Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
but it's difficult to see how we can get round that pesky "freedom of conscience" thing without a return to mediaeval Christendom, which isn't something for which I have seen anyone here arguing. And are you really arguing that all those who regard for the possibility that erotic love between two people of the same gender is licit, are exercising self deception?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
On the 'no harm' issue, I still see no moral difference between a man having a sexual relationship with both his wife and his mistress with the mutual consent of all three parties (and assuming no children) and a man having sex with his boyfriend: both do no apparent harm to others and yet I believe both are wrong as constituting sex outside of marriage.

---

Possibly the clue is in the word "faithful".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And to go on from that verse, Jesus told Peter that he had to forgive his brother not seven, but seventy-seven times

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
That might well be the case, John, but it's difficult to see how we can get round that pesky "freedom of conscience" thing without a return to mediaeval Christendom, which isn't something for which I have seen anyone here arguing.

---

Not all of us have left the middle ages

Seriously, Western theology might have developed, and Western world went through a Renaissance, and a Reformation and an Enlightenment, but the Orthodox world came from the middle ages to modernity in a sudden and abrupt way.

Anyway, as far as the freedom of conscience is concerned, I have heard Catholics saying in these boards that according to Catholic theology conscience needs to be formed by the teaching of the church. So, it's not as absolute as you present it to be...

For me, freedom of conscience is to be respected, and this is why I'm against all sort of restrictions upon the lives of other people... BUT the freedom of personal conscience cannot impose itself upon the Church. On a personal level I am free to live as I see fit, and this means that I have a right not to be in the church, but when I choose to enter the church, I choose to follow a way of life that was not my own; I want to make it my own, but it wasn't my own life. I put my old life aside, and I try to get a new life.

Thinking I can be church and not put my old life aside so that I will get the new life the church offers, makes little sense to me.

Personal conscience leads me to either live as I see fit, even if that means I'm not in the church, or enter the church and try to change my way of life.

By the way, Johnny S makes a very valid point about man deceiving himself. This is what living under passions means, that we are confused and make choices that are driven by our confusion (not rebellion, but confusion). It is this confusion that Christ came to drive away, and we'd better realize we are confused than assume we are OK.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not really - I have a natural inclination to want to shag every good-looking young lady I see and to look at shedloads of porn. That in itself is not sinful; what would be is if I acted on that inclination.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
but it's difficult to see how we can get round that pesky "freedom of conscience" thing without a return to mediaeval Christendom, which isn't something for which I have seen anyone here arguing. And are you really arguing that all those who regard for the possibility that erotic love between two people of the same gender is licit, are exercising self deception?

---

I normally follow you easily JJ but I am genuinely lost here. Why the necessity for a return to the Middle Ages?

You make it sound as if self-deception is always some kind of conscious act. Consciences can be sensitive or dulled but either way they are tuned to our sense of morality. If you don't believe / accept / think that something is wrong then you won't feel guilty about it.

Take greed for example. My conscience is no good to me when it comes to food - I could practically eat until I vomited and not feel any guilt pangs. Conscience is useful but extremely unreliable.

Therefore, in the context of this debate, I'm not saying that one's conscience is irrelevant, just that it shouldn't be trusted as the key deciding factor.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not really - I have a natural inclination to want to shag every good-looking young lady I see and to look at shedloads of porn. That in itself is not sinful; what would be is if I acted on that inclination.

JJ, in what way is an exclusive threesome entered into by mutual consent where all three of the parties are faithful to that threesome, not being 'faithful'?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not really - I have a natural inclination to want to shag every good-looking young lady I see and to look at shedloads of porn. That in itself is not sinful; what would be is if I acted on that inclination.

---

Of course it is of itself sinful. This is part of the cause of your problems. The act is the least of your worries. Unless all these inner issues get resolved, you (or I, or anyone else) still live under confusion and the healing Christ brought into the world is something we don't make use of. To put it differently, we remain unsaved, no matter how much "pure" we keep our acts.

It brings little benefit to keep your willy behaving, while your heart is clouded.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Donne:
Breath-taking example of a person living a straight life being able to point out sin (aka 'the things I am not tempted to do') in others but not in himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But it seems to me that the sexual side of any such theoretical situation would be less problematic than the emotional and psychological issues. Marriage and marriage like relationships are not only about sex.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Donne:

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not really - I have a natural inclination to want to shag every good-looking young lady I see and to look at shedloads of porn. That in itself is not sinful; what would be is if I acted on that inclination.

---

Of course it is of itself sinful. This is part of the cause of your problems. The act is the least of your worries. Unless all these inner issues get resolved, you (or I, or anyone else) still live under confusion and the healing Christ brought into the world is something we don't make use of. To put it differently, we remain unsaved, no matter how much "pure" we keep our acts.

It brings little benefit to keep your willy behaving, while your heart is clouded.

---

Amen.

Breath-taking example of a person living a straight life being able to point out sin (aka 'the things I am not tempted to do') in others but not in himself.

---

Aaaargh! How many times do I have to repeat this: I don't regard the inclination, whether that be same-sex orientation, or a desire to over-eat, or a desire to have sex with a young lady who is not my wife as sinful per se (one might as St Augustine did wish to label it all as concupiscence but that is not the same as sin itself); it's the actions (whether that be entertaining lustful thoughts or actually going to bed with said young lady) which are sinful.

Now, in what way is that "pointing out sin in others but not in himself"?

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Because self deception is a possibility in every case, it doesn't make it a certainty in every case. If you write off everyone who holds a contrary view to yourself as deluded, this will stop you engaging with the real substantive arguments.

---

Ah, got you now.

I quite agree. I wasn't trying to dismiss anyone as deluded. I was trying to say that conscience on its own doesn't carry much weight with me because self-deception is a possibility.

There, was I clearer then?

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Aaaargh! How many times do I have to repeat this: I don't regard the inclination, whether that be same-sex orientation, or a desire to over-eat, or a desire to have sex with a young lady who is not my wife as sinful per se (one might as St Augustine did wish to label it all as concupiscence but that is not the same as sin itself); it's the actions (whether that be entertaining lustful thoughts or actually going to bed with said young lady) which are sinful.

Now, in what way is that "pointing out sin in others but not in himself"?

---

quote:

---

27 You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY';

28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

29 If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

30 If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

You're making 'my' point for me. It's ALL about lust. Desire. Eros including it's most poignant, yearning aspects. Homosexuality is no more about lust than heterosexuality is. Or less.

Monogamy and faithfulness and love in all it's breadth and depth are asymmetrically endorsed based on sexual orientation by the God of record.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Aaaargh! How many times do I have to repeat this: I don't regard the inclination, whether that be same-sex orientation, or a desire to over-eat, or a desire to have sex with a young lady who is not my wife as sinful per se (one might as St Augustine did wish to label it all as concupiscence but that is not the same as sin itself); it's the actions (whether that be entertaining lustful thoughts or actually going to bed with said young lady) which are sinful.

Now, in what way is that "pointing out sin in others but not in himself"?

---

Hate to mention, but whether you do or not, Jesus did regard "inclination" as sinful, quite explicitly. Try this.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Andrew:
You missed the part where I spoke of myself in the passage you quoted.

I'm wondering why this artificial division is brought up as we speak about these things. It's as if an arrangement like "you don't speak about our sinfulness and we won't mention your sinfulness" is proposed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Donne:

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
[qb] Not really - I have a natural inclination to want to shag every good-looking young lady I see and to look at shedloads of porn. That in itself is not sinful; what would be is if I acted on that inclination.

---

Of course it is of itself sinful. This is part of the cause of your problems. The act is the least of your worries. Unless all these inner issues get resolved, you (or I, or anyone else) still live under confusion and the healing Christ brought into the world is something we don't make use of. To put it differently, we remain unsaved, no matter how much "pure" we keep our acts.

It brings little benefit to keep your willy behaving, while your heart is clouded.

---

Amen.

Breath-taking example of a person living a straight life being able to point out sin (aka 'the things I am not tempted to do') in others but not in himself.

---

Aaaargh! How many times do I have to repeat this: I don't regard the inclination, whether that be same-sex orientation, or a desire to over-eat, or a desire to have sex with a young lady who is not my wife as sinful per se (one might as St Augustine did wish to label it all as concupiscence but that is not the same as sin itself); it's the actions (whether that be entertaining lustful thoughts or actually going to bed with said young lady) which are sinful.

Now, in what way is that "pointing out sin in others but not in himself"?

---

Um, because your thoughts *are* sinful. The minute you look with lust at a woman you are sinning. Our Leader said that. Yet you think your lustful thoughts are not sinful. And you are pointing out the sinful actions (not attraction) of others.

That's the breath-taking bit, Matt. You don't even realise it and happily bang on about same sex attraction=ok, acts=sin. Championing right morals has more credibility if you do not proudly state your own lust problem (to quote the Blessed Adrian Plass) in close conjunction!

Same sex attraction is not sinning (imo, and yours also - I hear you). Over-eating and entertaining lustful thoughts is.

But I'm waving a little flag here (Yer! The whole flag-holder, darl!) usually same sex attraction is grouped with paedophilia or beastiality... so maybe some progress is made.


On whether action on same sex attraction is sin, we differ. If ppl contend that scripture is not referring to faithful, monogamous same sex couples, wouldn't it be sensible to discern the spirits or, consider the fruit of the spirit? We are asked to! Good fruit doesn't grow on bad trees after all.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Again, keep in mind: there's no condemnation of lesbianism in the Bible, only of male same-sexuality.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Donne:

quote:

---

Andrew:
You missed the part where I spoke of myself in the passage you quoted.

I'm wondering why this artificial division is brought up as we speak about these things. It's as if an arrangement like "you don't speak about our sinfulness and we won't mention your sinfulness" is proposed.

---

d'0h! It's not all about you, Andrew. I was referring to Matt. And not from a 'don't speak about ours and we won't speak about yours' more a (to him): look in your own backyard and make sure it is a reflection of God's Glory before you point to our shabby backyards.

The irony is that he (sozz Matt, for 3rd person) he has declared his own sinful behaviour as sinless and grouped it with same sex attraction which really is (imo, and most other Xtians except the Phelps fringe) morally neutral, while declaring that action on same-sex attraction is sinful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Donne:

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
[qb] Not really - I have a natural inclination to want to shag every good-looking young lady I see and to look at shedloads of porn. That in itself is not sinful; what would be is if I acted on that inclination.

---

Of course it is of itself sinful. This is part of the cause of your problems. The act is the least of your worries. Unless all these inner issues get resolved, you (or I, or anyone else) still live under confusion and the healing Christ brought into the world is something we don't make use of. To put it differently, we remain unsaved, no matter how much "pure" we keep our acts.

It brings little benefit to keep your willy behaving, while your heart is clouded.

---

Amen.

Breath-taking example of a person living a straight life being able to point out sin (aka 'the things I am not tempted to do') in others but not in himself.

---

Aaaargh! How many times do I have to repeat this: I don't regard the inclination, whether that be same-sex orientation, or a desire to over-eat, or a desire to have sex with a young lady who is not my wife as sinful per se (one might as St Augustine did wish to label it all as concupiscence but that is not the same as sin itself); it's the actions (whether that be entertaining lustful thoughts or actually going to bed with said young lady) which are sinful.

Now, in what way is that "pointing out sin in others but not in himself"?

---

Um, because your thoughts *are* sinful. The minute you look with lust at a woman you are sinning.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
How about this: we all have a tendency to be attracted by particular sinful acts. There is nothing wrong in this per se, and even Jesus was tempted

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
You got it. The tendency isn't sinful per se; temptation to sin should not be confused with sin itself.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Matt:
I just agreed with you on that point! I accepted that entertaining lustful thoughts = sin. So, please drop the strawman already!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by §Andrew:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
How about this: we all have a tendency to be attracted by particular sinful acts. There is nothing wrong in this per se, and even Jesus was tempted

---

This is most alien to me. Are you saying that Jesus had that "tendency" as well? It doesn't make sense at all.

---

I just knew you'd want to have a go at that statement!

Jesus was tempted. I think we can all agree on this. Jesus was tempted by certain things. We know about 3 specific temptations, and can possibly guess at others. In the terms of this discussion, we could argue that they were the the sins that he tended towards. Of course, he didn't give in to these sinful temptations, which all in all is probably good news for the global church. But nevertheless, he was tempted, so there must have been things which tempted him more than others. If you're going to address this point with reference to "passions", I'll want to know how you understand Jesus' temptations.

John Donne, I think I'm much closer to your position than Matt's on this, but I don't think you're being fair on him. The distinction between the temptation and the act is probably blurred because we seem to have ended up talking about lustful thoughts, so both effectively occur in the head, but Matt's been clear throughout that looking at a woman lustfully is a sin, and one which he commits far too often. (Sorry to hammer it home, Matt - the same goes for me, if that's any help!)

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I just knew you'd want to have a go at that statement!

Jesus was tempted. I think we can all agree on this. Jesus was tempted by certain things. We know about 3 specific temptations, and can possibly guess at others. In the terms of this discussion, we could argue that they were the the sins that he tended towards. Of course, he didn't give in to these sinful temptations, which all in all is probably good news for the global church. But nevertheless, he was tempted, so there must have been things which tempted him more than others. If you're going to address this point with reference to "passions", I'll want to know how you understand Jesus' temptations.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
So Matt, have you gone through the thread from 2003 and followed the story of what happens when your views get applied in a church to a real person?

I also suggest searching for Gracious Rebel's post on her friend Simon Harvey a gay evangelical who was driven to suicide by the attitudes of his church.

---

quote:

---

If you want to denounce gay people for 'denying sin' when they say that their loving faithful relationships, which are harming nobody, are good, then how about acknowledging that supporting policies and stances which blight gay people's lives can be a cruel and harmful thing? Why is it so wrong for gay people to 'deny sin', but OK for you to deny that the harm being done to them just might be sinful?

---

quote:

---

How about acknowledging that your conscience may come at the price of condoning hurt and damage to other people, people who we know as fellow shipmates on these boards?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
So Matt, have you gone through the thread from 2003 and followed the story of what happens when your views get applied in a church to a real person?

I also suggest searching for Gracious Rebel's post on her friend Simon Harvey a gay evangelical who was driven to suicide by the attitudes of his church.

---

quote:

---

If you want to denounce gay people for 'denying sin' when they say that their loving faithful relationships, which are harming nobody, are good, then how about acknowledging that supporting policies and stances which blight gay people's lives can be a cruel and harmful thing? Why is it so wrong for gay people to 'deny sin', but OK for you to deny that the harm being done to them just might be sinful?

---

quote:

---

How about acknowledging that your conscience may come at the price of condoning hurt and damage to other people, people who we know as fellow shipmates on these boards?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
So Matt, have you gone through the thread from 2003 and followed the story of what happens when your views get applied in a church to a real person?

I also suggest searching for Gracious Rebel's post on her friend Simon Harvey a gay evangelical who was driven to suicide by the attitudes of his church.

---

I agree entirely with you that there have been some terrible tragedies when (nevertheless correct)theology is misapplied in a pastorally monstrous way, and that is a great sin of which those Christians need to repent.

quote:

---

If you want to denounce gay people for 'denying sin' when they say that their loving faithful relationships, which are harming nobody, are good, then how about acknowledging that supporting policies and stances which blight gay people's lives can be a cruel and harmful thing? Why is it so wrong for gay people to 'deny sin', but OK for you to deny that the harm being done to them just might be sinful?

---

See above; I think we're fairly much singing from the same hymn sheet on this one

quote:

---

How about acknowledging that your conscience may come at the price of condoning hurt and damage to other people, people who we know as fellow shipmates on these boards?

---

To a degree, yes, and that pains me; doubtless it pains them as well. BUT...there are limits to which the pastoral tail can wag the theological dog.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

This cuts both ways, BTW: by their actions, these 'other people' prevent me in good conscience from enjoying full fellowship with them, which pains me; does it not also pain them?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
JJ, I can do little but in all integrity follow what I firmly and sincerely believe God, through Scripture and Tradition tells me, which is not to associate with an immoral brother. If you want to call that a 'choice', then so be it. All of these points cut both ways: I can bang my drum and say that homosexual behaviour is a 'choice' and that it's not my fault that I can't consequently associate with them; you can turn the same point around against me. All that we end up with as the end product is a dialogue of the deaf, which I fear this is fast becoming.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
JJ, I can do little but in all integrity follow what I firmly and sincerely believe God, through Scripture and Tradition tells me, which is not to associate with an immoral brother.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
JJ, I can do little but in all integrity follow what I firmly and sincerely believe God, through Scripture and Tradition tells me, which is not to associate with an immoral brother.

---

Well that's me fucked, then. And I have enjoyed discussing things with you, too. Ah well. plenty of other people to talk with.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
JJ, I can do little but in all integrity follow what I firmly and sincerely believe God, through Scripture and Tradition tells me, which is not to associate with an immoral brother. If you want to call that a 'choice', then so be it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
JJ, I can do little but in all integrity follow what I firmly and sincerely believe God, through Scripture and Tradition tells me, which is not to associate with an immoral brother. If you want to call that a 'choice', then so be it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Again, keep in mind: there's no condemnation of lesbianism in the Bible, only of male same-sexuality.

---

Let's not start that carousel again TM.

By some amazing coincidence last time round you convinced everyone in favour of same-sex relationships that Romans 1 did not prohibit Lesbianism and convinced no one who was not in favour.

Romans 1 verse 26 was in the Bible last time I looked. Simply asserting the very issue that is under discussion does not actually help move things forward.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Donne:
If we start down this track there'll be no-one left to share communion with!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

If any of us is faced with the following verse from Romans 1, it seems to have an obvious and clear meaning:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural... (Romans 1:26)

A quick show of hands in any English-speaking country nowadays would probably agree to the following statement: “This quite clearly refers to lesbianism. That is the obvious meaning of the words. To deny that this refers to lesbianism is the sort of thing that you would expect from a clever-clogs biblical exegete with an ideological axe to grind.” Well, all I'd like to say at this point is that we have several commentaries on these words dating from the centuries between the writing of this text and the preaching of St John Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century. None of them read the passage as referring to lesbianism. Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex. Chrysostom was in fact the first Church Father of whom we have record to read the passage as having anything to do with lesbianism.

Now, my first point is this: irrespective of who is closer to the mark as to what St Paul was referring to, one thing is irrefutable: what modern readers claim to be “the obvious meaning of the text” was not obvious to Saint Augustine, who has for many centuries enjoyed the status of being a particularly authoritative reader of Scripture. Therefore there can be no claim that there has been an uninterrupted witness to the text being read as having to do with lesbianism. There hasn't. It has been perfectly normal for long stretches of time to read this passage in the Catholic Church without seeing St Paul as saying anything to do with lesbianism. This means that no Catholic is under any obligation to read this passage as having something to do with lesbianism. Furthermore, it is a perfectly respectable position for a Catholic to take that there is no reference to lesbianism in Holy Scripture, given that the only candidate for a reference is one whose “obvious meaning” was taken, for several hundred years, to be something quite else.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I've already given a pretty good argument on this point;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, my thoughts:

1. I think, personally, that (1) and (4) are somewhat counter-intuitive readings of the text. However we are justified in reading the text in a counter-intuitive way for the same reason that we avoid the natural reading of the parts of the Bible that seem to condone slavery - because otherwise it harmonises badly with the rest of the message of Scripture.
2. On the question of porneia, I don't think it's necessarily the case that we are bound to take Paul's standards as definitive. As far as I can tell, the word (aside from its technical sense of "illicit marriage" and its metaphorical sense of "idolatry") is just a generic term: sexual immorality. If I post "You should flee <list of sexual offences>", then it would be pretty clear what I mean. But if I post "You should flee sexual immorality", then that could mean "You should flee what I consider to be sexually immoral" or "You should flee what is sexually immoral".

---

Ricardus, thanks to you (and ken earlier) for stating what is becoming clearer from reading this thread: that a plain reading of the text has Paul disapproving of (male/male) homosexual behaviour. There seems to be a reluctance in the liberal camp to admit this, which leads to semantic knots, when in fact the true point of debate is exactly what you and ken said - are Paul's standards binding for us today, or are we justified in putting aside this verse out of respect for what we see as the bigger picture?

The trouble is that, as LMC says, putting aside the difficult bits of scripture feels intellectually dishonest, and the 'bigger picture' is not agreed by all parties reading the same Bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
it really doesn't appear to me that you've taken it in, because you are so very invested in your own perspective. Of course, it does take thinking about these things for longer than 5 minutes - and having a bit of an openish mind - I will acknowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But guess what? I've been thinking about this topic for literally dozens of years. No doubt much, much longer than you have been. I've done a lot more reading on the topic than I'd guess you have, too - because it matters to me in a serious way as it doesn't to you.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I've already given a pretty good argument on this point;

---

Interesting you say that since the 'Were Peter and Paul's views on sex anachronistic?' thread has been hanging for a couple of weeks now.

The last few posts have included things like this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, my thoughts:

1. I think, personally, that (1) and (4) are somewhat counter-intuitive readings of the text. However we are justified in reading the text in a counter-intuitive way for the same reason that we avoid the natural reading of the parts of the Bible that seem to condone slavery - because otherwise it harmonises badly with the rest of the message of Scripture.
2. On the question of porneia, I don't think it's necessarily the case that we are bound to take Paul's standards as definitive. As far as I can tell, the word (aside from its technical sense of "illicit marriage" and its metaphorical sense of "idolatry") is just a generic term: sexual immorality. If I post "You should flee <list of sexual offences>", then it would be pretty clear what I mean. But if I post "You should flee sexual immorality", then that could mean "You should flee what I consider to be sexually immoral" or "You should flee what is sexually immoral".

---

Ricardus, thanks to you (and ken earlier) for stating what is becoming clearer from reading this thread: that a plain reading of the text has Paul disapproving of (male/male) homosexual behaviour. There seems to be a reluctance in the liberal camp to admit this, which leads to semantic knots, when in fact the true point of debate is exactly what you and ken said - are Paul's standards binding for us today, or are we justified in putting aside this verse out of respect for what we see as the bigger picture?

The trouble is that, as LMC says, putting aside the difficult bits of scripture feels intellectually dishonest, and the 'bigger picture' is not agreed by all parties reading the same Bible.

---

And yet, you didn't want to come back to them. Neither Ricardus or Sanityman were agreeing with the conservative position, but they were refuting your claims about scripture being so clear on this issue.

Your quote from James Alison involves a common strategy used when facing the issue. By quoting Church Fathers you cast doubt (legitimately) on what the text means. However, there is a huge leap from uncertainty of what it means to certainty that it is not a condemnation of homosexual practice. I know you find it impossible to believe but some of us do actually engage with the arguments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
it really doesn't appear to me that you've taken it in, because you are so very invested in your own perspective. Of course, it does take thinking about these things for longer than 5 minutes - and having a bit of an openish mind - I will acknowledge.

---

I'll repeat what I've said before. I have one particular fault of which I am well aware and am not very proud - when people are patronisining and condescending in their attitude to me I have this infuriating habit of replying in kind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But guess what? I've been thinking about this topic for literally dozens of years. No doubt much, much longer than you have been. I've done a lot more reading on the topic than I'd guess you have, too - because it matters to me in a serious way as it doesn't to you.

---

You are flailing around wildly trying to grab hold of some authority which will force everyone to agree with you. But there isn't one. You'll have to use persuasion like everyone else on board ship.

(As it happens, for various reasons, I have been reading / thinking / pastorally involved, wih this issue for over 20 years too - the difference is that I don't think that means that everyone has to accept my opinion because of it.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And please stop the nonsense about "responding in kind to condescension." I haven't been talking to you at all; the latest condescension was all on your side.

---