together for over twenty-five years, neither of them have sex with each other. The younger of the two (in his early 60’s) says the partner does not fancy him anymore because he’s too old for him now. And he says he often passes the regulars on the streets walking with their WIVES and children/babies in prams. They look the other way not wanting him to recognise them…….obviously their WIVES do not know what their husbands are up to.

      He said that at least 50% of the regulars at the Bathhouse are married men, ie., married to WOMEN! Makes you wonder, (and weep) doesn’t it Alexie?

      http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/06/27/scotus-declares-war-on-marriage-and-family/

      Like

      • Predictions of the downfall of heterosexual marriages if same-sex marriage is introduced are nothing short of ridiculous. If your marriage and family is so unstable that two men or two women getting married will destroy yours, then you are already in deep trouble. As for the Christian couple from Canberra who said they’d divorce if same-sex marriage were legalised – you really did a great job of letting Aussies know what the Gospel is all about hey?

        Like

      • Yes Carol, It appears to me that some Christians are dug down in one trench and some LGBTI people in an opposite trench and they’re just shooting at one another. I’d like to declare a ceasefire – shooting at each other is achieving nothing other than causing hatred and anger to be stirred up – and we Christians should stop firing first! I can’t see anywhere in the Bible that teaches God sent His Son into the world to raise up a people to be the world’s moral police. In fact, He sent His Son for just the opposite of that – to bring peace, forgiveness, salvation, redemption, grace and new beginnings.

        Like

      • I am presuming those using the bath-house could be termed dissolute, dissipated, debauched, degenerate, salacious, immoral, wanton, decadent, depraved, profligate, impure, sinful, wicked, corrupt, indecent, libertine or licentious. Straight people can be all of these things, and that this was a gay bath-house really says nothing about gay people in general or particular. It is not a description of those I personally know, in fact far removed.

        Like

      • It’s the (for all intents and purposes), the heterosexual men married to women that disturbs me the most Strewth. The owner of the gay sauna said that he would estimate that at least 50% of the clientele were married, family men. What gives? Do you know?

        Like

      • Mon, The link you gave didn’t work but, without seeing the doco, I think it probably deals with a small percentage of people called swingers. You’d probably find disturbing stats in a heterosexual swingers club too.

        Like

      • It’s the same old same old that has gone on for centuries, it’s just that it’s a lot more out in the open now.
        I’ve just about finished reading a book, that I started reading and lost a couple of years ago, called “Why Men Don’t Listen & Women Can’t Read Maps” by Barbara and Allan Pease. It looks at the evolutionary biological aspects of sex, it is designed to be amusing and entertaining but it is very much based on scientific studies. Pretty much they show that, biologically speaking, we are not primarily wired for monogamy when it comes to sex, the purpose of sex is to ensure the survival of our species, as is the case with all other life on earth. We as humans, looking to bring some sort of order the chaos of our lives, have endeavoured to make social rules to govern this great biological urge to ‘go forth and multiply’. Of course as you saw with the Bathhouse Documentary, not always successfully.
        Of further interest in this book, for those that maintain that Homosexuality is is just a product of environment or a matter of choice, is chapter 8 “Boys Will Be Boys, But Not Always” It looks at the role Hormones play in the first 6 to 8 weeks after conception and how it doesn’t always work out exactly black and white e.g. Babies born appearing to be ‘girls’, raised as ‘girls’ only to have male sex organs appear at puberty and go on to successfully live out their lives as men. They also discuss how sexual preference as well as gender confusion are influenced by this same, sometimes, inexact process. Well worth reading as I have been rather brief on all the detail and implications in this chapter.
        What can I say – just the way God/Nature/The Intelligent Designer meant it all to be, otherwise it wouldn’t be….would it now. 🙂

        Like

      • Monica,
        The program that you saw on ABC was shown here in Queensland on one of the ABC programs that also runs children’s programs earlier in the evening.

        Here in Qld it is a concern. We have parents who let their guards down at night and let their children watch TV unsupervised, thus exposing them to programs that they should not watch.

        The Australian Christian Lobby has had a submission to Parliament rejected on the grounds that the wording was too obscene for politicians. The writer of the submission was merely quoting from material provided by the GLBT lobby to be used in our Primary Schools. Whilst the wording was too obscene for the politicians’ sensibilities, the same politicians had no objection exposing our children to the same wording.

        Carol might be right. It is not our marriages that are at risk. It is our children that are at risk. At risk of becoming too familiar with evil so they cannot distinguish between good and evil anymore.

        Like

      • Davinci,

        Once more you tell deliberate lies to fit your own position.

        The Australian Christian Lobby has had a submission to Parliament rejected on the grounds that the wording was too obscene for politicians

        No. The petition = it wasn’t a submission – wasn’t rejected. It was accepted for the Qld Parliament website minus a paragraph on the definition of virginity (pointing out quite sensibly that ” Penis-in-vagina sex is not the only sex”)

        Why that was omitted is a puzzle to me. But then again, it is Queensland!!!.

        So check your facts mate.

        Like

      • Bryan,
        You are correct it was a petition not a submission.
        I stand corrected on this matter.

        However it still raises the point of sexualisation of children, by making them familiar with concepts that are inappropriate for children.

        I am going to gloss over worldly children and worldly parents. They are controlled by a different master.

        Let’s put this in a Christian context.

        You mentioned Matthew 12:46-50 and pointed out that Jesus made keeping God’s commandments the condition being His mother, brother and sister.

        One of these commandments is “Honour thy mother and father…” How exactly do you expect children to do so, when mother and father teach them what the Bible says (marriage between man and woman, homosexuality is a sin, etc), whilst the school and media teaches them the opposite of what mom and dad say? Isn’t media and politics undermining the authority of parents?

        Another of these commandments says “thou shalt not commit adultery”. Jesus made it even more stringent when He said that even thinking lustfully is an act of adultery. How do you expect children to be taught to obey this commandment when:
        – You don’t recognise that some garments are designed to produce the very thing that the command prohibits.
        – the whole GLBT tolerance playbook is riddled with concepts that adversely inflame feelings that should be restrained until marriage.
        – We provide TV content with advisory rating (G, PG, M, MA, R, XXX) because we recognise that what we view can adversely affect children of different ages. Yet when it comes to GLBT issues, we are expected to throw content rating out of the window.

        Like

      • Davinci,

        How can we expect children to respect adults who deliberately lie, deliberately mislead and misrepresent facts and admit a sympathy for the likes of the KKK?

        That’s the REAL problem mate. Answer that!!!

        Like

      • Thanks guys/Strewth.

        Why I mentioned watching that program is because it left me puzzled and basically, I have no-one else I can talk to about such things.

        Bryan, all I know about “swingers” is that they swap partners and have orgies, but these supposedly heterosexual men go behind their wife’s back and have sex with anonymous men in a gay sauna. That’s the confusing part for me. Are they really gay men in disguise or as you say, heterosexual “swingers”? Does that make them bisexuals?

        Why must we put a label on our sexual orientation/appetites? I see that as being outside of who I am. It has nothing to do with my identity. Not so for gays though. Why is that? So there must be something more at play here than meets the eye.

        Yes Davinci, we are losing control of our world, and it is very frightening to me.

        Like

      • “Yes Davinci, we are losing control of our world, and it is very frightening to me.”

        The world has never been within our control, accepting that is a step closer to losing the fear of it. The biggest difference between history and today is that your getting to see it as it happens – live and on TV. There’s still PLENTY of things to be happy about if you choose to acknowledge them.

        Like

      • Mon

        “Why must we put a label on our sexual orientation/appetites? I see that as being outside of who I am. It has nothing to do with my identity. Not so for gays though. Why is that?”

        If you had been discriminated against or persecuted on the basis of your sexuality (for example not being allowed to marry your consenting adult partner), you may find that your sexuality would become a more important part of your identity.

        Like

      • So it’s just a ‘natural’ response to opposing outside influences Stu? Sort of like self-protection/preservation? Makes sense. Thanks.

        Like

      • “So it’s just a ‘natural’ response to opposing outside influences Stu? ”

        I wouldn’t say “just” Mon, but if I had been discriminated against in such a way, it would certainly impact on my identity.

        Like

      • Hey Mon,

        Another thing I doubt you’ve had your sexuality turned into an insult very often either.

        I’ll betcha nobodies every used a phrase like “you’re a lame hetro” to you or anything like that.

        Like

      • No!

        I’ve never even heard of it before, nor do I know what it means. So…..are you now calling me that Paddy/Bubba boy? And even if you are, I’d just laugh it off anyway now. BTW, I can tell you a thing or two about what it feels like to be discriminated against because of ethnicity, gender and body image. I can also tell you what it’s like to be emotionally, physically and sexually abused, and spiritually oppressed…..so feel free to presume to know me enough to call me names. I don’t give a damn.

        Like

      • The point is that you’ll never hear anybody use hetro as an insult. “That’s so hetro” said nobody ever as a put down.

        But people use gay as an insult, as a derogatory term.

        Like

  4. Bryan,

    I noticed you mentioned the pagan Plato, as well as many other things that are the product of a non-Christian background, to undermine the family unit. Meanwhile your supporter Strewth talks about “new age” men to build on what you have said.

    But in your case, you have failed to mention what God says on the matter of family in His Word, in spite of the fact that you call yourself Christian. Do you need to ask “What is family”?

    “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” Rom. 12:2

    You have conformed to the attitudes and beliefs of the world so much that instead of trying to reflect the values of the Kingdom of God to a confused unbelieving world, your articles and arguments promote the idea that the church should be a reflection of the very fallen values of society that are in opposition to the Word of God.

    Like

    • Let’s investigate the theological concept of family. During His three-year ministry, Jesus shattered some prevailing notions of what it meant to be part of a family: “While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, ‘Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.’ He replied to him, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ Pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother’” (Matthew 12:46-50). Now we must clear up some misconceptions with this passage. Jesus is not saying that biological family isn’t important; He is not dismissing His mother and brothers. What He is doing is making the clear theological point that in the Kingdom of Heaven, the most important family connection is spiritual, not physical. This is a truth made explicitly clear in John’s Gospel, when the evangelist says, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God” (John 1:12-13).

      Like

      • Hi Bryan

        Jesus pbuh stated;

        For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven

        We just need to look in the old testament to see what the will of the Father is.

        Like

    • Bryan,

      What the hell are you trying to promote now? Just because Plato spoke of sharing children and wives in common, is your tolerant, un-bigoted Christian outlook that we should go a-swinging, and become wife swappers?

      Show me the Bible verses that endorse wife swapping!

      What next? Human trafficking in children because they should be shared in common? What are trying to insinuate?

      Like

      • Vlad,
        You are deliberately misrepresenting me. That’s a sin.
        I have never advocated wife swapping. Show me where I have. Or apologise.
        Looking forward to your evidence for working in Rwanda!!!!

        Like

      • Bryan,

        Your words:

        “He recommended instead that wives and children be shared in common.”

        Why would you bring into discussion what Plato thought, if you do not advocate it? What has Plato got to do with Christianity?

        Is it not because you have departed from Scripture so far, that you are blurring the lines of distinction between him who serves God and him who doesn’t?

        May I remind you that as a Christian you ought to preach the same gospel that Jesus and the apostles had preached and not what Plato, Jean Paul Satre and other non-believers have preached?

        Like

      • Why would you bring into discussion what Plato thought

        Because this is a blog. You know, where people discuss things. Where issues are raised. Where everyone apart from you is astute enough to know that when I quote someone else I’m not quoting myself. You’re surely not really as thick as you pretend.

        Now, where’s that apology?

        Like

      • You are being generous Bryan. I think Davinci is as thick and egotistical as he seems.

        Like

      • “Bryan, What the hell are you trying to promote now?”

        Davinci – nothing Bryan wrote suggested that he was promoting “wife swapping” or “trafficking in children”. It’s interesting that you choose to lecture your fellow Christians on this site and then misrepresent what they write. At the same time, you choose to lie about referencing the KKK in your comments and, once caught out, lie about the words  you used and context in which you made your comments.

        Now you expect us to accept your “first hand” knowledge of the Rwandan atrocities “as part of an international peace keeping force”?

        Like

      • Davinci:

        “Why would you bring into discussion what Plato thought, if you do not advocate it?”

        Are you saying you can’t introduce a thought without advocating it? I can think of plenty of reasons: comparison of ideas, interest, history, context and juxtaposition.

        Like

    • davinci on July 29, 2015 at 12:51 said:

      “Bryan,

      I noticed you mentioned the pagan Plato, as well as many other things that are the product of a non-Christian background, to undermine the family unit. Meanwhile your supporter Strewth talks about “new age” men to build on what you have said.”

      Please Davinci, don’t start dividing us into camps. I was not building on what Bryan said, but voicing my own views, which I’m sure are often quite different from Bryan’s.

      Like

  5. Hi Mon

    “Why must we put a label on our sexual orientation/appetites? I see that as being outside of who I am. It has nothing to do with my identity. Not so for gays though. Why is that?”

    Its interesting as in Saudi Arabia they have s big population of men who engage in sodomy. The biggest community is in Rhyad.
    As women are wrapped up and kept away from society many men have sex with other men. They do not see themselves as gay and see it as a “phase” you go through. It is against the law but is largly ignored.

    Like

    • Considering that there wouldn’t be much opportunity for single men and women to be spending much time together it might be an understandable phase to go through.

      Like

  6. Pingback: Approachers of ideas around gods, philosophers and theologians | Bijbelvorser = Bible Researcher

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s