Dave the selective response

[pixee]

I know it says it's wrong so i wouldn't marry you BUT i don't have a problem with it and jesus loves everyone he just loves some of you more than others..

He managed to evade offending any viewers quite well i thought without completely undermining his professed relgious beliefs.

Fair play to the clever monk.

[GypsyGoth]

But it is a bit of a lie, as if his god loved everyone equal, wouldn't they have the same rights in Dave's church?

[MrWong]

Saying that the big book of fairytales told him to do it is not very clever.

He's lucky he's not up or he'd be out Friday.

[pixee]

But it is a bit of a lie, as if his god loved everyone equal, wouldn't they have the same rights in Dave's church?

Oh yes that is my point. His interpratation of scripture is that it is wrong yet he claims he has no problem with it, i don't mind people believing in books written by men as to be the word of god but at least be honest about your belief.

Guess you can buy faith and its price is 100 000 pounds. Woo hoo what a bull**** merchant

[ElProximo]

But it is a bit of a lie, as if his god loved everyone equal, wouldn't they have the same rights in Dave's church?

No.
In the same way you might love all your children equally and don't allow them to do certain things at the breakfast table.
It may very well be because you love them you don't allow footballs to be tossed at the table.

[Jarvio]

He's lucky he's not up or he'd be out Friday.


Bollocks!

[pixee]

No.
In the same way you might love all your children equally and don't allow them to do certain things at the breakfast table.
It may very well be because you love them you don't allow footballs to be tossed at the table.

Equality means that if you take your football example only if you didn't allow all you children to not have footballs this would be an acceptable example. And if you are using football for same sex relationship then again the point i'm making and that poster is making is that Dave claims the scripture "don't allow footballs at the table" which means that if dave believes in his relgion he doesn't allow them either so the bible thinks it is wrong and he thinks it is wrong, he said "he doesn't have a problem with footballs at the table"

Sorry i should have stuck to boys ****ing...

basically god can't love all his children equally if they have different rights that is unequal and the reasoning behind it is irrelevant to the fact of its inequality.

[bansheewails]

Fair play to Josie for questioning Dave on his 'christian' views. The typical answer of a minister or priest when they don;t want to answer tho. 'I dont want to discuss this now'. Thats the problem with religion Dave!

[GypsyGoth]

No.
In the same way you might love all your children equally and don't allow them to do certain things at the breakfast table.
It may very well be because you love them you don't allow footballs to be tossed at the table.

But Dave is allowing some of his children to toss the football and not allowing his other children to toss the football. Yet he claims they are equal.

[MrWong]

Fair play to Josie for questioning Dave on his 'christian' views. The typical answer of a minister or priest when they don;t want to answer tho. 'I dont want to discuss this now'. Thats the problem with religion Dave!

Yep, very hard for religious people to defend bigotry.

[ElProximo]

Equality means that if you take your football example only if you didn't allow all you children to not have footballs this would be an acceptable example. And if you are using football for same sex relationship then again the point i'm making and that poster is making is that Dave claims the scripture "don't allow footballs at the table" which means that if dave believes in his relgion he doesn't allow them either so the bible thinks it is wrong and he thinks it is wrong, he said "he doesn't have a problem with footballs at the table"

Sorry i should have stuck to boys ****ing...

basically god can't love all his children equally if they have different rights that is unequal and the reasoning behind it is irrelevant to the fact of its inequality.

You have two different things here.

1. You are complaining that David is inconsistent in applying or explaining the rules of his Church.
Fair enough.
Your complain would be like a parent saying they do not allow footballs at the breakfast table but the other parent (David) says to the kids "..but I don't mind it".
OK.

2. In another complaint you suppose that if there is a God then that God must allow or condone or endorse same-sex marriages or else He must not love some and love others.
Depends.
If same-sex marriage is unhelpful, counter-productive, misleading, artificial and detrimental then God is showing love by forbidding it.

Now treating people equally is something that might also be different than 'loving people equally as much.
In an example:
- the parents may love both sons equally as much but 15 year old Brian is very good at digesting a beer and handling himself well and so he is allowed a beer on some nights. His twin brother Jason does not handle alcohol, becomes agitated, demands more beer, acts the fool. Jason is not allowed to drink beer.
You can say the parents love both children equally and the fact they don't allow Jason beer is actually demonstrating this and not mitigating this love.

Can you agree?

[pixee]

You have two different things here.

1. You are complaining that David is inconsistent in applying or explaining the rules of his Church.
Fair enough.
Your complain would be like a parent saying they do not allow footballs at the breakfast table but the other parent (David) says to the kids "..but I don't mind it".
OK.

2. In another complaint you suppose that if there is a God then that God must allow or condone or endorse same-sex marriages or else He must not love some and love others.
Depends.
If same-sex marriage is unhelpful, counter-productive, misleading, artificial and detrimental then God is showing love by forbidding it.

Now treating people equally is something that might also be different than 'loving people equally as much.
In an example:
- the parents may love both sons equally as much but 15 year old Brian is very good at digesting a beer and handling himself well and so he is allowed a beer on some nights. His twin brother Jason does not handle alcohol, becomes agitated, demands more beer, acts the fool. Jason is not allowed to drink beer.
You can say the parents love both children equally and the fact they don't allow Jason beer is actually demonstrating this and not mitigating this love.

Can you agree?

Can we stick to same sex cause now we have beer and football and it is very confusing lol.

I mean you have God as one parent and dave as another so dave is the wife of god? I hope you aren't religious cause that surely isn't allowed to equate a chubby welshman to the almighty lol.

I'm not questioning the god of the bible we know he wasn't keen on homos till they had a rewrite and said it wasn't as bad as he initially thought. I'm questioning why Dave would not be consistent which i think we agree on, i simply think he is a fake.

And no if you have two parents who give different rules to their children based on their abilities that is not equality, it may be right based on a parental care or caution for safety but it is not equality and in that sense i agree with you. If the parents were to be truly equal they would say neither child can have beer.

I'm not saying God must either allow or condone simply that Dave said he condoned it and the majority of christians believe the same, and dave clearly believes the same but didn't want to look bad.

[ElProximo]

I'm not questioning the god of the bible we know he wasn't keen on homos till they had a rewrite and said it wasn't as bad as he initially thought.

Never happened.


I'm not saying God must either allow or condone simply that Dave said he condoned it and the majority of christians believe the same, and dave clearly believes the same but didn't want to look bad.


I will watch it again but I thought he said something like " It (gays) doesn't bother him much "
but,
I should watch it again.

It will help if you know that David is not really a monk and to the best of my knowledge is not a properly ordained minister who can do state-recognized marriages,
but,
more importantly, you should know that the vast majority of Christians, Christian scholars, Christian clergy would consider David to be a cult member of a bizarre pseudo-christian fringe group,
and,
that David believes in a lot of things you won't find in a Bible, Church doctrine or really anywhere else.

David accepts things that would be considered heresy by not only most Christians but most NON-Christians who would think it bizarre and inexplicable.

In fact you heard just a 'minor problem' compared to a number of bizarre, inconsistent, aberrant things that David has and might say.

[Deanjam]

The funny thing is there's nothing in the bible outlawing same sex marriages. Even the gay thing is questionable as it only says men laying together is an abomination in the eyes of the lord. No mention of it being a sin. Just means he doesn't want to watch it.

[Shasown]

You have two different things here.

1. You are complaining that David is inconsistent in applying or explaining the rules of his Church.
Fair enough.
Your complain would be like a parent saying they do not allow footballs at the breakfast table but the other parent (David) says to the kids "..but I don't mind it".
OK.

2. In another complaint you suppose that if there is a God then that God must allow or condone or endorse same-sex marriages or else He must not love some and love others.
Depends.
If same-sex marriage is unhelpful, counter-productive, misleading, artificial and detrimental then God is showing love by forbidding it.

Now treating people equally is something that might also be different than 'loving people equally as much.
In an example:
- the parents may love both sons equally as much but 15 year old Brian is very good at digesting a beer and handling himself well and so he is allowed a beer on some nights. His twin brother Jason does not handle alcohol, becomes agitated, demands more beer, acts the fool. Jason is not allowed to drink beer.
You can say the parents love both children equally and the fact they don't allow Jason beer is actually demonstrating this and not mitigating this love.

Can you agree?

Using that analogy the children are being treated unfairly, surely you should just say neither have beer, regardless of the actions on either you should to be fair treat them both the same. Otherwise you are favouring one over the other. You may love them both equally but you are treating one differently.

[billy123]

as an agnostic i dont agree with davids reasoning on this matter i have my own opinion which is private but i will give him great credit for sticking to his beliefs the wimps way out would have been to lie and say yes il do the ceremony knowing full well he would never have to do it but he didnt do that he stuck to what he believes in not everybody in that house would have done the same thats for sure so good on him.

[Jords]

I thought he handled the situation well. :)

[vesavius]

I know it says it's wrong so i wouldn't marry you BUT i don't have a problem with it and jesus loves everyone he just loves some of you more than others..

He managed to evade offending any viewers quite well i thought without completely undermining his professed relgious beliefs.

Fair play to the clever monk.

From that clip in the HL show dave is a dead man walking.

A 'clever monk' would have just ****.

[billy123]

I thought he handled the situation well. :)

:thumbs:

[Deanjam]

I thought he handled the situation well. :)

At best he came across as a hypocrite, at worst a homophobe.

[billy123]

At best he came across as a hypocrite, at worst a homophobe.diplomacy is an underated skill not every situation has to end in conflict.

[Deanjam]

diplomacy is an underated skill not every situation has to end in conflict.

A conversation of differing opinions doesn't need to end in conflict if the people are intelligent and respectful. I know in Big Brother it often ends that way, but Josie wasn't spoiling for a fight, merely questioning a comment that deserved questioning. The fact that he was so quick to end that conversation suggests he knew he was onto a loser. It was only smart in a cynical way.

[Shasown]

At best he came across as a hypocrite, at worst a homophobe.

He may not be a homophobe, he may have a live and let live attitude. He didnt say homosexuality is an abomination in his eyes or in the eyes of his god. As he said God loves everyone, but scripture in his interpretation doesnt allow same sex marriage.

A hypocrite no, he defended his beliefs is all. Without meaning to offend anyone. If you read the bible especially the New Testament you will see it does say God loves everyone, even sinners. It doesnt say sinning is okay.

[Deanjam]

He may not be a homophobe, he may have a live and let live attitude. He didnt say homosexuality is an abomination in his eyes or in the eyes of his god. As he said God loves everyone, but scripture in his interpretation doesnt allow same sex marriage.

A hypocrite no, he defended his beliefs is all. Without meaning to offend anyone. If you read the bible especially the New Testament you will see it does say God loves everyone, even sinners. It doesnt say sinning is okay.

His scripture says homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, I didn't say he said it. Indeed, if he goes off the bible scripture then he has no reason to oppose same sex marriage as there is nothing in there that opposes it.

My problem is that he holds to a homophobic belief - that gay people are not entitled to the same right of marriage as straight people - and yet claims to have no problem with gays. That is hypocrital. He's entitled to not believe gays should marry all he wants, just don't pretend this comes from anywhere but homophobia.

And the New Testament says that God sent Jesus to die for our sins so our sins would be forgiven. Basically, because the Old Testament made so many things sins, they had to write a new scripture that absolved people from them.

[LiquidGold]

But it is a bit of a lie, as if his god loved everyone equal, wouldn't they have the same rights in Dave's church?

yeah i just think he's a weirdo anyway he's not a normal christian cause all that foolishness about getting high on holy ghost its even put caoimhe off so what i hate is caoimhe proberly thinks all christians are like him! :rolleyes:

[Shasown]

His scripture says homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, I didn't say he said it. Indeed, if he goes off the bible scripture then he has no reason to oppose same sex marriage as there is nothing in there that opposes it.

My problem is that he holds to a homophobic belief - that gay people are not entitled to the same right of marriage as straight people - and yet claims to have no problem with gays. That is hypocrital. He's entitled to not believe gays should marry all he wants, just don't pretend this comes from anywhere but homophobia.

And the New Testament says that God sent Jesus to die for our sins so our sins would be forgiven. Basically, because the Old Testament made so many things sins, they had to write a new scripture that absolved people from them.

Its may not be from personal homophobia, its from religious dogma, there are other groups within society who are also not allowed to marry, for example certain groups of relatives while being able to marry legally in a civil ceremony cant marry within certain religions, some religions believe you marry for life therefore divorcees cant remarry.

Whilst its true he may hold those beliefs personally, he may also hold the belief that same sex marriages should be allowed, there are priests and minsiters etc who hold such beliefs privately but cant express them publicly. He has at the moment hid his own beliefs behind the "not allowed in scriptures argument"

[ElProximo]

David is a weirdo cult member but having watched this again I don't see him avoiding anything or being difficult,
and,
was about as straight-forward and honest about his understanding as he could communicate.

Philosophically speaking - there is no 'contradiction' between 'God loves everyone' and 'Some unions are not holy' or 'some rules apply'. (put aside if you accept the religious teaching yourself but as they practice it there is no logical problem).

Sociology PoV - the vast majority of human beings of thousands of different cultures over thousands of centuries,
crossing continents,
across time,
around the world,
For the vast majority of humans who ever lived and live today consider marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Almost NONE of them ever considered '2 men' or '2 women' to be a valid or celebrated or even acceptable situation.
and,
It might be safe to say that in most cultures, throughout history that was even considered perverted, retarded, shameful, silly or just a little weird.
It is astonishingly short-sighted and narrow-minded to actually believe that a very recent 'aberration' of some people in some western modern cultures believing that it is completely acceptable should be a 'given',
and,
acting as if they are 'surprised' or pretending to be 'outraged' that their very specific and peculiar social experiment is not a 'given' for all who know better.

But back to cult member David - even he knows he was picked to make a spectacle of himself and be the fool for Christianity,
yet,
IN this case he was very honest, compassionate, was not 'hypocritical', there wasn't a 'contradiction' but he also openly confessed to difficulties and his best understanding.

The judgmental and self-righteous attitude of some of the critics in here is really something to behold.

[Deanjam]

Its may not be from personal homophobia, its from religious dogma, there are other groups within society who are also not allowed to marry, for example certain groups of relatives while being able to marry legally in a civil ceremony cant marry within certain religions, some religions believe you marry for life therefore divorcees cant remarry.

Whilst its true he may hold those beliefs personally, he may also hold the belief that same sex marriages should be allowed, there are priests and minsiters etc who hold such beliefs privately but cant express them publicly. He has at the moment hid his own beliefs behind the "not allowed in scriptures argument"

I suppose I can't agree with the idea of following a set of beliefs you don't entirely believe in. Any notion of faith or spirituality I have (and I admit it ain't much) has been reached by measuring the religious and spiritual beliefs I have been exposed to against what I feel to be right and wrong, reaching a conclusion of my own, seperate from any orthodoxy. I personally can't follow any religion that promotes the exclusion of any part of society and I can't agree with anyone that supports those beliefs either (even if inwardly they disagree with them).

My issue with Dave hiding his true feeling towards same sex marriage behind scripture is that as a preacher, he most literally ought to practice what he preaches.

I don't mean any disrepect to people's right to believe what they wish, even though I disagree with their interpretation.

Peace and love y'all. :angel:

[Shasown]

My issue with Dave hiding his true feeling towards same sex marriage behind scripture is that as a preacher, he most literally ought to practice what he preaches.

I don't mean any disrepect to people's right to believe what they wish, even though I disagree with their interpretation.

Peace and love y'all. :angel:

Then surely following the established party line (the general religious concensus) is in fact practicing what he preaches and as such is not hypocrisy, if his church says no to same sex marriage then as a minister of that church he has also to say no to same sex marriage otherwise it makes his ministerings hypocritical.

Whilst I can understand his reasoning and his explanation I cant speak for his own personal views on the subject.

[ElProximo]

My issue with Dave hiding his true feeling towards same sex marriage behind scripture is that as a preacher, he most literally ought to practice what he preaches.


Right. He does practice what he preaches. He believes the Bible is God's word and it doesn't allow for same-sex marriages and so he practices accordingly.

I believe my workplace does not allow smoking cigarettes on the property. It doesn't really bother me,
but,
because I do believe that is their rules I don't allow or condone or help others smoke on the property.
Personally, it doesn't really bother me.
Do you see this?
There is nothing 'hypocritical' or 'inconsistent' going on here.

[Angus]

But it is a bit of a lie, as if his god loved everyone equal, wouldn't they have the same rights in Dave's church?

It is not "Dave's church", it is the Christian faith where the general consensus is that the scriptures frown upon homosexual unions, and the specific demonination of that faith that determines the specifics. Dave is entitled to his religious beliefs, right or wrong, just as other faiths are entitled to theirs (some of which are extremely bizarre and definitely would be considered "unchristian").

I'm sure that if a gay couple wish to get married in the Christian faith, there are plenty of ministers out there who will oblige. Dave is just one minister in one denomination of a faith. By the way I'm NOT a Dave fan - just a believer in freedom of choice, HIS.

Incidentally, the vast majority of people who get married in church couldn't give a toss about the religious aspect of the ceremony, so that argument does NOT fly.

[Angus]

Right. He does practice what he preaches. He believes the Bible is God's word and it doesn't allow for same-sex marriages and so he practices accordingly.

I believe my workplace does not allow smoking cigarettes on the property. It doesn't really bother me,
but,
because I do believe that is their rules I don't allow or condone or help others smoke on the property.
Personally, it doesn't really bother me.
Do you see this?
There is nothing 'hypocritical' or 'inconsistent' going on here.



THIS.

BUT you will always get people who think the rules don't apply to them!

[Zippy]

Monk? Thought he was a wizard? I guess he'll claim to be anything in his desperation to seem wacky and interesting.

Small minded and prejudiced. Added to his long list of faults.

[Angus]

I suppose I can't agree with the idea of following a set of beliefs you don't entirely believe in. Any notion of faith or spirituality I have (and I admit it ain't much) has been reached by measuring the religious and spiritual beliefs I have been exposed to against what I feel to be right and wrong, reaching a conclusion of my own, seperate from any orthodoxy. I personally can't follow any religion that promotes the exclusion of any part of society and I can't agree with anyone that supports those beliefs either (even if inwardly they disagree with them).

My issue with Dave hiding his true feeling towards same sex marriage behind scripture is that as a preacher, he most literally ought to practice what he preaches.

I don't mean any disrepect to people's right to believe what they wish, even though I disagree with their interpretation.


Peace and love y'all. :angel:

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to where in the Bible gay marriage is condoned. Or do you expect others to compromise THEIR principles and faith to accommodate the wishes of others who, in all probability, do not subscribe to David's specific denomination of the christian faith? I may not like the man, but the one thing he doesn't appear to be is a hypocrite.

[pixee]

Never happened.



I will watch it again but I thought he said something like " It (gays) doesn't bother him much "
but,
I should watch it again.

It will help if you know that David is not really a monk and to the best of my knowledge is not a properly ordained minister who can do state-recognized marriages,
but,
more importantly, you should know that the vast majority of Christians, Christian scholars, Christian clergy would consider David to be a cult member of a bizarre pseudo-christian fringe group,
and,
that David believes in a lot of things you won't find in a Bible, Church doctrine or really anywhere else.

David accepts things that would be considered heresy by not only most Christians but most NON-Christians who would think it bizarre and inexplicable.

In fact you heard just a 'minor problem' compared to a number of bizarre, inconsistent, aberrant things that David has and might say.

Sorry when i said "he" i meant dave claimed god then yes as you say said he personally thought it was alright.

I think we are in agreement actually about one thing, he is a fake. I actually do respect peoples faith but when an ex heavy drug user claims to have found god and is getting spiritual by getting drunk and "drunk for weeks with the spirit of the lord" he's just a bull**** merchant.

I don't want to get into a theological argument over such a person lol but i take your points on board about christians view of him and his claimed belief.