Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Kelly Alves
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/admin.gif) Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Adeodatus: I would dispute that, Luke. That Jesus spoke on some things and was silent on others showed that he had priorities. And I think it's a fairly strong argument to say that if Christianity is anything at all to do with the imitation of Christ, then that means abandoning our own priorities and adopting Christ's. If he spoke no reported word on homosexuality, then why should I?
Amen!
This is the exact conclusion I came to many moons ago, and I have never lost a night's sleep over it since.
-------------------- I cannot expect people to believe “ Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.” Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/mug_avatars/ittwacw.jpg) Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I was obviously not clear enough.
I think Jesus knew he was talking to people for whom by definition all males were straight and homosexual activity therefore a perversion of their true natures. They would not have understood any comment from him that was based on the concept of orientation or faithful same-sex relationships. But again, we have no indication that he ever affirmed (or tried to deny) those cultural assumptions.
Jesus' moral sense was demonstrated not in ambiguous silence about transiant knowledge but in his words about loving relationships and in his establishment of the principles by which his people should operate. And that clearly was not flawed.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0306.jpg) Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Sorry to bother you Mousetheif but you must of overlooked my question in the middle of page 54.
quote: Why does a lack of overall Biblical pattern mean nothing?
This was asked in the context of an overall biblical pattern for homosexual relationships.
[capital m for Mousetheif.] [ 13. October 2005, 04:12: Message edited by: Luke ]
-------------------- Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0953.gif) Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Because there are an infinite number of things that there is no biblical pattern for, and nobody suggests they're all immoral.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
![](http://ship-of-fools.com/UBB/custom_avatars/2270.gif) Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
John Holding: quote: I was obviously not clear enough.
I think Jesus knew he was talking to people for whom by definition all males were straight and homosexual activity therefore a perversion of their true natures. They would not have understood any comment from him that was based on the concept of orientation or faithful same-sex relationships. But again, we have no indication that he ever affirmed (or tried to deny) those cultural assumptions.
Jesus' moral sense was demonstrated not in ambiguous silence about transiant knowledge but in his words about loving relationships and in his establishment of the principles by which his people should operate. And that clearly was not flawed.
No, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. Your explanation of your position was very lucid, and given your presuppositions it's a strong enough position. My misgivings really arise from your use of the subjectivity of Jesus of Nazareth in your argument. It seems to me that you depend at least to some degree on the possibility of access to the reconstructed subjectivity of a first-century Palestinian Jew, possibly rabbinically educated, certainly au fait with rabbinic argument. This is a fully human subjectivity, despite the fact that it is ontologically united with the Second Person of the Trinity, because the integrity of each nature (without prejudice to their unity, a la Chalcedon) allows us to speak of Jesus Christ as God incarnate and also as fully human, including the full possession of human limitations.
I hope I'm not misrepresenting you here, and if I'm not, we are basically in full agreement up to this point.
I think we diverge on the basis of tradition. I’m a Presbyterian Chalcedonian. I read your posts as emanating from the center, pretty much, of the Anglicn tradition, and of course I’m Open To Be Corrected™ on this.
Scottish Presbyterianism, and much of Welsh Nonconformism, took pretty much a continental, neo-orthodox line after the First World War, and this led to a break with the old liberal “historical Jesus” thinking that was so devastatingly summarized by Albert Schweitzer in “The Quest for the Historical Jesus” (a must-read, by the way, for anyone who hasn’t seen it.) I don’t think it’s unfair to say that this sort of thinking persisted much longer, and remained much less challenged, in Anglcanism (Hoskyns and Davie notwithstanding) partly because Anglican approaches to Nicene and Chalcedonian matters were much more “catholic”, and the credal atmosphere much more protective of a union, rather than an opposition, between the Historical Jesus and the Christ of Faith. Reformed theology tended to grasp this oppositional thinking, often within a neo-orthodox frame (remember that Bultmann was classified with the “neo-orthodox” for a time, though it;’s still a shock to read books from the thirties which lump him and Barth together as twins-separated-at-birth!) For our traditions, which maybe had succumbed far more to the historical Jesus, and the belief that the task of scholarship was to get back to Jesus-as-he-was, in the belief that if you could reconstruct historically Jesus-as-he-was, (however different he was to the Jesus of the Gospels) you had somehow found God.
(This is sometimes referred to as “revelational positivism” – and it’s one of the things even so great a scholar as Joachim Jeremias is taxed with.)
My difficulty with your position is in this area. You seem to be attempting, if I read you properly, to remove the endorsement of the historical Jesus from the anti-gay side of the argument by attempting to reconstruct his human consciousness, and indicate why (a) he is silent on matters homosexual (his subjectivity was formed in an historical period in which there were no analogues to what we call homosexuality and certainly none to what we call committed exclusive loving homosexual relationships) and (b) even if the historical Jesus had said something on homosexuality, which the oral tradition had failed to hand on to the Gospel writers, the likelihood would be that it would be either in conformity with the times, or (if you allow the exceptional humanity of Jesus) in conformity with what he knew intuitively that his hearers could take, and therefore of no significance to this debate.
For you, them, if I’m not misrepresenting you, a whole load of factors other than the reconstructed historical consciousness of Jesus argue in favour of homosexual acceptance, but the stance of the historical Jesus cannot count against.
The trouble is that FishFish (and I’m not dissing you here, FishFish!) can come in and say, with perfect accuracy, that you are discounting the likely stance of the historical Jesus (a historical Jesus you have effectively delineated, distinguished from the incarnate Second Person, and set over against the incarnate Christ, though not in a way that transgresses Chalcedon, I’d say) and that discounting the historical Jesus is something that Christians Cannot Do&trade.
Now the irony is that FishFish’s rebuttal of your position also depends on a reconstructed subjectivity of Jesus of Nazareth. And you have basically agreed with him as to the likely contents of that subjectivity. It seems to me that the only move left to you is the one you made, viz. to charge FishFish (perfectly accurately!) with Apollinarianism, inasmuch as FishFish is now reading back the reconstructed subjectivity of Jesus of Nazareth onto God. He’s saying that if we can be reasonably sure that that’s how the Jesus of Histiry felt about things, that’s how God feels too, because Jesus was/is God.
And I don’t think that FishFish will be too concerned about the charge of Apollinarianism, because a great many evangelicals are precisely Apollinarians (T F Torrance makes an important point about this in several places.) Jesus is God. No qualification.
I can see only one way to tackle this, and that is to reject the Jesus of History in favour of the Christ of Faith on Scriptural authority We don’t have Jesus Christ without Scripture. We don’t have access to his subjectivity, beyond the one or two striking exceptions which demonstrate that this was a fully human subjectivity (Cleansing of the Temple, Gethsemane…) Rather, we have the Christ who confronts us, calls us to decide for or against him. And this Christ is fully, Chalcedonian-ly, God. This Christ sums up and exceeds everything that has gone before. This Christ corrects Moses, or sets him aside. And ultimately, this Christ (John 1) is himself the Word of God, who so far exceeds scripture that adequate scripture about him would fill the whole world. (John 20).
No need to guess, or second guess, his human subjectivity. He confronts us in Scripture, and out of Scripture.
And this Christ says nothing about homosexuality.
-------------------- The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty. "Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Psyduck: FishFish is now reading back the reconstructed subjectivity of Jesus of Nazareth onto God. He’s saying that if we can be reasonably sure that that’s how the Jesus of Histiry felt about things, that’s how God feels too, because Jesus was/is God.
Actually, that's not really true. The reason I believe Jesus thought homosexual acts were sinful is built on the evidence:
The context in which he speaks - a Jewish context where homosexual acts were totally unlawful. It doesn't matter what form those relationships take - faithful or fleeting - the law says gay sex is sinful in God's eyes. Jesus may be “bigger” than scripture – but Jesus believed the law was given by God, and holds it in the highest regard as God's word and standard of holiness (e.g. Matthew 5:16-18). Knowing that homosexual acts were unlawful, and knowing perfectly what holiness was as a sinful man, he would have wanted to make very clear any misunderstanding of holiness.
So the whole "grain" or direction of the Bible and Jesus' culture was that gay sex was sinful. He is prepared to go against the grain on other issues – e.g. food laws and the Sabbath. Since Jesus was happy to reinterpret the law as he saw fit, his silence on this issue speaks volumes. If I was on the liberal wing of the church, I’d certainly not be arguing that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.
Jesus needed to say at least one positive thing about same sex relationships for you to claim you know the mind of Jesus. He is silent, and the Bible is negative on this issue - its a bold move to say against all of that that God delights in stable and faithful same sex unions. Its a statement made without one shred of Biblical evidence.
So you can argue that I am antipollian, antediluvian, antihistamine or whatever - but unless any of you can provide one verse to back up your belief that God delights in what he previously called sinful, your assertions that you know God’s mind on this sound woefully weak.
Just one verse...
-------------------- Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
![](http://ship-of-fools.com/UBB/custom_avatars/2270.gif) Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
FishFish: quote: Just one verse...
You see, FishFish, in the end, for you, that's what's ultimate. The Bible as the inspired Word of God, a book authored essentially by one mind, one will, and saying one thing. In the end, for you, the Bible is bigger than Jesus.
And for me, Jesus is bigger than "the Bible". Because what comes later supresedes what went before. And actually that's biblical too.
I'd respectfully suggest that there's a real blind spot here. You can't see why for us "Just one verse..." is beside the point. We can see why it's so crucial for you. And we can see why we'll never agree without one side coming over to the other.
All I'm asking is that you do the thought experiment of putting yourself in our position, theologically. What if the whole Christian faith were true, except for the inerrancy of Scripture. What difference would it make? For us, none at all. Christ would still be Christ, God would still be God, and incarnate in Christ. For you, though - what would it do? If you were suddenly set free to see Leviticus as something to do with another time, another place? Or Paul's strictures as Paul's take on Roman and Corinthian nite life?
Relevance to thread - I really believe that big areas of the debate about homosexuality in the church is a covert debate about authority, and particularly authority of Scripture. "Liberals" (not a label I'm happy with, but I'll wear it for now) are in large part ethically indistinguishable from other Christians, beyond that our preference on issues gravitates to the more liberal options open to Christians, and often not even then. But homosexuality is the one area where a liberal Christianity can be pointed up as deviant by conservatives. It's the one area where there's an unambiguous break with tradition. And it's the one area where Scripture is not merely reinterpreted, but broken with.
But you can only say that, if you put Leviticus on the same level as Christ.
-------------------- The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty. "Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Psyduck: And for me, Jesus is bigger than "the Bible". Because what comes later supresedes what went before. And actually that's biblical too. <snip> All I'm asking is that you do the thought experiment of putting yourself in our position, theologically. What if the whole Christian faith were true, except for the inerrancy of Scripture. What difference would it make? For us, none at all. Christ would still be Christ, God would still be God, and incarnate in Christ.
Yes - I'll do that. But you still don't have the Jesus-bigger-than-scripture TM saying anything at all in favour of your argument!!! Not one jot. So even if we reject innerancy, we're still constructing our own theory of what we'd like to Jesus to have said. And even without an innerant scripture, we still have the context of the day which Jesus din't challenge. You still have a Jesus going with the flow.
So when i ask for just one verse, I can still do that without beleiving in innerancy. Let me just have one shred of evidence to show Jesus thought in another way. You have none. Your arguemnt is still woefully weak and without foundation.
-------------------- Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Fish Fish: TM
[aside] How do I make that superscript?! [/aside] [ 13. October 2005, 08:53: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
-------------------- Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
![](http://ship-of-fools.com/UBB/custom_avatars/2270.gif) Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
FishFish: quote: So even if we reject innerancy, we're still constructing our own theory of what we'd like to Jesus to have said.
No, I'm constructing my own theory out of what the Church says Jesus was! And I'm basically paralleling the development of that thought between AD33 and AD451. Crudely - if Jesus is the full revelation of God, then what he didn't say is as significant as what he did say. Every time you fill in these gaps from Scripture, you are saying that Jesus Christ was an incomplete revelation of what God was, and the missing bits are to be found in Leviticus.
By the way, for ™, type & trade ; with no spaces. innit? (Fr. G showed me that one...)
I'm off for a fortnight, guys. Bless you all! ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
-------------------- The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty. "Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Callan: If our Lord had a)known about faithful, monogamous and stable same sex partnerships and sexual orientation and b) pronounced such partnerships sinful then clearly, this entire discussion would be a waste of time.
This is a very naive perspective.
Apart from the mass of implicit evidence in the gospels about the immorality of homosexual unions, an explict statement worded along the lines you suggest would do nothing to resolve this debate. Instead, we would simply be repeating all the present lines of argument about the accuracy of the translation, the relevance of the cultural reference, the essentialist nature of a homosexual ontology, the disadvantaged position of homosexual people, and the overriding importance of 'love' as a trump card.
We would also see one other important argument in the debate, and that is whether the statement in question was authentic to Jesus or simply the work of the early church. In these days of the Jesus Seminar with their coloured pens, many would find ready evidence that the statement was inauthentic and could be safely attributed to the over-enthusiasm of the early church.
As a result, many would then argue that we can now safely overrule the explicit statement in the gospels on the basis that in fact it was not that clear after all, that Jesus himself had actually said nothing about 'homosexuality as we know it', and that we now have 'superior modern knowledge' that was not available to the early church.
Hence, in terms of this debate, we would be right back to square one.
Neil
-------------------- "Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
![](http://ship-of-fools.com/UBB/custom_avatars/2270.gif) Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
But there isn't one. There isn't ever going to be one. That's the point.
-------------------- The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty. "Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
![](http://ship-of-fools.com/UBB/custom_avatars/2270.gif) Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
OK - Now I'm gone... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
-------------------- The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty. "Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
Originally posted by FishFish
quote: Since Jesus was happy to reinterpret the law as he saw fit,
I'm not so sure he did reinterpret the law. He did things which were designed to illustrate the way in which the teachers of the law had lost sight of the fact that it was not designed to enslave people, but to illuminate their lives.( Biblegateway) Is it right to heal on the Sabbath? If you see it as work – possibly not. But that is to look at the matter reductively. If you are doing good, if you are saving life – that supercedes the letter of the law. (Biblegateway) I don't see Jesus saying that you should therefore throw the whole law out - far from it. It seems to me that he was encouraging people to see that there is more to the law than blindly following instructions. It needs to be doing what it was intended to do – bringing life and blessings to a whole community.
Anyone can see that this process can be a difficult balancing act - especially looking at this thread - but Jesus in his time was actively engaged with it – he didn’t back away from it. It seems to me it was one of the central themes of his ministry. His example seems to indicate that while not being blind to the beauty and importance of the law (having and upholding firm moral boundaries) and what it has to offer the community, we should always strive to lift our eyes from the rulebook and see if justice and mercy are truly being served. (Biblegateway)
I think a lot of Christians feel in good faith that it is not being at the moment and that’s why they want to look at the church’s attitude towards homosexuality. I think Jesus gave us an example and we shouldn’t be afraid to follow it. It seems to me that in engaging in the process of reassessing our attitudes we are doing the right thing.
-------------------- where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
HenryT
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/3722.jpg) Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by leo: ... Every possible angle has already been stated time and time again.
That's why it's down here in DH, only for those of us who won't leave it buried.
-------------------- "Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/3899.jpg) Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
Fish Fish, please try this on for size?
quote: Originally posted by Fish Fish: So the whole "grain" or direction of the Bible and Jesus' culture was that sex while a woman was menstruating was sinful. He is prepared to go against the grain on other issues – e.g. food laws and the Sabbath. Since Jesus was happy to reinterpret the law as he saw fit, his silence on this issue speaks volumes. If I was on the liberal wing of the church, I’d certainly not be arguing that Jesus said nothing about sex during menstruation.
Jesus needed to say at least one positive thing about sexual relationships during menstruation for you to claim you know the mind of Jesus. He is silent, and the Bible is negative on this issue - its a bold move to say against all of that that God delights in sexual acts between a man and a woman when the woman is menstruating. Its a statement made without one shred of Biblical evidence.
Is this an argument you would make? Why or why not?
-------------------- I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
Psyduck,
My reply to your original questions as promised.
About my categories a) b) and c) of (as I see it) straight men who are affirming of gay male relationships: About a), my comment about them being already married and therefore not knowing any more what it’s like to be single was a very general observation (it could also apply to straight married women in a different way). My general observation, of Christians in this category who I come across, is that many of them have ‘forgotten’ that for a number of single Christian men, the very fact of being single can make others suspect that they are actually gay, especially if they are not married by a certain age. This can be counterproductive to them especially if they do want to get married (especially if women start to suspect that they are gay). They are likely to be suspected to be gay simply for being single Christian men, because the church is now known as a social group where a disproportionate number of men there are gay. I have had single Christian (and married Christian) men tell me of their own experiences of this. They will say that all this makes it much more difficult for them to be a Christian. If you don’t mind, I shan’t repeat the exact examples as I wish to protect people’s privacy. At this point I should clarify that my ‘forgotten what it was like to be single’ comment in fact had both men and women in mind. Sorry about the confusion.
As for my categories b) and c), if you look back at my message you will find that in that I said I didn’t want to spell out specifically what I meant by b) as they are examples known to me personally (I’m not going to violate anybody’s privacy). As a general comment, though, I’d say those who fall in this category, IMHO, strike me as affirming gay male relationships because they empathise with the psycho-sexual turn away from women that is involved, because they themselves, being mostly straight, aren’t able to escape their own sexual attraction to women, which is involved with their own personal problems. (Of course if a man is bisexual he can choose to not have sexual relationships with women, in the same way that a bisexual woman can choose to not have sexual relationships with men. Perhaps some bisexual men come under category b) too.)
Concerning category c), again it is my general impression of both Christian and non-Christian men who fall into this category over the whole of my adult life. I said that I thought that category c) men supported gay relationships because this ethical viewpoint tied in well with permitting sex outside marriage, which they definitely support and want for themselves. I’m not really convinced that all men who take this view are supporting gay relationships simply out of the goodness of their own heart, i.e. because they really have a positive view of them in their own right. If they want to affirm the validity of sex outside marriage (which they do), it seems very difficult for them, in a secular society especially, to intellectually deny the validity of gay male relationships (even if they don’t really like the idea themselves or don’t approve). You will see that my point rests on the general assumption that people on the whole tend to be altruistic, in this case about gay male relationships, when it suits them, and not simply because they wish to be altruistic.
Right I think that’s enough for now.
-------------------- If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
I can't seem to walk away from this stinky horse as I have managed to do the RCC.
quote: Originally posted by Arabella:
I don't believe the bible is as inflexible as some would have us believe. And like so many queer people, we've left the church to be believers-at-large, because we'd rather be out doing ministry than arguing about whether we should be allowed to.
I like that Arabella: "Believers-at-large"
quote: Originally posted by Fish Fish:
[BOLD]So when i ask for just one verse, I can still do that without beleiving in innerancy. Let me just have one shred of evidence to show Jesus thought in another way. You have none. Your arguemnt is still woefully weak and without foundation.[/BOLD]
The one shred of evidence that shows Jesus thought in another way from what some see as his condemnation of homosexuals and their relationships is the trump card mentioned by FF: "LOVE"
As Arabella put it, "They don't know our lives. And this thread is a sparkling demonstration of that.", in regards to 'anti-gay people'.
Yes, we will go round and round only because you see us queers in terms of our 'sexual activity' and not as people made in the image of God . . . living our lives, whole, as God created us.
Why does it matter so much to those with a heterosexual orientation to be given a green light, via the bible, to label us as 'offensive to God'?
I don't get it. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
-------------------- Formerly Molly Brown
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Psyduck: No, I'm constructing my own theory out of what the Church says Jesus was! And I'm basically paralleling the development of that thought between AD33 and AD451. Crudely - if Jesus is the full revelation of God, then what he didn't say is as significant as what he did say. Every time you fill in these gaps from Scripture, you are saying that Jesus Christ was an incomplete revelation of what God was, and the missing bits are to be found in Leviticus.
But even if you go with the churche's construction of Jesus, the church has said for nearly 2000 years that homosexual sex is sinful.
And you still have to deal with the issue of the context Jesus spoke into...
quote: Originally posted by Belle: I'm not so sure he did reinterpret the law. He did things which were designed to illustrate the way in which the teachers of the law had lost sight of the fact that it was not designed to enslave people, but to illuminate their lives.
That's probably fair. So if he didn't even reinterpret the law, then surely there's even less reason to belive that 2000 years on we can abandon the sexual morality that Jesus believed.
quote: Originally posted by josephine: Is this an argument you would make? Why or why not?
Its not an argument I've made for I've never investigated the issue. Perhaps I must to be consistant. If it turns out that i thought the Bible was teaching that sex with a menstruating woman was sinful, then yes I'd teach that Jesus silence endorsed that view. but I haven't investigated that at all.
quote: Originally posted by La Sal: Yes, we will go round and round only because you see us queers in terms of our 'sexual activity' and not as people made in the image of God . . . living our lives, whole, as God created us.
No I don't see you just in terms of your sexual activity. As I said a page or two back, I don't like defining people by their sexuality - its the gay lobby that does that - and you are doing it by calling yourself "queer".
Re living your life as God created you - God created me, and yet I have temptations, which look like huge fun, but which I must resist. Why should you be exempt from resisting sin on this one issue?
quote: Originally posted by La Sal: Why does it matter so much to those with a heterosexual orientation to be given a green light, via the bible, to label us as 'offensive to God'?
No one is arguing that you are offensive to God. Your actions may be - just as my sinful actions are offensive to God. But you are a wonderful creation who he loves to bits. You are not an offense to God. [ 13. October 2005, 18:55: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
-------------------- Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/5408.gif) Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by La Sal:
Why does it matter so much to those with a heterosexual orientation to be given a green light, via the bible, to label us as 'offensive to God'?
I don't get it.
To clarify my use of this phrase, as ABW has misquoted it with reference to me.
What I actually said was this:
quote: It's that if you believe that the passages in the Bible mean what the church has always thought they mean, then it is offensive to God, and damaging to the person, to say what they are doing is fine.
It was my own risk of offending God in dealing with this pastorally that I was talking about here, and I never labelled anyone or their relationship as offensive to God.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Greetings Fish Fish,
You said: quote: No I don't see you just in terms of your sexual activity. As I said a page or two back, I don't like defining people by their sexuality - its the gay lobby that does that - and you are doing it by calling yourself "queer".
Maybe you should define people by their sexual activity. I think that part of the problem is not SEEING that what you are trying to explain as sinful activity are the lives of real people who, except for the fact of orientation, live and love similarly to you. I may have put it simplistically but I believe it is important to remember our common ground.
-------------------- Formerly Molly Brown
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Hi Lep,
Let me see if I read you correctly. YOU would be offending God by telling someone that homosexual activity is not a sin because the Bible passages have been interpreted by the church as such.
Hmm. Okay. But isn't there room for doubt because of your own observations? And wouldn't God NOT take offense if one is sincerely searching for the truth? Isn't it better to err on the side of charity?
-------------------- Formerly Molly Brown
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Fish Fish,
I should have stuck this in with my other reply to you.
You said: quote: Re living your life as God created you - God created me, and yet I have temptations, which look like huge fun, but which I must resist. Why should you be exempt from resisting sin on this one issue?
I haven't decided yet whether, if I had my druthers, I would have picked being gay. It's not that much FUN.
I have been in a loving, monogamous 30yr. relationship; I don't consider my life sinful.
-------------------- Formerly Molly Brown
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/5408.gif) Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by La Sal: Hi Lep,
Let me see if I read you correctly. YOU would be offending God by telling someone that homosexual activity is not a sin because the Bible passages have been interpreted by the church as such.
No, you will notice that I was saying IF the church has been right all along it is offensive to God to advise so pastorally. I wasn't making any comment on whether the church has been right to do so (although I do, of course, have opinions on that)
What I wasn't doing was writing off people's relationships as offensive to God, which at least one individual has accused me of doing. All the use of the " so we are offensive to God" stuff that has arisen really has nothing to do with my original comment.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle
Shipmate
# 4792
|
Posted
Posted by FishFish quote: So if he didn't even reinterpret the law, then surely there's even less reason to belive that 2000 years on we can abandon the sexual morality that Jesus believed.
I think that the law only indicates part of what Jesus believed about sexual morality. I think the way he behaved in the gospels indicates that the law for him was only part of the story. In order to understand what Jesus believed fully I would have to understand his mind, both as a man of his time and as part of the Trinity, and I can't claim to do that.
We can be pretty sure that as a general rule, he would have supported the law. However we still can’t know what Jesus’s exact position would have been on a one off situation presented to him. If all he’d been interested was rigid application of the law, he wouldn’t have been criticizing the Pharisees, he’d have been joining them.
FishFish, I have to say, I don’t understand your position. Are you saying that you consider yourself bound by the Mosaic covenant? That you think this is 'all she wrote' on morality? Was the law derived from justice and mercy or are justice and mercy derived from the law? Do you follow Torah? Why do you think that Jesus thought it was OK to heal on the Sabbath? What was it about the Pharisees’ strict insistence on the law that bothered him? Are you under the law, or under grace?
-------------------- where am I going... and why am I in this handbasket?
Posts: 318 | From: Kent, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Originally posted by Lep:
quote: Caz: Maybe I'll get to heaven and turn out to be wrong on this one. It's a strong possibility; there's enough opponents out there! But all I keep saying to the Lord on this one is "If I'm wrong about this, I'd rather be wrong on the theory but have spent my time working to build up and accept and love people; however misguided I may turn out to be, than be proved right in my doctrine and then handed a list of names of people who have been broken and turned away from the gospel because of the harsh way I presented it".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed. I can see that. But I can also see that it is partly through the church that God convicts people of sin, and also that if this is a sin, it is important that I don't lead people to think it isn't. ISTM that the Bible puts that responsibility onto the church, and especially those who teach in the most serious of terms.
Although, what we say musn't lead people to hate, demonise and discriminate either. Which is where we aren't doing quite so well.
I searched your thoughts on the previous pages and found this exchange. Lep, I understand better what you are honestly struggling with and appreciate it.
-------------------- Formerly Molly Brown
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
I am new to this site, and I can see that debates are long and involved.
This topic seemed to be the shortest, but on reading through I can see it is an old topic reinvigorated (or regurgitated).
However, I have to dip my feet into a debate somewhere so here goes.
We can bandy quotations from the Bible back and for—and I more than happy to sinlk my cyberteeth into that—and we can analyse the scouncils and credal statements of the Church and pre-Christian Judaism—and again I am happy to sink my cyber teeth into that as well—but I think there is something much more fundamental to be asked here.
From a Christian viewpoint we accept that life is a given: a gift from God. Is that all life?
Judaism was very restrictive on who was accepted as part of the community of faith. You had to be born into Judaism, to be fully a member—so ironically it was more important which woman you were dettached from in such a male-dominated society than who sired you. [There is some interesting discussions to be developed on the allocation of his mother by Jesus when dying on the cross to his ‘beloved disciple’ in the Fourth Gospel]. You also had to be seen to be physically perfect—no skin blemishes (leprosy! leprosy!) and no missing genitalia—and cultically perfect, washing before meals, not mixing with the goyim, and certainly not mixing with blood. This is all about an ‘us’ and a ‘not us’, reflected in not sowing two kinds of seed in the same field, not making a garment out of two different materials, and not mixing dairy and meat products in food.
Now, absolutely all of these rules and regulations, according to the gospel record, Jesus attacked and/or broke. And this attitude is followed through in Acts, where the eunuch is baptized, Peter has the vision of no unclean food etc. etc. And the Church—in spite of James ultra-conservation leadership (I am Jesus’ brother, I’ll take over now), the Church decided to break and/or ignore absolutely all of these rules, too.
Jesus, in spite of the kosher nature of the meal in front of him, talked about his flesh and blood. Jesus mixed with single women, on their own. So he also played loose with other cultic and societal rulings. His fulfillment of the Torah was to knock it down to a couple of sentences: “Love the Lord your God with all your… and your neighbour as your yourslef.” “And who is my neighbour?” he was asked. And he chose a Samaritan—apostate! sinner! heretic!—even the Pharisee could not say the word…
This is total inclusiveness of God’s gift and givenness of life.
So, what is it about SEX and GENDER that is so different. It is not what you put in, Jesus says, that defiles (in relationship to food, but talking about physicality) but what comes out that defiles (mental attitude, selfishness, eytc. is what he is talking about).
So where is the problem? Why are people trying to exclude people with a givenness of the variety of human loving expression? ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
-------------------- I regard golf as an expensive way of playing marbles G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alliebath: So where is the problem? Why are people trying to exclude people with a givenness of the variety of human loving expression?
People use semantics and out of context quotes to justify pretty much anything they want. The simple fact that sexual sin is overblown by churches, yet given very little coverage in the Bible*, shows me that its about pre-existing non-scriptual bias against homosexuality.
* And even then the Bible condemns adultery and divorce in far more specific terms. Its rare to see a main stream church persecute adulteries and divorcees the way they do homosexuals.
-------------------- Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us? Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir! Mal: Ain't we just? — Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alliebath: We can bandy quotations from the Bible back and for—and I more than happy to sinlk my cyberteeth into that—and we can analyse the scouncils and credal statements of the Church and pre-Christian Judaism—and again I am happy to sink my cyber teeth into that as well—but I think there is something much more fundamental to be asked here.
I've read your argument Alliebath and it's not exactly clear to to me why it's more fundamental than the Bible and Church Tradition - could you clarify?
quote: This is total inclusiveness of God’s gift and givenness of life.
So, what is it about SEX and GENDER that is so different. It is not what you put in, Jesus says, that defiles (in relationship to food, but talking about physicality) but what comes out that defiles (mental attitude, selfishness, eytc. is what he is talking about).
So your argument, as I understand it, is that in the OT we see exclusivity which is specifically overturned in the NT first by Jesus and then by the Church. This leaves us with no excuse for exclusivity based on anything, let alone sexual orientation. Is that a fair summary?
quote: So where is the problem? Why are people trying to exclude people with a givenness of the variety of human loving expression?
The problem is that this is a straw man. No-one in this thread is trying to justify exclusivity based on sexual orientation (well no-one in the last 20 pages or so). What some are doing is wanting to preserve the traditional conservative view that homosexual sex is a sin. Now that may in effect amount to the same thing. Certainly there's been lots of talk about what people with the conservative view can do not to exclude but to welcome gay people. So whether or not Fish Fish, Leprechaun and others will always be exclusive because their position makes it incredibly hard not to, they are at least not seeking to do so, and certainly not seeking to justify it.
I think Psyduck's right - I think it's about authority and how we decide what's true. When I was a conservative evangelical I reluctantly took up the 'gay sex is sinful' stance because that's how I read the bible and because I was willing to put the bible above my own reason and experience. I'm no longer willing to do that, because it's caused me harm personally. But to be honest I still read the bible the same way and so I respect those who are sincerely trying to be inclusive and hold onto what they believe is true.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0035.gif) Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Alliebath - welcome aboard - and how brave to make your first post in such a contentious area
Do check the other Boards as well (if you haven't already done so)
Yours Aye ... TonyK Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
quote: I think Psyduck's right - I think it's about authority and how we decide what's true. When I was a conservative evangelical I reluctantly took up the 'gay sex is sinful' stance because that's how I read the bible and because I was willing to put the bible above my own reason and experience. I'm no longer willing to do that, because it's caused me harm personally. But to be honest I still read the bible the same way and so I respect those who are sincerely trying to be inclusive and hold onto what they believe is true.
Can I ask if there is a conflict in reading the Bible ‘in the same way’ alongside experience and reason? It would seem to me that we have to engage our experience and reason with the tools of the biblical record, whicle at the same time challenging the biblical record with our own experience, and then the same with reason, which would also bring in the fact that we are not isolated, but are part of a continuing and developing Church tradition and a history of humanity. It is just that I would find it, personally, a problem to divorce (as it were) my biblical approach from my own experience, reason and understanding of my human legacy and Christian legacy.
-------------------- I regard golf as an expensive way of playing marbles G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
Thanks, TonyK—I just love jumping in deep ends.
Roger Hargreaves, the creator of the Mister Men, also had another series called Roundies and Squaries. quote: Squaries get up to catch the 8:15, Roundies get up to catch the sun…
quote: Squaries walk around puddles, Roundies walk through puddles…
Etc. etc.
I guess I am a ‘Roundie’ ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
-------------------- I regard golf as an expensive way of playing marbles G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
Alliebath, I wrote a long reply but then realised it was a bit off-topic so I started a new thread here
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Incipit
Shipmate
# 10554
|
Posted
I wanted to thank Alliebath and the_raptor so much for what they said. They describe and seem to embody what I used to think and hope was the love and acceptance of Christ. The cruelty and hypocrisy of the church (I'm thinking of the C of E and the RCC in particular) in relation to homosexuality has become a practically insuperable obstacle to my belief. I have stopped going to church, where the probably gay vicar and certainly gay curate, both excellent priests, had to live out a lie, in fear of what the church would say if this important fact about them were to become public. One of them was in a long-term and loving relationship. All of this is known to the church, not least because their bishop is in the same position, but nothing must be said, and they all have to suffer the cruelty of the diktat about civl partnerships and celibacy. This stinks, and confirms a view of Christianity as a refuge for sexually biased judgmentalism. It seems to me that secularism is morally far in advance of this dishonest institutional homophobia, 'supported' by arbitrary 'proof' texts. Such a version of Christianity deserves to wither and die in my opinion. Fortunately, most young people are quite indifferent, morally speaking, to whether people are gay or straight. No wonder fewer people are going to church. I wonder what Alliebath's experience of how all this is managed, not evaded, in her own church?
Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/admin.gif) Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Incipit: I have stopped going to church, where the probably gay vicar and certainly gay curate, both excellent priests, had to live out a lie, in fear of what the church would say if this important fact about them were to become public. One of them was in a long-term and loving relationship. All of this is known to the church, not least because their bishop is in the same position, but nothing must be said, and they all have to suffer the cruelty of the diktat about civl partnerships and celibacy.
There is a gent in my (family) church that comes to worship every Sunday with his partner. Everybody pretty much know their situation, but doesn't bring it up. He teaches Sunday school gives an inordinate amout of time and money to the church, and has served on the governing board in various capacities-including President- for many years.He also has a beautiful voice and sings tenor in the choir. He is asked to solo frequently.
And here is what I think of that-- if we are going to take this man's money, his time, and his effort, allow him to serve as dilligently and tirelessly as he has, and accept all the good gifts he has to contribute, then why the hell should it break our balls to acknowledge the fact that he has been in a relationship for almost twenty years, and to accept it as we have been anyway without tippytoeing around it?
Same with your vicar and curate--what an emormous compliment to the church that they would still serve under circumstances where they would have to hide themselves to do their work. We accept the blood, sweat and tears, but we are too squeamish to accept a person standing next to their partner at Communion. Why, for God's sake? Isn't that a shameless lack of gratitude?
To me it is such a testiment of devotion and faithfulness to the church that people would stick with it under such conditions that I rather consider them an example to follow. I think we have much to learn about the worthiness of the Church from the underground Gay Church. [ 16. October 2005, 19:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
-------------------- I cannot expect people to believe “ Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.” Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Kelly Alves: To me it is such a testiment of devotion and faithfulness to the church that people would stick with it under such conditions that I rather consider them an example to follow. I think we have much to learn about the worthiness of the Church from the underground Gay Church.
Oh my. I never saw it like that. I feel humbled. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
-------------------- "What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/admin.gif) Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Consistantly throughout the Bible--and history, for that matter-- you see God using the people we have "despised" to teach us great things. I think the church needs to be very careful that it is not missing something in all this rhetoric.
-------------------- I cannot expect people to believe “ Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.” Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
![](http://forum.shipoffools.com/custom_avatars/0035.gif) Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Incipit - Welcome aboard...
Comments made to Alliebath above apply here too
Yours aye ... TonyK Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
I should add that I don't particularly care whether gay sex is a sin, even if it was, it is no excuse to show hatred. It's rare to see a main stream church treat other sinners they way they do gay's. My sister is living un-married (though engaged) with a man, and has had both her children (born outside marriage) confirmed in the Catholic church. Jesus was a lot more specific about that being a sin, then homosexuality.
And I have done far more sinful things then a bit of infidelity. I rejected God for a few years and even worshipped idols, and that is condemned far more forcefully in the OT and NT. That didn't stop people from accepting me into their church and trying to show me Christs love.
-------------------- Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us? Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir! Mal: Ain't we just? — Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Ah, but you're not still doing it and claiming it's not a sin.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Incipit
Shipmate
# 10554
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by the_raptor: I should add that I don't particularly care whether gay sex is a sin, even if it was, it is no excuse to show hatred.
I see what you mean, and indeed the church has seemed to me to have lost any moral authority because of this - so who cares what it describes as sin? Seeing bishops pretending not to be gay but conniving in frightened silence over the Civil Partnership dikat - and seeing the Archbishop of Canterbury betraying his friend Jeffrey John over his appointment to the bishopric of Reading - has made me reluctant to listen to whatever they have to say on other issues too.
But in a wider sense, defining homosexuality as a sin probably acts invisibly as a background, cultural, endorsement for those who fear and attack gay people, and so it does matter. Can one imagine Jesus saying those terrible cold words, uttered through pursed lips by impotent elderly Vatican theologians: 'objectively disordered'?
Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
While I agree with your endpoint, I don't agree with the logic.
Jesus said all sorts of things I find hard to imagine..... about darkness and gnashing of teeth .... evil doers who never knew him ..... and I can certainly imagine Paul saying something like that.
Secondly, one can't really decide what one thinks is true on the basis of how the statement might be misused politically; one could similarly attack evolution on the grounds it might promote fascism.
On the other hand, I completely agree with your first paragraph. Hypocrisy does undermine one's perception of moral authority.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mdijon: Ah, but you're not still doing it and claiming it's not a sin.
Doing what?
-------------------- Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us? Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir! Mal: Ain't we just? — Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Incipit
Shipmate
# 10554
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mdijon: Secondly, one can't really decide what one thinks is true on the basis of how the statement might be misused politically;
No - of course not. That wasn't my point. I decide what I think is true (in relation to the truthfulness and relevance to me of Christianity) by the touchstone of lovingness - see Alliebath's post above. I see no lovingness or acceptingness in these words from the Vatican, or in the hypocritical stance of the C of E. I think I have seen it, though, in the life and ministry of a number of priests, some of them in stable and loving gay relationships and therefore allegedly 'disordered'. [ 17. October 2005, 14:59: Message edited by: Incipit ]
Posts: 51 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by the_raptor: Doing what?
Idolatory. Rejecting God. As per your post.
(Your sex life I claim not insight on)
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Incipit: I see no lovingness or acceptingness in these words from the Vatican, or in the hypocritical stance of the C of E.......I think I have seen it, though, in the life and ministry of a number of priests, some of them in stable and loving gay relationships and therefore allegedly 'disordered'.
I expect there are some people who think homosexuality is sinful, but show love and acceptance ...... some in gay relationships who don't.....
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
quote: Incipit
Apprentice # 10554
Posted 16 October, 2005 02:05 PM
I wanted to thank Alliebath and the_raptor so much for what they said. They describe and seem to embody what I used to think and hope was the love and acceptance of Christ. The cruelty and hypocrisy of the church (I'm thinking of the C of E and the RCC in particular) in relation to homosexuality has become a practically insuperable obstacle to my belief. I have stopped going to church, where the probably gay vicar and certainly gay curate, both excellent priests, had to live out a lie, in fear of what the church would say if this important fact about them were to become public. One of them was in a long-term and loving relationship. All of this is known to the church, not least because their bishop is in the same position, but nothing must be said, and they all have to suffer the cruelty of the diktat about civl partnerships and celibacy. This stinks, and confirms a view of Christianity as a refuge for sexually biased judgmentalism. It seems to me that secularism is morally far in advance of this dishonest institutional homophobia, 'supported' by arbitrary 'proof' texts. Such a version of Christianity deserves to wither and die in my opinion. Fortunately, most young people are quite indifferent, morally speaking, to whether people are gay or straight. No wonder fewer people are going to church. I wonder what Alliebath's experience of how all this is managed, not evaded, in her own church?
Sorry to be so long in replying, Incipit. Thank you for asking me.
There is still a lot of prejudice in my own Church. Someone said to me that (more concisely than the following paraphrase) that male homosexual sexual activity was wrong. But there is also openness in intention. And certainly at the Bible study group there is a much greater understanding of the breadth of human sexuality and practice. Though one person has left because of looking at that.
I have had to question my own views quite a lot this year. I had always thought myself to be very liberal, but that stance was questioned as I explored some forgotten parts of my self this year on a kind of inward journey. This has led me to all sorts of questions and the discovery of Queering Theology, which is indeed very challenging.
But I have been able, gently, to bring some of this thinking and some of the discoveroies of my journey, into my work.
-------------------- I regard golf as an expensive way of playing marbles G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
quote: LatePaul
only mostly dead # 37
Posted 15 October, 2005 01:05 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Alliebath: We can bandy quotations from the Bible back and for—and I more than happy to sinlk my cyberteeth into that—and we can analyse the scouncils and credal statements of the Church and pre-Christian Judaism—and again I am happy to sink my cyber teeth into that as well—but I think there is something much more fundamental to be asked here. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've read your argument Alliebath and it's not exactly clear to to me why it's more fundamental than the Bible and Church Tradition - could you clarify?
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is total inclusiveness of God’s gift and givenness of life.
So, what is it about SEX and GENDER that is so different. It is not what you put in, Jesus says, that defiles (in relationship to food, but talking about physicality) but what comes out that defiles (mental attitude, selfishness, eytc. is what he is talking about). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So your argument, as I understand it, is that in the OT we see exclusivity which is specifically overturned in the NT first by Jesus and then by the Church. This leaves us with no excuse for exclusivity based on anything, let alone sexual orientation. Is that a fair summary?
How do we understand God’s revelation to us, LatePaul? That is really the question.
But, of course, all revelation has been filtered. Throughout the Old Testament we see a development of the idea and understanding of one God—but the description of God changes, even , from Genesis to Exodus, for example, nevertheless between the Torah and the prophets, who always refer beck to the ‘good old times in the wilderness’! And then there is the Wisdom literature, which knocks all sorts of OT presumptions, especially long life = blessedness (which is rampant throughout the first 11 chapters of Genesis)! However, I would see that the OT gives us the tools through its stories and perrcepotions to see how we can engage with God and try to get a grip on what his revelation means.
The New Testament tells us, ia series of timed snapshots the revelation of God in Jesus. This was filtered through those who wanted to very much identify with the OT (Matthew), to those who sometimes saw only some good bits of it (Paul in Galatians!, Paul avoiding Moses and going back to Abraham!), and sometimes creating constructs out the material that isn’t there—Adam vis-à-vis Jesus. for example. Particularly in creating a whoile understanding of the Fall that does not exist in Genesis per se!
We also have, and as good(?) Anglican I have to follow this, that there is also the continuing Church tradition, which we we all constantly use to interpret the OT and NT with, without questioning that we are applying later Augustinian, Luteran, Calvinistic and/or Barthian concepts to. But revelation din’t stop with the Book of Revelation (if it is in there at all!). We also have reason: and that has to be final cut of our own experience. We cannot believe in an unreasonable God—for evil is clearl unreasonable and denies rationality: the blind faith of Nazism, White Supremacy, Al Qaeda, Zionism, any following of a leader, a Führer, etc. etc.
So we cannot just accept the OT and NT as read.
More than that God does not just give revelation to Christians or the Church. Even the prophets (soemtimes) acknowledged God revelaled himself to and is the God of the Philistines, the Moabites &c. &c.
My pet theory is that we will only fully understand the uniqueness of the tools of understanding that the Bible gives us by applying to them the revelations found in other faiths! I think God has a really wicked sense of humour. After all he created us… And then came to be born as one of us! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
-------------------- I regard golf as an expensive way of playing marbles G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|