|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lesbians and the Bible
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Croesos, but what if part of what's wrong with your dysfunctional relationship is thatyour partner won't do the act neccessary to make a child? How do you fix it then? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
brightmorningstar - if homosexuality is perversion of God's created order why is it observed so often in wild animals ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Leo, this is your second hostly warning that personal arguments/attacks belong in Hell. If you've got nothing to add to the thread except cracks at other posters, then I suggest you stop posting on it.
Can I also remind everyone else, that if you want to get personal about another poster you need to stop posting here, and post in Hell instead.
Louise
Dead horse Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Okay, since it is Christmas, and I am a Baptist...
I'll leave you with the prince of preachers (Charles Spurgeon) on Psalm 19: 8 -
quote:
"Retire and read thy Bible to be gay."
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Eliab,
quote:
OK, you might mean one of two things. You might be saying that sharing one's life with one's beloved is just a ‘friendship' like any other friendship, and sex is an optional add-on to that.
No, what I am saying is what the Bible says. God created male and female to be in union or celibacy, and we are to love each other. The love in the NT is not sexual, its philea and agape, love as sex is a modern corruption and clouding the understanding.
quote:
In which case, that's cobblers. I've got lots of friends. One of those friends is my wife. I love them all, and they are all important to me, but there is a real, qualitative difference between the one with whom I share my home, and my hopes, and my future, and all the others. A relationship isn't just ‘friends with benefits'.
So how does your explanation fit with God’s purposes where because of sexual immorality each man should have his own wife?
quote:
Or you might mean that the companiable element in homosexual love is, as far as you are concerned, unobjectionable.
No, I didn’t write the Bible, same sex relations is error, therefore homosexual love is the error you are making. What do you think the sex in homosexual means, its not homolove is it!
quote:
There is nothing wrong with a woman falling in love with another woman and feeling for her all the affectionate and tender elements of love that one might hope for in the best marriages, and giving her all the support and pleasure that one could find in the best friendships.
no, same sex relations are error according to God’s word, so what do you mean by falling in love?
quote:
What the Bible condems are dysfunctional unloving sexual deviations.
men with men instead of with women is the dysfunctional error.
quote:
The relationship of loving friendship between two women is allowed, provided that they don't actually fuck.
Yes they are friends,
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
brightmorningstar - if homosexuality is perversion of God's created order why is it observed so often in wild animals ?
It is a perversion of God's created order as God's word says and as evident in their being two sexes in the species for sexual reproduction. What is observed is dysfuntion.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To leo,
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So they shall have a kid and they shall call him Brightmorningstar and of the increase of his knowledge there shall be no end.
seriously, I did not write the Bible, if you keep attributing what the Bible says as being my wisdom then my question is how could you recognise God whilst you attribute His word to people?
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
...seriously, I did not write the Bible...
But you appear to have appointed yourself as its sole valid interpreter here for the time being. There are many folks here with years of theological training and pastoral experience but apparently they are all in error because you are, by your definition, the only one who is right.
QED.
That makes this thread no longer a discussion but an harangue.
Hmmmm.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
BMS, did you actually read Eliab's post? If you did, did you understand it, because if you did, how could you write
quote:
quote:
The relationship of loving friendship between two women is allowed, provided that they don't actually fuck.
Yes they are friends.
Just to spell it out, a marriage or marriage like relationship is far, far more than a friendship.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
...seriously, I did not write the Bible...
But you appear to have appointed yourself as its sole valid interpreter here for the time being. There are many folks here with years of theological training and pastoral experience but apparently they are all in error because you are, by your definition, the only one who is right.
QED.
That makes this thread no longer a discussion but an harangue.
Hmmmm.
But it is traditionally Christian. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the Christian deity was invented largely as a rhetorical trump card for upholding otherwise untenable positions. That way the adherent can play Good Cop/Bad God.
"If it were up to me I'd treat you with respect, but my partner over there is a real hard-ass about this sort of thing."
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
brightmorningstar - if homosexuality is perversion of God's created order why is it observed so often in wild animals ?
It is a perversion of God's created order as God's word says and as evident in their being two sexes in the species for sexual reproduction. What is observed is dysfuntion.
Perversion by whom? Are animals capable of wilfully perverting God's created order?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Welease Woderwick,
quote:
But you appear to have appointed yourself as its sole valid interpreter here for the time being.
The overwhelming majority of Christians worldwide would tell the posters here they are not only out of touch with most Christians but they seem blind to what the Bible says. One of the first things people who don’t like something do is attack the messenger. Theological training proved useless to the Pharisees as well.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
That overwhelming number of Christians seem to have a characterture of what gay people are like, probably because few, on a worldwide scale, have actually been exposed to us and gotten to know us and our relationships. So IMHO they misinterpret 6 Bible verses and use them to condemn something that only exists as an abstract.
The overwhelming number of Christians seem to have missed the mark when it comes to interpreting the Bible with many issues: geocentrism, slavery, women's equality, the Jews, etc. So appealing to numbers is going to hold little impact.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
quote:
Perversion by whom?
Read your Bible, the word of God, and see that men with men instead of the natural with women is error. Romans 1 Why keep asking me?
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, I read my Bible and it says that Jesus is the Word of God. I am confused. If the bible is the word of God as well, it must be contradicting itself.
Or is God schizophrenic as well as vindictive and homophobic?
Indeed so, it seems. And sexist? And presumably racist if He condoned slavery? I'm nipping out to buy me a slave right now on account of how it says so in the Bible, unless there's any volunteers? Can supply chain and whip ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
quote:
Perversion by whom?
Read your Bible, the word of God, and see that men with men instead of the natural with women is error. Romans 1 Why keep asking me?
But your answer that I quoted was not talking about "men". Think2 had asked you about wild animals and you replied that they were perverted as well. Romans 1 does not mention the sexual behaviour of dolphins or penguins, to name the two creatures who first come to my mind. So, if male-on-male dolphin sex is perverted, who perverted them?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
quote:
Perversion by whom?
Read your Bible, the word of God, and see that men with men instead of the natural with women is error. Romans 1 Why keep asking me?
I've placed my (non-hostly) reply to this on the open thread on the
Hell board to avoid any personal arguments here.
While it is within the rules to criticise style of posting, it can easily shade into personal argument or attack, so I'm choosing to keep it off this board.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Otter
Shipmate
# 12020
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Indeed so, it seems. And sexist? And presumably racist if He condoned slavery? I'm nipping out to buy me a slave right now on account of how it says so in the Bible, unless there's any volunteers? Can supply chain and whip
Aw drat, you're on the wrong side of the pond! (Mr. Otter even said I could volunteer...)
--------------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", YMMV, limited-time offer, IANAL, no purchase required, and the state of CA has found this substance to cause cancer in laboratory aminals
Posts: 1429 | From: Chicago, IL 'burbs | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well done Johnny. I wish others with whom I disagree had your grace and sense of humour. Christmas greetings.
Don't worry Leo - once the game of footie has finished I'm sure we'll all return to our entrenched positions!
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Happy New Year everyone - I'm off for my summer hols ... plenty of sun, sea and er, surf for me. I'll be back in about a fortnight.
Just so that I've got something to read when I get back ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Romans 1 does not mention the sexual behaviour of dolphins or penguins, to name the two creatures who first come to my mind. So, if male-on-male dolphin sex is perverted, who perverted them?
BMS can bring his/her own answer to this but I still don't get the point that is being made:
What is homosexuality in the animal kingdom supposed to prove? Apart from the extremely complicated discussion over comparing animal relationships to those of humans - do they really need someone to talk through their day? - I don't see what difference it makes either way.
The Genesis account of creation makes it very clear that humans are different to animals - only humans were created in God's image. Now YEC or Theistic evolutionist might interpret that differently but either way it is only human beings who have morality in the religious sense. I don't see how we can attach any morality to the sexual habits of animals. Indeed for most of Christianity's 2000 year history behaving like animals has been the basest of insults.
Isn't that the whole point of this thread? Traditional Christianity has argued that Homosexuality is wrong simply because God says so - not because of any naturalistic explanation?
Now, one would expect a good God to come up with prohibitions for our own good and therefore that there would be (somewhere down the line) a naturalistic explanation to back it up, but it still remains that Christian morality has been traditionally defined wrt God and not to 'nature'. AFAIK there is no naturalistic explanation for a condemnation of homosexuality but then I'm called to live by faith and not by sight at the same time as looking hard for such an explanation.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
Johnny,
The main point of that post was to query bms' choice of language. If s/he had responded to Think using a similar argument to you, I would not have posted further. But bms stated that homosexuality in wild animals is "a perversion of God's created order". To my mind, if something is perverted that means that some-one has perverted it and I am trying to find out who or what bms believes has perverted the created order. So far the only response has been that I should read my Bible.
To try to answer your question, however, I do not agree with you on the chasm you seem to see between humans and other animals. If animals, whom we agree cannot make moral choices, behave in ways that we regard as "homosexual", then it must be "natural". So, why is similar behaviour not "natural" in homo sapiens as well? Just as left-handedness is.
Hope you had a good holiday ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Joanna
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
So how does your explanation fit with God’s purposes where because of sexual immorality each man should have his own wife?
I’m not sure what point you are making. I don’t see how anything I’ve written conflicts with that verse.
I would interpret it, in the words of the BCP which were read at my wedding, as meaning that one of the reasons why marriage was ordained was as a remedy against sin and to avoid fornication. There are, of course, further and additional reasons for marriage.
If anything, the principle here would seem to be in favour of allowing gay marriage. If human sexual desire is generally so strong that it easily leads us into sin, and that temptation, if not completely overcome, may at least be rendered more manageable by providing for each person an exclusive sexual partner with whom intercourse is no sin, then there is a clear and obvious benefit in allowing those women who fancy women rather than men the same provision. But the argument is not, I accept, strong enough to overcome an express prohibition on all same-sex relationships, if that is indeed what the Bible contains.
quote:
God created male and female to be in union or celibacy, and we are to love each other. The love in the NT is not sexual, its philea and agape, love as sex is a modern corruption and clouding the understanding...
…same sex relations is error, therefore homosexual love is the error you are making. What do you think the sex in homosexual means, its not homolove is it!...
…no, same sex relations are error according to God’s word, so what do you mean by falling in love?
Again, I don’t think I follow you. You surely can’t be ignorant of what “falling in love” generally means? If you are, then you need to read some poetry or listen to some popular music. Every feeling, attitude and judgement which is appropriate to and desirable in the very best of heterosexual marriages I include under the heading of “love” for this purpose (while acknowledging there are other equally valid meanings of the word used in ordinary English as well as in the Bible).
Are you making the point that what the Bible condemns is sexual lust – pure, selfish desire to take pleasure from someone else’s body – and has nothing at all to do with the whole range of experiences that are usually called “being in love”? I think many of your opponents would admit and affirm precisely the same.
Are you then assuming that because the Bible characterizes homosexual experience in this way, as lust, that therefore that is what homosexuality really is? That in fact, homosexuals do not fall in love with one another with the same sense of admiration, tenderness and unselfishness as heterosexuals do? Because if they did do so, we could expect the Bible to address such a situation, and it doesn’t?
Before I reply to that, I’d like to be sure that is what you are saying, or if your point is something else.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Leo,
quote:
Well, I read my Bible and it says that Jesus is the Word of God. I am confused. If the bible is the word of God as well, it must be contradicting itself.
Let me educate you further then. What I wrote was the ‘word’ of God lowercase, not the ‘Word’ The Word is Jesus (John 1) the ‘word’ received from the NT writers (1 Thes 2) it is the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev 1) who is the ‘Word’ (1 John).
quote:
[quote] Or is God schizophrenic as well as vindictive and homophobic?
That could only be the case if someone had elevated their sexual desires as more important than God’s purposes
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Eliab,
quote:
I’m not sure what point you are making. I don’t see how anything I’ve written conflicts with that verse.
I was referring to the concept of same sex relations which conflicts with the verses.
quote:
If anything, the principle here would seem to be in favour of allowing gay marriage.
What do you mean by gay marriage, marriage is man and woman as God’s created purpose hence why I quoted Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Eph 5 etc.
quote:
If human sexual desire is generally so strong that it easily leads us into sin, and that temptation, if not completely overcome, may at least be rendered more manageable by providing for each person an exclusive sexual partner with whom intercourse is no sin, then there is a clear and obvious benefit in allowing those women who fancy women rather than men the same provision.
So if human desire for sin is so strong how can Jesus save us from it? This is rather fundamentally core Christian belief you seem to be disputing. Its also error as we see from the word of God.
quote:
Again, I don’t think I follow you. You surely can’t be ignorant of what “falling in love” generally means?
No I am not but you surely are. Falling in love is a modern expression for a sexual relationship. What I laid out which you quoted was what god’s word says.
As to being in love read song of songs which of course is about man and woman.
If you have any scripture to support the sin of same sex relations please show it, at the moment all I am reading is your own cultural ideas which are contrary to God’s word and purpose. You keep asking me about homosexuals, the Biblical testimony shows same sex relations are error.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Leo,
[QUOTE] Well, I read my Bible and it says that Jesus is the Word of God. I am confused. If the bible is the word of God as well, it must be contradicting itself.
Let me educate you further then. What I wrote was the ‘word’ of God lowercase, not the ‘Word’ The Word is Jesus (John 1) the ‘word’ received from the NT writers (1 Thes 2) it is the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev 1) who is the ‘Word’ (1 John).
quote:
My apologies. I had overlooked that.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
Falling in love is a modern expression for a sexual relationship.
Tell that to Jane Austen. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
But Jane Austen isn't in the Bible. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
[ 27. December 2009, 16:04: Message edited by: leo ]
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Stephen the Stoned
Shipmate
# 9841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But Jane Austen isn't in the Bible.
I read that as "But Jane Austen isn't the Bible."
Tell that to the BBC.
--------------------
Do you want to see Jesus or don't yer? Well shurrup then!
Posts: 518 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
If you have any scripture to support the sin of same sex relations please show it, at the moment all I am reading is your own cultural ideas which are contrary to God’s word and purpose. You keep asking me about homosexuals, the Biblical testimony shows same sex relations are error.
You haven’t managed to make your position any more clear to me with that last post. However I appear to have failed just as much to make my position clear to you, so I’ll try a fresh start.
1. I’m not arguing that same-sex relationships are not sinful. Or that the Bible supports or allows them. You seem to be responding to me as if that were my point, and it’s not.
2. I agree with you that the Bible would appear to condemn same sex relationships. And I believe that the Bible is authoritative.
3. Where I differ from you is that I’m not content to stop there and say that this settles the matter. What I am trying to persuade you of is not that you are wrong. As far as I know, you could be right. What I am trying to persuade you of, is that it is your Christian duty, for the sake of charity and truth, to have the debate about homosexuality, to really try to understand the other side, not to shut it out with a simple “the Bible says…” and to look at the arguments about what the Bible means.
This is why:
You know the bit of the gospel where Jesus says that if you come to him and do not hate your own mother, you can’t be his disciple? Imagine coming to that text cold – reading it without any accustomed softening. I expect that it would shock you. It would be contrary to what you considered the best that your conscience requires of you.
Now suppose you take your concern to your church, and the pastor (himself an orphan) tells you that it means exactly what it says. Hate your mother. Do your best to offend and injure her at every opportunity. Treat her with absolute contempt, and regard every natural affection you have for her as a satanic corruption of your nature, to be resisted to your life’s end. Would you be happy with that? Would you accept “the Bible says…” as reason enough to do as your pastor bids?
I greatly doubt it. Surely what you would do, while still accepting the authority of the Bible and acknowledging that you are, ultimately, bound to obey its command, is to examine with the most meticulous care whether the Bible really means. You would look at what Greek word was translated “hate”. You would study how the word is used in the Greek or Aramaic idiom. You would ask what point Jesus was making, what sin or temptation he was addressing, when he said that word. You would ask whether the command was conditioned on anything in the particular situation he was speaking to, or whether the command was universal. And you would not for a moment consider that what you were doing was disobedient, or judging God’s word, or erroneous in principle. On the contrary, you would say that you were honestly engaging with the text with a sincere desire to find out exactly what the Lord really required of you, and then to do it.
You might, after all of that, conclude that God really wants you to hate your mum, and then, reluctantly, you would try to obey. Even so, I think you would quite rightly look with horror at those who managed to hate their mothers without any of the soul searching you went through. More likely, though, you might conclude that Jesus meant something radical and important about rejecting any maternal claim on your loyalty when opposed to God’s claims, but did not mean you to utterly repudiate your parents. You might differ from other Christians in interpretation – when precisely you ought to tell mum to go piss up a rope for the sake of Jesus - but you wouldn’t accuse them of disobedience to God’s word because, for example, you think that you should refuse your mother’s request to drive her to the shops so that you could go to a mid-week worship meeting, and they think the command to honour parents has priority in such a case.
Got that?
What you need to see is that as far as Christians like (for example) ToujoursDan are concerned, the Biblical condemnations of homosexuality are “hate your mother” verses. They are difficult, not because they condemn sin, but because they conflict with an impulse to love unselfishly. It doesn’t matter (for this purpose) whether those feelings of ‘love’ are a product of a 21st century culture or not. The point is that they are felt as real and perceived as good. It is only AFTER you go through the soul-searching and honest engagement with the text, that you, or anyone else, can get to the point where they say (if indeed, it is true) that the feelings are false, misleading, and to be resisted. To do that before having the debate would be like leaping eagerly at the opportunity afforded by Scripture to hate your mother, and finding it no struggle at all. The attitude would be contemptible, EVEN IF the action were right.
That’s why I think your contribution to the debate has failed to convince. You show no sign of seeing that your opponents’ case may even be examined with Christian integrity. You simply cannot treat the issue as a simple or easy one, and expect that anything you then say will connect with the experience of a Christian who finds the matter one of intense and personal struggle.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Eliab - that is a wonderful post. Thank you.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
So in my debate with Hawk, I am right in saying that the prohibition on homosexuality comes soley from Paul and Leviticus ?
No. The Bible shaped by a central meta-narrative of God's action. The prohibition on homosexuality flows from this core theme of how God organizes the world and deals with human sin.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Excellent, excellent post, Eliab! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Great analogy with the "hate your mother" command. Great exposition. You can lead my Bible study anytime!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Eliab, brilliant!
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What is homosexuality in the animal kingdom supposed to prove? Apart from the extremely complicated discussion over comparing animal relationships to those of humans - do they really need someone to talk through their day? - I don't see what difference it makes either way.
For a long time, until the quite recent collation and wide spread public communication of the scientific observation of homosexual behaviour, homosexuality was argued to be a uniquely human perversion. It was one of the arguments used to demonstrate it is not of God, not part of the created order. Now it is perfectly possible to make this argument without reference to the animal kingdom - but for a long time it was part of the argument. Folk have back pedalled on it quite fast as the evidence has been brought to light.
There are other meanings of the word 'natural' - but often people take it to mean something that wouldn't occur without human intervention. Homosexuality is a naturally occuring behaviour in most animal species that have two genders.
Also, posts such as this:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
So in my debate with Hawk, I am right in saying that the prohibition on homosexuality comes soley from Paul and Leviticus ?
No. The Bible shaped by a central meta-narrative of God's action. The prohibition on homosexuality flows from this core theme of how God organizes the world and deals with human sin.
Really need some explaination as to why God organizes a world that includes homosexuality in animals - when he needn't - if non-procreative sex is somehow offensive to God.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Really need some explaination as to why God organizes a world that includes homosexuality in animals - when he needn't - if non-procreative sex is somehow offensive to God.
I'd say, biblically, sex is more significant between humans then amoung animals. Besides why would God find 'non-procreative' sex offensive?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
I'd like to suggest that Biblically, procreative sex is only significant if the perpetrators are of the Chosen subspecies. One gets the impression from the OT that the breeding propensities of the non-Chosen are of no more significance than those of camels, dogs or caterpillars innumerable.
Interesting that there is no philoprogentive propaganda in the NT, either from Christ himself or even from Paul.
Fast-forward to the Quiverfull movement....scary, that.
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Besides why would God find 'non-procreative' sex offensive?
Nice to hear you say so, Luke. The offensiveness of non-procreative sex has been one of the very major planks of the anti-gay movement's theology.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Eliab, I would like to add my to your post, with its combination of wisdom, sensitivity, Biblical fidelity and integrity. Thank you.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
Firstly all herrings are fish but not all fish are herrings. What exactly does it mean when Jane Austen isn’t mentioned in the Bible but same sex condemnations are mentioned? Not sure how far away from the discussion one can get?
To Eliab,
Thanks for your reply.
I am not sure how I haven’t made my position clear to you when you have acknowledged that to you the Bible is authorative and appears to condemn same sex relationships. What I would ask you in response is whether the Bible is clear about anything or whether it just appears to reveal anything? And how could the Bible be authorative is only appearing to reveal something?
quote:
Where I differ from you is that I’m not content to stop there and say that this settles the matter.
What I am saying is how could it not is there is no countenance for something in the face of exclusions and condemnations of it?
quote:
is that it is your Christian duty, for the sake of charity and truth, to have the debate about homosexuality, to really try to understand the other side, not to shut it out with a simple “the Bible says…” and to look at the arguments about what the Bible means.
No it isn’t Christian duty, where is your scripture for this? Christian duty is to encourage one another in the truth revealed in scriptures, 2 Tim 3 to rebuke, correct, encourage and teach. It is also a Christian’s duty not to judge those in the world and listen to them, but to restore brothers from sin and error or expel the wilfully disobedient to the faith once delivered. Galatians 6, Galatians 1, 1 Corinthians 6.
quote:
You know the bit of the gospel where Jesus says that if you come to him and do not hate your own mother, you can’t be his disciple? Imagine coming to that text cold – reading it without any accustomed softening. I expect that it would shock you. It would be contrary to what you considered the best that your conscience requires of you.
True but we aren’t coming to the scriptures like that, we are coming to ask in the light of the scriptures that exclude and condemn same sex relations, what scriptures can possibly countenance it?
As to the word ‘hate’, the translation and meaning in context, one can know that this means put Jesus above all rather than hate ones mother because elsewhere Jesus NT teaches to love and honour parents and do not curser them. Mark 7. Equally love agape is explained, God’s love is described and identified by what Christ has done.
So what is the context for same sex relationships, we know they are opposite to God’s purpose for woman and man in union and we know they are condemned so how could one say they were acceptable, which is of course the question being asked.
Got that?
quote:
That’s why I think your contribution to the debate has failed to convince.
That’s ok that’s just opinion again, I see the majority of posters here holding what the majority of Christians would see as an Un-Christian view.
quote:
You show no sign of seeing that your opponents’ case may even be examined with Christian integrity.
Yes most definitely if there is no scriptural support for something that is scripturally excluded and condemned I see it as without any Christian integrity merely disbelief. I see no case for same sex relationships only outright and rank denial, if there is no scripture to support it and scripture which condemns and excludes it there is no case to see.
You have tried to appeal fo disbelief and denial of the word of God and received support for it. As has happened accross the world and within denominations, the church is splitting into two camps, one which says what you say, and the majority which say the opposite and believe the Biblcal testimony. The latter majority have mostly given up listening to perosonal opinions that are simply disbelief. Galatians says, any other gospel is really no gospel at all.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
So...according to your logic, BMS...
If someone says we're to hate our mothers, we can think "No, Jesus told us to love people", and that counters it, yes?
But...if someone says we're told to hate gay relationships, we cannot think "No, Jesus told us and demonstrated to us that loving people in a respectful is ok"?
Er, why?
As for a majority Christian view, no, it's not. See the hell thread. For many thousands of years people thought the earth was flat. It wasn't. The majority view does not make it a correct view. Majorities, even if they exist, can be misled, misinformed, or simply missing key information to make an informed decision.
[ 29. December 2009, 09:24: Message edited by: amber. ]
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To amber,
quote:
So...according to your logic, BMS...
If someone says we're to hate our mothers, we can think "No, Jesus told us to love people", and that counters it, yes?
What do you mean by ‘someone’ tells us? I don’t see the relevance. Jesus tells us if we come to Him we need to hate our father and mother and family and even our own life and we need to carry our cross. In context that tells most people that disciples are to make Christ Lord of their lives, it goes hand in hand with elsewhere where it says to deny oneself, and that the old life is dead the new has come. At least according to your logic where is the contradiction with same sex relationships, there are exclusions and condemnations but no countenance.
quote:
But...if someone says we're told to hate gay relationships, we cannot think "No, Jesus told us and demonstrated to us that loving people in a respectful is ok"?
Again who is ‘someone’? Jesus tells us to flee from sexual immorality and that love what is good and hate what is evil.
quote:
As for a majority Christian view, no, it's not.
Well I would say yes it most definitely is, and this forum is unrepresentative. As an example with the issue I would cite what has happened with the Anglican Communion and the TEC and GAFCON.
quote:
For many thousands of years people thought the earth was flat.
People in general aren’t Christians though are they and the Bible doesn’t say the earth is flat.
quote:
The majority view does not make it a correct view.
Quite rigtht Jesus is the truth and that’s why I quote and cite the Biblical passages.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Well, what we're debating here is surely the meaning of the words sexual immorality. Since Jesus nowhere said "and I mean Gay and Lesbian Relationships, just to be absolutely clear about this", we're all guessing to some extent.
I would personally hold that leaping into bed with a succession of people with no intention of making any of those relationships permanent or loving is immoral. So is adultery. Both can cheapen and ruin relationships and lead to real problems for whoever is literally left holding the baby, etc, so there is a logical reason. But I do not personally see a problem with a loving, caring permanent relationship between two people. And I'm blowed if I can find where Jesus is objecting to that specifically either. You may well hold a different personal viewpoint based on your own personal interpretation of particular words and phrases, but that doesn't change my interpretation as yet.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Amber,
quote:
Well, what we're debating here is surely the meaning of the words sexual immorality.
Then we are going backwards. What do you think the meaning of the word ‘meaning’ means?
The level of the problem with this issue even breaks down basic communication in the English language.
I asked about the relevance of the ‘someone’ tells us you mentioned. If one is considering the text of scripture as the truth what someone or anyone says will either be in line with what the scripture says or not.
quote:
Since Jesus nowhere said "and I mean Gay and Lesbian Relationships, just to be absolutely clear about this", we're all guessing to some extent.
As Jesus never used the words gay and lesbian where did you get them from? As Jesus NT teaching says God created woman for man, (Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5), gave celibacy as the alternative (Matt 19, 1 Cor 7) and condemned men with men and women with women instead of men with women, are you suggesting gay and lesbianism is not men with men and women with women?
And likewise the rest of your post was what you personally see of dont see as a problem, either inline with Jesus NT teaching on adultery and at odds on same sex relationships where you suggest what is loving others is infact unloving God according to Jesus NT teaching.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
What I would ask you in response is whether the Bible is clear about anything or whether it just appears to reveal anything? And how could the Bible be authorative is only appearing to reveal something?
Of course I think that the Bible is clear about lots of things. On other matters it is not clear, but nonetheless points to a knowably correct answer. On some things it is ambiguous. On some it is downright obscure. Christians differ as to which items fall into which category.
It is, nonetheless, authoritative, because our salvation, and our discipleship, is not founded on finding and knowing the rules, but about becoming like Christ. The gospel was never meant to be a prescriptive book of rules that could substitute for engagement with the personality of Jesus. There are meant to be things that we can't just look up, and that we have to think about, because that is part of sanctification. Working out what God requires and why is part of the process by which he shapes our minds to be more like that of his Son. The Bible provides answers in some cases, and raw data for analysis in others, and both are potentially vehicles of God's grace.
quote:
quote:
Where I differ from you is that I'm not content to stop there and say that this settles the matter.
What I am saying is how could it not is there is no countenance for something in the face of exclusions and condemnations of it?
Why not stop at "the Bible says ‘no' to homosexual relations"? Because the prohibition hurts people! To say it asks them to make a colossal sacrifice, and before we do that, it is necessary to make sure that we have got it right.
quote:
No it isn't Christian duty, where is your scripture for this?
This'll do:
quote:
Christian duty is to encourage one another in the truth revealed in scriptures, 2 Tim 3 to rebuke, correct, encourage and teach.
You can't effectively encourage without empathy. You can't effectively teach without explanation. You can't effectively correct without understanding. You can't effectively rebuke without earning respect.
If you want to tell gay Christians that they must be celibate, and you want to convict them that what you say is true (rather than merely satisfy yourself that you have spoken on the right side) then you need to empathise with their temptations and choices, explain to them why such a thing is required of them, understand the reasons they give for doubting, and earn their respect by showing a readiness to listen and a willingness to consider fully everything they have to say. In order to win a hearing for your views, you have to grant your opponents a hearing for theirs - and that means really thinking about and angaging with what they are saying, not dismissing it because the Bible says so.
quote:
quote:
You know the bit of the gospel where Jesus says that if you come to him and do not hate your own mother, you can't be his disciple? Imagine coming to that text cold – reading it without any accustomed softening. I expect that it would shock you. It would be contrary to what you considered the best that your conscience requires of you.
True but we aren't coming to the scriptures like that, we are coming to ask in the light of the scriptures that exclude and condemn same sex relations, what scriptures can possibly countenance it?
Can you not see that for a woman who is in love with another woman, telling her that this is detestable is calling for precisely the same sort of reaction as telling you that you have to hate your mum?
Now I agree that there is a clear (and Biblically defensible) way out of mother-hating. That's one reason why I used the example. We all know and accept that the words "hate your mother" taken out of context, would be a monstrous error. If there is a way out for actively gay Christians, it's harder to find. My point is, it's legitimate to look. It's acceptable to ask the question. It's OK to reach and test and debate tentative conclusions about the issue.
It is perfectly possible, of course, that the traditional view is right. I'm not arguing the revisionist case with you. That case has more convinced and more able advocates that I, but in any event, you are quite plainly not in any condition to receive their arguments. You think that not only do you have a cast iron scriptural answer to anything they might say, it is your positive duty not to appear to critique the word of God by enteraining any objections.
My objective is much more modest than suggesting to you that you are wrong - it is simply to win a hearing with you for the other side. I am trying to persuade you that you would not be disobedient to God, or disrespectful to his word, if you listened to the arguments made for gay Christians about what (they think) those verses of Scripture really say and really mean.
quote:
quote:
That's why I think your contribution to the debate has failed to convince.
That's ok that's just opinion again, I see the majority of posters here holding what the majority of Christians would see as an Un-Christian view.
But aren't those the people you are trying to reach? Isn't it obvious to you that you are failing to engage with them to any significant degree?
quote:
quote:
You show no sign of seeing that your opponents' case may even be examined with Christian integrity.
Yes most definitely if there is no scriptural support for something that is scripturally excluded and condemned I see it as without any Christian integrity merely disbelief. I see no case for same sex relationships only outright and rank denial, if there is no scripture to support it and scripture which condemns and excludes it there is no case to see.
As long as you take that view, and make it plain that you are taking that view, there is no chance whatever of you learning anything from gay Christians. And, which may concern you more, there is even less chance of them learning anything from you.
quote:
You have tried to appeal fo disbelief and denial of the word of God and received support for it.
I'm very grateful for the support, but if any of it was due to my seeming advocacy of disbelief and denial of the word of God then it was misplaced. I am a believing Christian, and I accept the word of God revealed in the Scriptures.
My contention is that you do not need to give up any integrity in your belief in the Bible to ask whether it means what you have always thought it did. Even if it seems obvious to you that you are right, it is appropriate to do your utmost to understand why it is not obvious, and is even problematic, to others. Rejecting the contrary case - and even the attempts of a neutral like myself to win a hearing for the opposing side - as "disbelief" is not necessary for you to believe and argue your position. On the contrary, a sincere commitment to understanding your opponents, and a willingness to allow them to try to convince you, would make your arguments vastly more effective.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
Amber darling, PDNFTT. BMS rejoices in infallible access to the 'plain meaning' of Jesus NT teaching.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Matthew 19 is about marriage between a man and a woman in relation to the bit in Genesis where Adam and Eve are first created to have lots of children and populate the earth. It doesn't say anything at all about condemnation of alternative loving relationships. And we've certainly populated the earth aplenty already.
I don't see how it proves that Jesus thought same sex relationships were abhorrent. He doesn't mention it. I read it all as ways to ensure that in a marriage people treat each other with respect and integrity and stay faithful to each other. People in same-sex marriages aspire to that too.
As for Ephesians, is that the one that puts greed on the same level as sexual immorality (5.3), and says that we absolutely must not ever get drunk or engage in silly talk? Why yes it is. So that takes us back to my original question to you about whether you've ever been greedy. Or said anything vulgar?
Q, I agree with you, but yet feel compelled to say at least a little more in case others are reading and getting confused. I shall now shut up ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 29. December 2009, 11:31: Message edited by: amber. ]
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Eliab - another magnificent post! Thank you for all you are doing (though I fear your labours will be in vain).
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
