Nowadays, couples get married with no intention of having children. And some get married knowing that they can't have children. The intervention of medical science, and adoption mean that a gay couple could have a child as easily as an infertile straight couple. Now given that infertility is about as prevalent as homosexuality, we have to start thinking again. There have now been ectopic pregnancies that have carried to term, and a healthy child born. This means that theoretically a man could have an embryo implanted. Or a woman with no womb. And it could have genetic material of both parties, implanted into an empty egg.

Now, for me, this is seriously screwing up the boundaries. And I think the church needs a rethink.

I think it is a fair analogy - after all those who are gay, and those who are infertile are born that way. In fact being infertile can be more down to lifestyle choices that homosexuality. (consumption of alcohol, etc)

Love
Angel
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angel:
prevent fornication

---

quote:

---

There have now been ectopic pregnancies that have carried to term, and a healthy child born.

---

Can you show us a report on this?
 

I do think we can no longer deny homosexuals relationships because they can't have kids, yet have a society which puts vast amounts of money into helping infertile couples do just that.

Tricky ground...
 

But not necessarily. Women have survived ectopic pregnancies. They have to remain immobile (lying down), be constantly monitored, and the baby must be delivered as early as possible by caesarian section.

With proper care, complete immobility, drugs to combat rejection, and hormones to make the man's body behave more like a woman's, it is possible in principle for a man to bring a baby to term, and give birth.
But it would be very dangerous for the man and the baby.

Woo! This wasn't what I was looking for, but it should fuel further debate!
 

'frin
 

A secondary reason is it puts a gay relationship on the same level as traditional marriage.

I think the childrearing issue has become a non-issue for most, me included.
 

Why aren't reasons one and two non-issues as well?

Is the Bible all that clear on this issue? If so, why do we see even among orthodox believers and fundamentalists so much interpretational division on so many other scriptural matters? For example, do you think speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit? Where do you stand on pre-millenialism? Does "day" mean a 24 hour period, or it is a broad indication of time as in "Day of Judgment"? There are many Bible-believing Christians who disagree with you on the issue of homosexuality.

Do you think the state should become a Christian theocracy, doing only those things that have explicit Biblical endorsement?
How does that square with the Constitution?
If you want to see theocracy in all its glory, check out Iran.

What is the "level" of traditional marriage? My view, reinforced by all current studies of marriage, is that its "level" is low and is sinking ever more rapidly. The thing I find surprising is that gays and lesbians want any part of an institution that has become such a disaster for so many people, including Christians, even those of the orthodox, fundamentalist, and evangelical wings. I'm not sure that recognizing gay and lesbian unions would make matters any worse. In fact, maybe heterosexuals would feel challenged enough to get serious about their own marriages!

Greta
 

corgi greta said

quote:

---

Is the Bible all that clear on this issue?

---

the ideal expressed in the bible is man and woman living together for life although as we all know there are numerous stories in the bible where this does not happen.

There are also the divorce laws of the OT which many of us would find difficult but are re-interpretted by Jesus to give more rights to women ( a femininst interpretaion open to debate on Jesus's sayings on divorce)

There is no affirmation in the bible of same sex sexual relationships but please feel free to correct me here.

The only hints we have are to the negative ie paul and leviticus.

Marriasge is between a man and Woman a Gay marriage in my opinion is a contradiction in terms

Basically Corgicreta the Bible is quite clear but no doubt people will have other opinions
 

Yes, there are many areas where the Bible is not so clear. And you mention many of them. However, on the issue of homosexual conduct (as opposed to orientation), most Bible-believing Christians find the Bible quite clear.

Those that dispute that clarity engage mainly in one of two tactics: 1. interpretational gymnastics intending to make the Levitical or Pauline passages either extremely cultural or extremely narrow in meaning (e.g. saying Paul was only referring to temple prostitutes) or 2. simply refusing to except the Bible's authority in this area, which is becoming more open and common in the American mainline denominations.

As for a theocracy, I in no way advocate that. Government has to make decisions concerning morality. The question is whose morality?

In case someone finds me backward in this area, I do not think gay orientation is a sin. I think gay sexual conduct is a sin. I would say the same concerning hetero orientation and conduct except that it is blessed in marriage.
 

What about David and Jonathan?

I am seriously thinking of starting a thread called Other People's Genitals so I can see the message, We're taking you back to....

Or perhaps: A load of old Bollocks?
 

quote:

---

What about David and Jonathan?

---

a great excample of friendship as we would understand it or one of cs Lewises Loves (Philo?). Like me and my best mate .

Could really can only be considered an excample of sexual love with some slightly dubious interpretation of the text (But we all do this I guess )

In some ways it is a little confusing to have various threads covering similar subjects from different angles
 

At the risk of losing my Fundie credentials, I think homophobia (I used to HATE that word.) keeps many men from having close male friendships. I admit it makes things awkward for me sometimes.
 

quote:

---

David and Jonathon had a great close non-sexual relationship.

---

How do you know? Have I missed a verse in which the writer clearly states that David and Jonathon then went to seperate beds and dreamt nice heterosexual dreams?

I don't especially want or need that to be a gay relationship, I just wonder how you can be so categorical about it.

'frin
 

quote:

---

How do you know?

---

I assume you want an answer from myself or markthepunk the answer in my opinion is we don't know; The bible is silent as it is about the love which Jesus had for the disciple he loved.

It is silent on this issue but using Occams Razor (deep joy I have used it and not in the context of atheism ) the simplest hypothesis is to be preferred then the answer is he did not.

Naturally we can put a more complicated hypothesis on silence but if we did this on other biblical passages where would be... whoops suddenly I don't want to go there

Arguing from silence boils down to yes he did no he didn't which is fruitless.

Maybe Markthepunk has a better answer (it's late for me)
 

By the way, us Yanks are about to celebrate our independence from you Brits by blowing up lots of stuff. Happy Fourth of July.

mark
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
To take interpretive leaps such as reading sexuality into David and Jonathan's friendship takes some gymnastics that just aren't good exegesis.

---

I would suggest that to read anything BUT a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan would require even greater gymnastics; a giant interpretive.

Those verses in Samuel do everything they can to indicate the nature of David and Jonathan's relationship:

1 Samuel 18:1,3
"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of
David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."

2 Samuel 1:26
[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

.....And in the verses between, you'll find disrobing, and the kissing!!!
 

Are you going to get funny ideas about me? Hmmmm?

Off to watch true Americans blow up stuff.

mark
GSF member
 

But the church is no place for homosexual marriage. The Bible is clear as it can be -- homosexuality is a sin, David and Jonathan be damned -- it wouldn't have been David's first or last sin. Just because David did it doesn't make it right. If that's your model, you had best be a man after God's own heart. Homosexuality is a sin. If it's genetic, well, so is the urge to mate with many partners, kill without remorse, and defecate publicly (of course, the Bible doesn't say anything about that; it's just best to do it privately). Christ is our model, not genetics; the Bible is our path, not "nature."
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gabe:
Homosexuality is a sin.

---

An "abomination" to be exact; right up there with eating lobster and getting a tattoo.
 

quote:

---

2 Samuel 1:26
[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

---

So some one in there grief when over the top. but there is no reference to a sexual relationship, maybe there was guilt that he was not present to assist Jonathan. Certainly in the ancient world friendship was more highly thought of than today and indeed more so than any form of sexual relationship (complete opposite to today). In my opinion to find a sexual relationship here is an imposition of our cultural values upon events 3000 years ago.

Using the similar amount of evidence we could say that about Jesus and the disciple he loved.

Anyway kings samual chronicles (well may not chronicles and all the histories record things warts and all that does necessary make them right if it did then we would be in big trouble
 

Though I don't have negative views on homosexuality per se (though I do have on a number of practices prevalent amongst a number of gay communities), I don't think that the classical construct of a 'Christian Marriage' - i.e. including children etc., is open to gay people - leaving all debate over sexual ethics aside (i.e. gay/straight), a sexually exclusive gay couple can't have children naturally, ever.

Alongside this, there are huge problems arising in society due to the variation in expectations of marriage, which is at least part of the cause of the high divorce rate. (Long discussion - won't go into it now). Does the Church recognise this in some way or not?

I'm not altogether sure that the Church is wary of discussing marriage as a construct as it feels that society has an altogether different one (though I personally suspect that society has more than one).

Given that, having a debate which could reach a useful conclusion practically, pastorally and theologically is difficult.
 

As for David and Jonathan, of course it was a gay relationship. Whether they had sex or not: homosexuality isn't just about sex. It's about who you fall in love with. I also don't see anywhere in Chronicles that actually condemns the relationship, so the writer of Chronicles obviously didn't think there was anything wrong with it.

Now, can we get back to talking about something else?
 

quote:

---

As for David and Jonathan, of course it was a gay relationship

---

It is unlikely we are going to agree on the hermeneutics and we all come from different perspectives and to some extent we all read into the text what we want to read and bring our 21st century understanding to it. We forget that there is a 3000 year gap in time and a huge culteral gap.

Random thoughts
when does a male relationship become Gay?

I have spainsh relations the men exchange is this gay? In some african societies men hold hands...

The giving of Joanthans (royal?) robe and sword is proberly as the story of Jonathan and David moves on is a symbolic action that the true heir to Saul is David and not Jonathan.

As I reread Brueggemann and the bible on this story I see a potential for another thread which is completely unrelated to sex

Proberly I will be taking a holiday from threads about sex
 

Just having specific "gay" threads sends us round in circles. Tackling a specific issue, which takes on one of the specific presumptions about marriage informs the other marriage threads floating around.

If you set aside whether or not homosexuality is specifically condemned, and look at what are our perceptions of marriage, you have to look beyond the initial assumptions. If you look at what else makes a marriage, then we can go back and look at our initial assumptions in a new light.

Love
Angel
 

The Bible gives plenty of examples of marriage in the Bible – some good and some bad – but all of them involve a man and a woman.

All the examples of same sex relationships – such as David and Jonathon – are described as “deep friendships”. The Bible is silent about whether or not there was a sexual aspect to that relationship. I suspect that someone’s opinion on whether the deed was done will depend on what they’ve already decided about the whole homosexual issue. [ie: You can make the text do what you want as you’ll interpret the silence to back up what you’ve already decided].

Given what’s the Bible says about marriage and the models it presents, I don’t think it’s right that the church allows a formal marriage service for gays. But I don’t see why clergy shouldn’t be allowed to bless gay relationships if the couple were committed Christians and wanted to do that as a sign of their love for each other.

The Government could allow a civil marriage ceremony for gays which would work in the same way as marriage and would grant the same legal rights. [I think this is what Ken Livingstone is proposing to do in London]. I think that would be a good thing as it would ensure that people’s legal rights were protected. Eg: In situations where a gay couple has been together for years, one of them dies without a will and then the survivior suddenly finds themselves homeless.

quote:

---

If you set aside whether or not homosexuality is specifically condemned, and look at what are our perceptions of marriage, you have to look beyond the initial assumptions. If you look at what else makes a marriage, then we can go back and look at our initial assumptions in a new light.

---

I don’t think you can do one without bringing in the other. Someone’s attitudes to gay marriage will be dramatically influenced by whether or not they believe that it is an “abomination”.

Gay couples adopting children or having a baby with a third party seems, to me, a separate issue. [Think this has been covered in the thread about “should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children].

And what’s the rise of infertility got to do with our perceptions of marriage?! The majority of people who get married hope to start a family. They only know they’ve got a problem when it becomes a problem. [If you see what I mean]. The only people who are likely to have thought it through before marriage are those who are adamant they don’t want kids or who are aware of a specific family problem – such as Huntingtons or Turners. I can’t remember anything in the Bible that states that you can only get married if you’re going to have children. [Unless it’s buried in Leviticus] .

Tubbs
 

Astro
 

You say, "Government has to make decisions concerning morality. The question is whose morality?"

I generally subscribe to the view that a government that governs least governs best, and I think this is particurly so in regard to moral issues. Unless there is near universal agreement on some moral issue, e.g., that bank robbery should be punished, the state should be hesitant about legislating morality, and any enactments should be as neutral as possible.

We are fortunate in being Christians in a country with a Christian majority. That may not last forever. I would be very unhappy in a country where I might be stoned for eating ribs (Iran), or steak (India), or going for a drive on Saturday (Israel), or owning a Bible (China, still!).

I simply don't see any governmental interest in denying same-sex couples the secular benefits that flow from marriage.

At the same time (and this may anger lesbians and gays) in deference to tradition and the sensitivities of a great many people, I feel that the state should apply the term marriage only to heterosexual unions. Same-sex covenants should be registered with the state, and should be accorded the same rights and responsibilites as marriage. The covenant option should even be open to heterosexuals, many of whom are maritalphobic.

Greta

P.S. I appreciate the refinement of your original statement with regard to homosexual practice, but the fact that some Bible- believing Christians disagree with you suggests there may be a lack of Scriptural clarity on this issue. As a way-off-topic aside, I think that ambiguity argues FOR, rather than against, inerrancy and divine inspiration, in that a lack of clarity makes us exercise our faith. We can't just sit back and have it all laid out cleanly before us. God did not create us in the image of a puppet.
 

quote:

---

I feel that the state should apply the term marriage only to heterosexual unions. Same-sex covenants should be registered with the state, and should be accorded the same rights and responsibilites as marriage.

---

So - it's down to semantics. And if that's ALL it is, and if gays WANT marriage, why can't they have it?

Yes, the discussions are getting boring (see my gay-free 'interest-bearing account' thread!) BUT it is actually at least relevant to the title of the htread, in this case!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Yes, there are many areas where the Bible is not so clear. And you mention many of them. However, on the issue of homosexual conduct (as opposed to orientation), most Bible-believing Christians find the Bible quite clear.

---

Hi MarkthePunk,
Leviticus 20:13 spells out --"quite clearly"-- the death penalty for homosexual conduct. Doesn't this mean that Bible-believing Christians should go out and start killing homosexuals? I hope not! Profaning the Sabbath and dishonoring one's parents are also death penalty offenses. The Bible is quite clear about this. Aren't we being "unfaithful" to the Bible or "revisionist" by not killing offenders? The Bible is also "quite clear" that slavery, levirate marriage, polygamy, sex with slaves, treatment of women as property, and concubinage are ok. Pork, long hair on men, women with their heads uncovered, divorce and remarriage (except for adultery), and clothing made of mixed fabric are not ok. Have you had ham or bacon lately? When I hear discussions about homosexuality and fidelity to Scripture, I have to wonder about the gymnastics involved on these other Scriptural issues. The Bible is "quite clear" on these other matters, but we only seem to want to focus on homosexuals when we approach Scripture this way. This is a good discussion and these are things to really think about. Peace be with you!

Love
Angel
 

1. We are no longer under the Law. So no, the Bible doesn't teach we should stone those caught in the act.

2. (And this is a common problem on this board, I've noticed.) We should distinguish between moral laws of the Torah and ceremonial and dietary laws.

Without going into all the theology, the moral aspects of the Law still apply. It is still wrong to kill, steal, lie, etc. Fortunately for rebellious sons, the penalties no longer apply.

Although the ceremonial and dietary laws still have much to teach us (Albeit, the "pots and pans" section is a bit turgid ), we are no longer under those as shown in the NT.

Man, I shouldn't think about such things so early in the morning.
 

quote:

---

2. (And this is a common problem on this board, I've noticed.) We
should distinguish between moral laws of the Torah and ceremonial
and dietary laws.

---

why? and if we should, why should we include hommosexuality with the things to still be abominated and the others not to?
 

We still are dealing with this issue today in this case over sexuality. On balance Paul in Romans I seems to me to imply that the Laws with regards to sexuality still apply.
(I am well aware of the hermeneutical issues with regards to Romans )
 

Let's look at the society which received the Torah. It was a bunch of nomadic tribes wandering around the desert. Dietary laws were a matter of life-or-death in such a hot and difficult situation. The males were the ones who protected the tribes and who fought all the battles, which may offer us a clue here.

First of all, this meant that there were far fewer men than women, because it was the men who were getting killed in battle. That was their lot. Hence the prohibition on women having more than one husband, while men could have several wives and concubines.

Secondly, this meant that the survival of the tribes in the future depended on the production of as many children as possible. Hence the ban on homosexuality: virile men, who should be impregnating women... weren't. If it got out of hand, this could endanger the long-term survival of the tribe.

This is conjecture, of course. There is the objection that homosexuals were executed anyway, but of course they were killed as a deterrent to others. It also makes sense of why Onan was condemned for "spilling his seed on the ground".
 

quote:

---

It also makes sense of why Onan was condemned for "spilling his seed on the ground".

---

I always thought the sin there was the refusal to father children who would have taken precedence over his own? (They would have been considered as his brother's, wouldn't they?)
 

quote:

---

By-the-by there are those scholars who believe that Paul's thotn in the flesh was his homoseuality.

---

Ah, Yes, John Spong that most unbiased of Biblical Scholars

Rob also said

quote:

---

It concerns me that any one would use the bible to tell others that by nature they are sinners and then pretent to be loving. To give the bible that much authority

---

And how much authority would you give the
bible?

Is 'love your neighbour as yourself' something we must look at it's context of a agrarian society which did not understand the need to accumulate wealth and the need to dump on our neighbour as we climb higher up the greasy pole? (rich with irony but with a serious point :rolleyes

Ok Basically how much authority does the bible have over sexual mores? maybe another thread but that would be boring to have another one about sex .
 

In an indirect way, you bring up what is often the underlying issue in these matters -- the authority of the Bible. Personally, I'll stick with the authority of God's Word over man's authority or cultural trends.

Sebastian, I too appreciate the tone of this board. Appreciate the tone of your post, too, although I imagine we do indeed disagree on this issue.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:
I always thought the sin there was the refusal to father children who would have taken precedence over his own? (They would have been considered as his brother's, wouldn't they?)

---

But we're nice to them now!

[humorously appropriate typo edited out -- such a shame...]

[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

You have stated: "In an indirect way, you bring up what is often the underlying issue in these matters -- the authority of the Bible."

This is the issue for most fundamentalists, but I think it misperceives the issue. I have not attacked Scriptural authority, and I can't detect such an attack in any of the other posts. Instead what we are discussing is the authority of PARTICULAR INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE. I realize that most fundamentalists have a tough time seeing this, and generally refuse to acknowledge that they engage in any manner of interpretation, but as I read the posts, I see interpretational leaps on both sides and in middle. Moreover, I don't equate interpratetion with apostacy. When someone crosses that line, it's major and obvious.

My view is that while the Bible is divinely inspired and is authorative in all matters of faith, it must be read carefully and prayerfully, always recognizing that other Christians can often wind up with different interpretations of the same passage.

You slso stated: "Personally, I'll stick with the authority of God's Word over man's authority or cultural trends."

How can any Christian disagree with that? That's the conclusion, not the issue.

Greta
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Personally, I'll stick with the authority of God's Word over man's authority or cultural trends.

---

Sorry for the following theological pedantry.

God's Word (the Logos) is the Christ. The Bible is not the Logos. Christians worship the Christ. Christians do not worship the Bible. Somehow this issue gets confused quite a lot. A little dip into the famous first lines of John:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we behold his Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of Grace and Truth."

Note that the Word did not become a book that was printed among us. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Bible worship is idolatrous.

Nor do Christians believe (as Muslims, for example, do) that God dictated the text of our book.

I am not denying that some people may in fact believe that the Bible is the Word, or that some people deny that Christ was the Logos. I'm just trying to pin down what's really under discussion here, because there seem to be four overlapping but competing issues:

1. The ethical treatment of homosexuals in society (which treatment may be informed by Christian ethics)

2. How the Christian church should deal with homosexuality (which may be influenced by social ethics)

3. what the Bible says about homosexuality (which is really a veiled way of grappling with questions of Biblical inerrancy)

4. How the Christian church should deal with homosexual people (in relation to marriage and ordination. This debate is obviously influenced by one's reaction to the preceeding 3 issues).

I think the core of interest in this discussion is the last one, but it often gets side-tracked by the first three, some of which lead to debates that are clearly unresolvable.

HT
 

I agree Hooker. I was once in a church which SEEMED okay but there was something which niggled me. In the end I realized they were preaching faith not in God but in the WORD of God. (The Bible, not Jesus.)

It can be SO subtle!
 

quote:

---

The Bible is not the Logos

---

An intresting non-arguement at the start since nobody said it was so why say it?

Proberly most christians when they refer to the bible as the word of God are actually implictly shaped by Barth's doctrine of the Bible as the word of God as the Bible 'as god speaking to us now or that it containt the revelation of the Logos for us here and now' (ghastly precis but K Barths stuff is long winded and I have only really ever dipped my toes in it and no I don't have all 14 volumes of dogmatics!

The list that Hooker's trick used is useful (and an improvement upon something I wrote on another thread) but I think should have included

5)Biblical approach to sexuality and relationships in general.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
-- the authority of the Bible. Personally, I'll stick with the authority of God's Word over man's authority or cultural trends.

---

Perhaps I'm reading an unclear antecedent here but it seems to me from this that "authority of God's Word" was equated with "authority of the Bible". Which seems dangerously like proclaiming that God's Word and the Bible are the same thing. Perhaps I misread that.

Although I concur with Nightlamp's #5, I continue to be fascinated that the discussion of sexuality and relatiosnhips in general is so often tested by the extreme case of homosexuality.

HT
 

Considering that Barth developed his theology of the word against what he called liberal protestanism belief. This is what implicitly markthepunk is disagreeing with hence proberly without being to explain it that is what he means.

Intrestingly enough I did meet an evangelical who considered the word of God was how bultmann understood it and that is strange.

maybe I should put a new thread about what we mean by the word of God..
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
God's Word (the Logos) is the Christ. The Bible is not the Logos. Christians worship the Christ. Christians do not worship the Bible

---

I'm not sure why this is said with such assurance. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but HT is speaking here is though this is an accepted fact, which I don't think it is.

And I am not evangelical or fundamentalist.

It is only relatively recently that ANY Christians have not accepted the Bible as the Word of God.

The Bible universally equates the Law and the Prophets with the Word of God. Jesus repeatedly refers to God's laws as the Word of God. The Gospels, the letters of Paul, and Revelation all refer to the Word as meaning the Gospels.

It is only in John and Revelation that the added mystical quality of Jesus as the Word of God is introduced. It is not a difficult leap to say that God and His Divine Truth are the same entity.

I guess this is off the topic, but I was surprised that HT jumped in on this point with such force.

I think that many, and perhaps even most, Christians regard the Bible as the Word of God referred to in John. After all, Jesus said numerous times that He came to fulfill the Scriptures.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm not sure why this is said with such assurance. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but HT is speaking here is though this is an accepted fact, which I don't think it is.

[snip]

I guess this is off the topic, but I was surprised that HT jumped in on this point with such force.

---

HT is speaking with no more certainty than most who've made their pronouncements on this thread (and in truth, a heckuva lot less).

Carry on...

[typos... *sigh*]

[ 07 July 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

Markthepunk,
You are right we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. The OT also says,"What is man that you are mindful of him. You created him a little lower than angels". I am a sinner. I fall short. And like Paul am grateful for the grace of God.
Over in Galatians warns Christians about returning to the law,that is looking for litmus test to prove some one is really a christian, which the church is doing with homosexuality. And again most seem to ignorantly believe homosexuality is primarily about sex rather than a God given genetic birthright. The only sexual issue for homosexual is the same for all of us which is are we in a faithful, committed, responsible relationship.
 

quote:

---

Nightlite,You disappoint me. If the bible is God's word without

---

But more likely I failed to explain Karl Barth he said (any Karl Barth fans very sorry!!)that the Bible is the word of God because it contains God's revelation (sorry I don't know the German). The Logos is Jesus and we receive and understand it through the word of God that is the Bible in other words the Bible contains God's revelation.

When people use the phrase the word of God when refering to the Bible this is almost certainly what they mean they do not mean it is the Logos or something to be worshipped.

You yourself said

quote:

---

Believe it or not I do accept scripture as God's word

---

How do you understand this if not the same as Karl Barth?, that the Bible contains God's revelation to us (Not the BibleisGods revelation to us -possiblely a subtle difference that remained unnoticed possibly due to a typo )
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob:
Nightlite,You disappoint me. If the bible is God's word without cultuaral bias the why do women cut their hair short and wear makeup, and why don't we stone to death rebellous teenagers...

---

Maybe you mean me. Except that I don't think that it is without cultural bias. I see it as being hugely symbolic and in need of intelligent interpretation to free it from things such as you mention.

But it has to be interpreted in accordance with the repetitive themes of the Bible as a whole, such as loving God and the neighbor, justice, mercy, the beauty of marriage, etc.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
HT is speaking with no more certainty than most who've made their pronouncements on this thread (and in truth, a heckuva lot less).

---

Yes, I guess you are right. Sorry about that. Got carried away...
 

first off, theres nothing in the old testament that specifically says anything prohibiting two women from having sex. just isn't mentioned at all. so lets leave that aside for the moment.

now as far as i know, the only place that prohibits what we would call male homeosexuality is the line that goes something along the lines of, you shall not lie with a man as with a woman. i take that to mean specifically (sorry going to be graphic here) anal sex. so what we have here is a specific sexual act prohibited. nothing implied about oral sex, or mutual masterbation, or anything else that two men can do together, just one particular act.

now it seems to me that theres a better analogy to be made than with the (yes i'll admit it) overused analogy with pork or shellfish, and thats that it it prohibited for a man to have sex with his wife during the time she is having her period, for a certain number of days afterwards, and until shes had a ritual bath. seems to me that, as far as i can remember, that and bestiality are the only other two specific sex acts forbidden in the old testament.

now, i for one don't really want to know what any of the male gay shipmates here are sprcifically doing, and i'm sure they don't want to go into it. but even assuming that they are engaging in this forbidden activity, welll.....

guys, you staying away from your wives til they've had that ritual bath?

women, found where you can take one?

nope me neither.

(new testament is a whole nother post for another time...)
 

Here's a list from Google of the Mikveh (ritual baths) located in your area:

Community Mikveh, 583 Kings Hwy, Brooklyn, NY, (718) 375-6660

Mivka 18 Avenue-Congregation, 5010 18th Ave, Brooklyn, NY, (718)633-7724

Mikvah Israel-BoroPark, 1351 46th St, Brooklyn , NY (718)871-6866

Mikvah Israel-BrightonBeach, 245 Neptune Ave, Brooklyn , NY (718)769-8599

Mikvah Mayon Of Papa, 115 Rutledge St, Brooklyn , NY, (718)624-9262

Mikvah Of MidManhattan, 234 W 78th St, New York , NY, (212)799-1520

Mikvah Ritualarium, 708 Mace Ave, Bronx , NY, (718)798-6173

Mikvah Of Crown Heights, 1506 Union St, Brooklyn, NY, (718) 604-8787

Mikvah Divrei Chaim Inc, 1249 52nd St, Brooklyn, NY, (718) 972-9678

Mikvah Yisroel Of Flatbush, 1296 E 10th St, Brooklyn, NY, (718) 253-8302

Mikvah Israel Of Bensonhurst, 48 Bay 28th St, Brooklyn, NY, (718) 372-9563

Mikvah Israel Of Forest Hills, 6304 Yellowstone Blvd, Flushing, NY, (718) 897-9370

Mikvah Young Israel, 835 Forest Hill Rd, Staten Island, NY, (718) 494-6704

Mikveh Israel-KewGardens Hill, 7111 Vleigh Pl, Flushing , NY, (718)268-6500

Mikveh Of WashingtonHeights, 4351 Broadway, New York , NY, (212)923-1100

Queens Synagogue Mikveh, 7548 Grand Central Pkwy, Flushing, NY, (718) 261-6380

Riverdale Mikveh, 3708 Henry Hudson Pkwy, Bronx, NY, (718) 549-8336

Sephardic Mikvah Israel, 810 Avenue S, Brooklyn, NY, (718) 339-4600

Also, if Chabad is active in your community, they usually have a mikvah nearby.
 

Given the cost of Vitabath (Badedas (?) in Europe}, I should think it would provide ritual cleansing.

Greta
 

As part of that, I seek to follow Jesus. Jesus clearly followed the authority of scripture. I seek to do likewise.

I probably should leave it at that. You should know better. Especially since you are a moderator, aren't you?

I've heard the term "Bible worship" before. It generally comes from those who do not respect the Bible's authority. That you choose to use that prejorative term and play semantic games with me does not speak well of you.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
I've heard the term "Bible worship" before. It generally comes from those who do not respect the Bible's authority. That you choose to use that prejorative term and play semantic games with me does not speak well of you.

---

Host hat on ...

Right at the end here it sounds like you're getting ready to descend into personal comment and dispute. Please prove me wrong in your next post.
 

Love
Angel
 

I think if you'll look at past posts I'm not into picking fights. After a night's sleep and a review of Hooker's post, I may have overreacted. But to suggest that a Fundamentalist's respect for the written Word and it's authority is somehow idolatrous and substituting the Bible for Christ -- them's fighting words!

And I was really disappointed to see someone who hosts another board here post that.

For the sake of peace, I've leave it at that.

mark
 

Shared vision, shared experience, a oneness (that over-used word 'Soulmate' fits here).

Good times, bad times...

Being there for each other. Laughing together.

Sex, I guess... (hard to remember!)

A feeling of togetherness when facing the world and life's triumph's/problems.

Love. Self-giving. Putting the other first. BOTH of you!

Definitely not 'two Halves making a Whole'. Two Wholes (no puns please!) superimposing and fusing (that's partly down to the sex bit, I guess).

And then... well, what Unmakes a marriage is a different thread, I suppose. It's sad to look back on all that and be unable to find any of it any more.

However - it makes me all the happier for couples who are about to get a shot at it! I'm praying for all of you!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
I probably should leave it at that. You should know better. Especially since you are a moderator, aren't you?

---

and

quote:

---

And I was really disappointed to see someone who hosts another board here post that.

---

Administrator's notes:

If you have a complaint against a moderator, it belongs in the Styx. Keep it out of the discussions, please. Thank you.

Erin
 

So many questions.

Love
Angel
 

.
 

A democratic state should afford its citizens equal protection of the laws. A church is bound by no such requirement and may at will exclude certain people from its rites or sacramets.

In granting special rights to those who are married and in denying marriage to a large class of citizens who differ from the favored group only in the fact that they do not possess the appropriate gender mix, the state now finds itself in the position of either enforcing a religious ("moral"} based discriminatory practice or seemingly repudiating the deeply held religious values of many people, and thus helping to undermine the institution of marriage, which is already in serious trouble.

This difficulty forms the basis of my suggestion that the state should offer a kind of covenant option open to gays and lesbians. My thinking on this is still in flux (as it is in the whole matter of sexuality and Christianity), and I am currently of the opinion that the state should abandon any use of the word 'marriage' and surrender the term to the church. It should be in the business of registering covenants only. This debate would continue, but it would become a purely religions (moral) one, which is perhaps as it should be.

Greta
 

Pease add "and in their view" to the phrase "helping to undermine the istitution of marriage..."

Greta
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
thus helping to undermine the institution of marriage, which is already in serious trouble.

---

Not to take Corgi's remarks out of context, but I think the serious trouble that marriage is in is the real point here.

How many people wouldn't give their life to have grown up in a happy home with a mother and a father who loved them and who loved each other?

It is heartbreaking that it is not that way for millions of families. It is no wonder that people look for alternatives. I'm just not sure that the alternatives are an improvement. I imagine that statistics will eventually indicate some kind of answer to that, if they don't already.
 

My point being that commitment is not a cut-and-dried thing, and means different things to people at different stages in their lives. There are spouses who are not as committed as 'partners' and vice versa.

I think it is a good point about the state/church divide. I think we are skating very near an Equal Opportunities breach, in fact - because of the State Church. Then no doubt good Christian folk will grumble about 'Europe'. But if a gay person can have a bank account, buy a house, go to University, then why should marriage be denied them?

I should add that ten years ago this would have been unthinkable for me to write. I have thought long and hard and don't see why the genitalia have suchbearing on our ability to make a commitment. I think straights probably project a lot onto gay relationships that perhaps isn't there. And there is some physical revulsion at the thoughts of 'what goes on'. Perhaps it ain't our business???
 

That said and hopefully understood, I will now suggest that denying the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples seems to me to be closely analogous poliically to the anti- miscegenation (racially mixed marriage) laws that existed in some parts of the U.S. until well into the 20th century. This is particularly so if we accept as true the testimony of most gays and lesbians that their orientation was not chosen, indeed was often fixed before they even heard the word "homosexual" or had any idea there were any other people who had similar feelings.

I do not dismiss those who claim they did have a choice, nor deny those who claim to have changed their orientation or practices, thruogh religion, or therapy, or any other means.

If we accept the reports of the vast majority of gays and lesbians that their orientation was not chosen, sexual orientation is very similar to race.

As to the argument that gays and lesbians deserve to be victims of discrimination because they choose to act on their orientation, I would suggest if anti-miscegenation laws were re-written to to allow only platonic inter-racial marriages, such laws would be as discriminatory and reheprehensible as the old laws that were on the books. In other words the government says it will not discriminate against you for how you are, it will only discriminate against your actions.

I think analogies to proclivities for temper tantrums or the commission of crimes, et c., are patently off track.

Greta
 

And anti-miscegenation laws were strongly defended on the basis of their being clearly Biblical, fulfilling God's intent in creating separate races.

Greta
 

More than one poster has commented on the state getting involved in a "Church" activity in the case of marriage. However, marriage existed before and outside of the church for many years, and many atheists get married etc., etc.

Nonetheless, the problem does seem to me, as I've observed before, the differences even within the Christian community as to what marriage is about. Gill's comments most people wouldn't disagree with, but it's interesting how much variation there is in the comprehension of how those different strands are integrated and lived out.

For instance, I know a number of Christians who believe quite seriously that sex is the price you pay for getting married. Others on the other hand see it as a wonderful gift which plays a central role in marriage and through which tenderness and connectedness can be expressed. Although they all superficially would state the latter, there is a clear separation at work.

For many, being loving is sharing a house, making sure it's clean, having your own freedom to make social and work commitments, but having a secure base to come home to. For others, there is a more unquestionable need to centre their lives around each other and for those other commitments to be mutually agreed.

Then, yes, there is the gap between "Christian marriage" and "secular marriage" - though there may be a question as to what that is about.

Finally, and my big beef if I'm honest, is that the Church goes around defending the absoluteness of marriage rather than the quality of marriage - the Church should be supporting good marriage and making war so to speak against bad marriage, but towards the latter it sticks the head in the sand, and gets out the DM's to give those who suffer them a good kicking - the Lord forbid we actually say that good people should not suffer the indignity of being denied a good marriage for the misfortune of being in a bad one.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by gbuchanan:
the Lord forbid we actually say that good people should not suffer the indignity of being denied a good marriage for the misfortune of being in a bad one.

---

I agree, but I don't think we can blame the church for going along with Matthew 19. It's not their fault what Jesus said.

Greta mentions the comparison to race discrimination. I would guess that this is one of the strongest arguments, and that it hits Christians where it really hurts, because we know how racist our history is. This argument puts Christians who accept the biblical and historic injunctions against homosexuality in the uncomfortable position of being racists.

It is true that laws against miscegenation were justified on biblical grounds. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that this mistaken and wrong justification means that the same is true for the arguments against homosexuality. The point is, if you believe in the Bible, it is important to know what it really does teach about marriage and homosexuality. If the interpretation is wrong then we need to reinterpret it correctly.

The question of choice is also a very sticky one. I realize that Greta dismisses out of hand the comparison with bad tempers, etc. as also not being matters of choice. Yet I think it is true that a whole range of problematic behaviors appear to be completely out of the realm of the free choice of many people. This is particularly true of compulsive behavior, and perhaps even more of behavior around sex. Who ever chooses to fall or not fall in love? It just happens. Adulterers often complain that they had no choice, that they were driven by forces beyond their control. The same is obviously tue of pedophiles.

The difference, of course, is that whereas adultery and pedophilia have victims, homosexuality does not.

I accept the testimony of homosexuals that they did not consciously choose their orientation any more than any of us do. I don't think that this necessarily means that there is absolutely no aspect of choice involved, or that there aren't factors that promote or discourage a person from inclining to that orientation.

One thing about sex in general, however, is that in most cultures and for most of history it has been something that is surrounded by prohibitions and laws. The general view has been that happiness results from restricting and controlling it, and that acting on one's desires is the path to unhappiness and degradation.

We don't tend to buy those arguments any more, but I'm not sure that we are any happier because of it.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree, but I don't think we can blame the church for going along with Matthew 19. It's not their fault what Jesus said.

---

....Mmm... - I'd actually say it is the Church's (our) fault for interpreting it without love or compassion. I'm not persuaded that there isn't more than a little bit of humanity wanting to have comfortably clear absolutes rather than a proper reaction to the Lord's word in our approach to it.
 

Greta

Greta
 

The path to happiness is tough to define and even harder to dictate. Luckily, we are all free to pursue our own answers to these questions.

And, Bucky, you are right about the mercy. Sorry to be a little black-and-white there.

Fred
 

corgigreta, no, its a specific ritual that is called for, simply washing doesn't do it.
 

In the past we've had serious problems over this issue when people equated homosexuality with paedophilia (or appeared to) and we don't want to see that repeated. Would people please be very careful when discussing this subject so as to avoid any potential unpleasantness due to misunderstandings that may be read into what has been written. It is probably safest not to mention paedophilia in the same post as homosexuality.

Alan

Purgatory host
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The question of choice is also a very sticky one. I realize that Greta dismisses out of hand the comparison with bad tempers, etc. as also not being matters of choice. Yet I think it is true that a whole range of problematic behaviors appear to be completely out of the realm of the free choice of many people. This is particularly true of compulsive behavior, and perhaps even more of behavior around sex. Who ever chooses to fall or not fall in love? It just happens. Adulterers often complain that they had no choice, that they were driven by forces beyond their control. The same is obviously tue of pedophiles.

The difference, of course, is that whereas adultery and pedophilia have victims, homosexuality does not.

---

Now then. I want to go very carefully through these 2 paragraphs.

The opening 2 sentences deal with choice.

'The question of choice is also a very sticky one. I realize that Greta dismisses out of hand the comparison with bad tempers, etc. as also not being matters of choice.'
I have looked carefully back over the thread and can only find this quote by Greta:

quote:

---

I think analogies to proclivities for temper tantrums or the commission of crimes, et c., are patently off track.

---

Freddy: going by the paragraph immediately above this, you would seem to be referring to homosexual orientation when you mention the 'question of choice' (ie. does one choose to be homosexual). This is further suggested in that you are responding to Greta's post (1st of pg 4) where she firmly states that she understands sexual orientation to be a given. As I read it, her only statement regarding tantrums and criminal acts are that they are inappropriate analogies. But you state: 'Greta dismisses out of hand the comparison with bad tempers, etc. as also not being matters of choice.' Yes. She does indeed dismiss the comparison (no-one is clear which comparison it is, but let's soldier on) out of hand, but what is the purpose of those words you have tacked on the end? What is this 'also dismissed' matter of choice that you are referring to? Nowhere have I seen Greta dismissing any thing as 'not a matter of choice'. I have however, seen her stating that she believes sexuality not to be a matter of choice, and appealing to anecdotal evidence (there's that word again).

I think what you have written is obscure. Obscurity in writing is very convenient - in the above case, what is suggested to the reader is: Greta dismisses out of hand that there is choice in sexual orientation. But the writer can always squeal: 'I didn't mean it like that!'

Well. That would be the first 2 sentences.

Just a quick one on Sentence 3: We have now moved to 'problematic behaviours'. Let's jump to my second quoted paragraph. 'The difference, of course, is that whereas adultery and pedophilia have victims, homosexuality does not.' Certainly adultery and paedophilia have victims, and homosexuality does not (in the same sense that heterosexuality does not). A very reasonable statement, or is it? There is a difference between homosexuality; and adultery and paedophilia. Is the lack of victims the only difference? If so, what are the similarities? We need to look back to the paragraph above. But notice. Surprise Suprise. Homosexuality or homosexual behaviour is not even mentioned. Same as before... 'if you do not state it, you cannot be taken to task for it'. But homosexuality and homosexual behaviour are right there implied in that paragraph - because otherwise, how can one talk about difference in the very next breath?

So what else is said without being said in that paragraph about homosexuality and homosexual practice? A quick break down:

-Homosexual practice is a problematic behaviour
-Homosexual practice is 'out of the realm of the free choice of many people'
-Compulsive behaviour is another such problematic behaviour. (Why bother to even mention this, unless you want to make an association?)
-A completely spurious sentence about falling in love
-Adulterers report being driven by forces beyond their control, as do paedophiles.

So what forces drive adulterers? What forces drive paedophiles? And you know what? The difference between homosexuality; and adultery and paedophilia is that homosexuality has no victims. So one could logically conclude that the writer believes something like the same forces that drive adulterers and paedophiles, drive homosexuals. Which are they?

Offensive in the extreme.

quote:

---

I accept the testimony of homosexuals that they did not consciously choose their orientation any more than any of us do.

---

I am short of time and not fully awake, so I'm not prepared to tackle the analogy with compulsions issues (perhaps it's less patent than I thought). I aepper to have posted something quite ambiguous and Freddy hopefully unintentionally responded in kind.

However, I feel it is imperative for me to immediately respond to THIS statement by Freddy:

"This argument puts Christians who accept the biblical and historic injunctions against homosexuality in the uncomfortable position of being racists."

Here he totally ignores or rejects my first paragraph, which I wrote sincerely, specifically, and (I think there at least) clearly enough so as to avoid any such reading of my argument.

Greta
 

quote:

---

Here he totally ignores or rejects my first paragraph, which I wrote sincerely, specifically, and (I think there at least) clearly enough so as to avoid any such reading of my argument.

---

Unfortunately that is how I read your arguement. To me it reads I am not going to do something and then doing it.

I am sure that is not your intention I think you are simply trying to produce a model from one part of life to another and considering it more accurate than other peoples models.

Unfortunately models can be missunderstood I Hope some one understood this
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
But to suggest that a Fundamentalist's respect for the written Word and it's authority is somehow idolatrous and substituting the Bible for Christ -- them's fighting words!

And I was really disappointed to see someone who hosts another board here post that.

---

Sorry to be late in returning to this. Even civil servant librarians have to work sometimes!

To Freddy and MarkthePunk. Apologies if I provoked you, and thanks for taking time to re-read some of my Hookerisms.

OK, you all guessed it, I am not a fundamentalist (note great self-control and tact in not writing possibly inflamatory term "fundie"). I am interested in the authorities that are appealed to in the various debates on this board. Quite often the Bible is referred to as the definitive authority. Occasionally one might see someone appeal to the Church. And rarest of all someone will describe having struggled prayerfully (good point, frin) -- perhaps one could say one referred a problem directly to his or her relationship with Our Lord.

Obviously, the only infallible source of any knowledge seems to me to be Our Lord himself. So put me down as curious how printed or institutional intermediaries seem to get equal billing with the Divine.

If I'm wrong about the equal-billing part, please feel free to tell me so (I can take being told I'm wrong).

HT [apologies to Angel for de-reailing her thread. If this turns out to be of interest I can post a thread on "Authorities", but I think it's been done to death]

Oh, and in re: hosting. Please note that I do not post here as the Host of Mystery Worshipper Board. Indeed, I don't even generally post on the MW Board as Host. I'm just a normal punter like anyone else unless I explicitly state that I am acting in a Host capacity (clarification for this may be pursued on Styx).
 

I've lived through the 1980-2001 period listening to demagogues rant about "homosexual promiscuity"; then those folks are the first people to take arms against any kind of commitment/contract that would keep a gay couple together and prevent/ reduce promiscuous sexual behavior.

Now, when we get to talking about alternative methods of reproduction and so on I think it does get a bit Jesuitical. I myself don't particularly care for the slang term "gay marriage," but certainly there ought to be some sort of civil arrangement for two romantically and financially committed persons sharing a household in the absence of the traditional blessing, marriage.

Why are so many middle-class gay men and lesbians making such a fuss about all this in church?? Probably because it has become a non-issue in most other facets of their lives. There's a difference between maintaining cherished and beloved traditions and stubbornly lagging about thirty years behind the times socially, and I think it's the rank-and-file church membership rather than the church leadership (at least in America) who are most to blame for their ignorance, apathy, stubbornness and (however unintentional) hurtfulness toward homosexuals.

But, for Buddha's sake, can't straight people understand the central irony that church very frequently is the one place we CAN'T be accepted and welcomed??
 

His other posts on this thread are: 3 on biblical authority, 1 of regret at the current state of hetero marriage, and 1 evasive philosophical snippet when asked to elaborate on the pandora's box of destructive compulsions (opened by him).

I am respectful of people who have argued against gay marriage from a scriptural perspective. But freddy's 4th post I will not let past without comment because it does not tackle gay marriage, neither does it appeal to scripture (mentioning Matt 19 is not good enough - I shouldn't have to construct freddy's argument from first principles). In my analysis the whole 4th post contains only one (implied) point regarding gay marriage, which is that it is unacceptable to those that 'accept biblical and historical injunctions against homosexuality'. The rest is a crusade against homosexuality and homosexual expression.
 

You stated:
"I am sure that [labeling opponents of gay marriage as racists] is not your intention I think you are simply trying to produce a model from one part of life to another and considering it more accurate than other peoples models."

Yes, yes, and yes.

Since I reject analogies to obsessions, or disfunctions, I began to think lefthandness might be a closer parallel, but I couldn't think of a basic right that is denied to left-handed people. Then I recalled the anti-mixed marriage laws, and the analogy seemed almost perfect.

While it is true that many of the supporters of those laws were racists (and are undoubltely dead or very elderly),
it does not folow that supporters of a very similar (BUT non-race related)law that is applied to a very similar {BUT not racial} group of people, are racists. The two situatitions, in my view have in common the element of discrimination, not racism.

From the critical standpoint of choice, sexual orientation seems to me to be closely parallel to race. Orientation may not be genetic (like race), but for most people it seems to be determined at a very young age. So, if it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of race wouldn't it be wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

Wheeew! I hope I haven't confused things more, and I probably have bored you silly, but I want to make it clear that I had no intent to paint any living person or group as racist.

This is already a tough enough issue for us all.


Greta
 

quote:

---

But, for Buddha's sake, can't straight people understand the central irony that church very frequently is the one place we CAN'T be accepted and welcomed??

---

And it's probably the one place where they should be welcomed. The majority of my gay friends are interested in spiritual things and like what what Jesus had to say but are completely dis-interested in Church as most of the Christians they've meet are so unwelcoming and intolerent.

If you look at the way Jesus treated people in the Bible, he never turned anyone away although he did challenge people about the choices they made. It's a shame that we [self included] don't live up to that.

Tubbs

PS I was watching Jerry Springer last night. [I know] The episode was called "Wild Weddings" and one of the couples featured were lesbians. The chaplin blessed them and pronounced them "partners for life". Does this have any legal vaildity in the US or does it just count as a blessing / sensational thing to show on TV?
 

So. One. Marriage is a sacramental rite.

Two. What are Sacraments. Outward and visible signs of inward and invisible grace. We want to extend signs of God's Grace to all his children, right? We don't deny the Eucharist to homosexuals, so how can we also deny the sacrament of marriage?

Well, because marriage has legal ramifications and the Eucharist doesn't (I don't get special tax status because I am a regular communicant -- more's the pity).

The Church in the US at least can operate with some freedom in terms of the legal definition (in England where the Church is Established this may be harder). But it runs the risk of re-defining marriage altogether.

But I don't think we're all ringing our hands about redefining it in Sacramental terms. I don't think (wait -- I'd LIKE TO HEAR someone defend denying Sacraments to anyone for any reason). So really we're hiding behind the Sacraments, and making the church a stooge for our fears over social change.

Is that it?

HT
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Happy Coot: give Freddy a chance to respond now, okay?

---

Thanks, Ruth. I am a little surprised that HC took such exception to what I wrote in response to Greta, and I am trying to digest his points. I am very embarassed by the problem that Alan pointed out, and I sincerely apologize.

One problem is that I can't remember what HC said, and the way these boards are constructed I can't refer back to the messages - or at least I don't know how. But I will respond as soon as I figure out how to do that. Maybe they give pointers on that technique in the styx.

Needless to say, HC makes some very good points about what I wrote. It is great to have someone analyze your arguments in such detail! Even looking at my other posts on this thread! A very good deconstruction of the weaknesses of my reasoning.

I really do not want to say anything that is offensive or that sets people off, as I find these discussions very interesting, and feel in harmony with most of my shipmates.
 

quote:

---

So. One. Marriage is a sacramental rite.

---

In the Roman catholic Tradition it is but formally in the CofE(see BCP)it is not a sacrament although I am aware that some in the Anglican (Episcopal tradition) would hold it be so.
The only two sacraments are formally in the Church of England are Baptism and the eucharist.

I find your use of a sacramental arguement odd (but I am instictively low church)

Hooker's Trick said

quote:

---

(wait -- I'd LIKE TO HEAR someone defend denying Sacraments to anyone for any reason).

---

I believe in the RC tradition that Ordination is a sacrament and that only those can be trained for Priesthood can receive it single people cannot receive the 'sacrament' of marriage some who are not dying cannot receive extreme unction.
So I guess some of the 'sacraments' are denied to people.
 

Anyway, Angel asked how we define marriage and what's at stake. One was to define it is as a sacramental rite, and I lay out what's at stake.

Another way to describe it is as a legal contract.

What is the church doing when it performs a wedding ceremony? Saying God's ok with the contract, too? Shedding a little grace on the happy couple? Affirming the analogy between the marriage of Christ and his Church with the marriage of Man and Wife (note who gets to be Jesus in this analogy).

If you don't see marriage as sacramental at all, what could it be? I think this is really one of the essential questions that needs to be answered to meaningfully engage the bigger question of WHO can be married.

Maybe not...

HT
 

HEAR HEAR!!!!

WHY do we have to behave like this? or isn't our mission to homosexuals as well as anyone else?

At the very least, the church surely SHOULD be known for its love and compassion extended to all (oooer Missus, no, don't laugh, really...).

How DARE we presume we can take on judgement?

In fact, how dare we assume that our (as 'the Church') opinion matters a flying... whatever to The World?

Ooh yes, in an ideal world, it SHOULD. But while we're pontificating, people are getting depressed, dying of AIDS and going without the support Jesus would surely give them were He around in person.

?
 

quote:

---

Actually, the Anglican Communion recognises two Sacraments (Baptism and the Eucharist, as ordained my Christ himself) and 5 other sacramental rites.

---

I don't know where the anglican communion decided this ( it is unusual to for it do any deciding) certainly article 25 (Nightlamp has hurridly rubbed the dust of his BCP) of the church of England makes no such distinction but I accept you may well know more about this (brief search through the net didn't help).

One of my objections to seeing Marriage as a sacrament is that is limiting a sacrament to only a part of the church (ie those who want to be married) along with ordaination.
It seems to imply that an ordained married person is several steps up the ladder than a single lay person.
I expect to be corrected ,oh well
 

This is true for the Presbyterian Churches as well, as per the Westminster Confessions.

An interesting side note--the Westminter Confessions also make a clear distinction between the moral laws of the Old Covenant and the Ceremonial laws--only the moral laws are binding upon Christians. A plain-test reading of the Confessions seems to say that the moral laws are contained entirely within the 10 Commandments themselves.

Sieg
 

Being deeply, emotionally, and intimately -- including physically -- involved with someone of the same sex -- is not the same as having sexual intercourse with them.

It is my understanding, and always has been since I became a Christian, that what is actually forbidden between two people of the same sex is not the affection, hugging, kissing, or deep commitments -- it is simply and (in this case) solely sexual intercourse, outside of male-female marriage.

Why not accept the commitment, love and such, even physical expressions of same (many of which are quite traditional, such as kissing and so forth, and go very far back in history, around the world, including in the Bible period), and just make it clear that what is forbidden to us as Christians is the sex.

This is an option which no one ever seems to bring up; it is either "forego all same-sex relationships" or "have sex." I would think this would be an acceptable way to deal with the emotional, even sensual/tactile hunger for same-sex hugs, touch, affection, relationships, etc., without the sin. Yes, temptations would come, and some would stumble at times, but at least it is a way that ... well, works for me anyway, but I'm odd.
 

I think I see the error of my ways.

In responding to Greta in what I thought was a logical and innocuous way I realize that I was seemingly crusading against homosexuality on a thread where this was not the topic. This was not the topic of this thread, and I was speaking off topic.

I am not crusading against homosexuality – I was only meaning to discuss Greta’s interesting points. Her further explanations make me see how badly I misinterpreted her remarks. She was simply looking for parallels, not calling anyone a racist.

As some others did, I thought that she started out to say she wasn’t playing the race card - and then proceeded to play the race card. But now I see that she was simply drawing a parallel where the legal issues were similar.

In the area of free choice, your comments are well-founded. I was meaning to question the assertion that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. I am not claiming to actually know anything about this. I just think that “choice” is a complex concept, and that it is not a black-and-white issue. There must be many factors that exert an influence on sexual behavior - heredity, environment, etc. I said that I accept people’s claims that they do not consciously choose their orientation, because I think that many factors are involved, and that there are many ways of choosing – conscious and unconscious. I don’t recall ever choosing my own orientation, but I am sure that I have assented to it in various ways that were within the realm of my free choices, both consciously and unconsciously.

Your comments about my associating homosexuality with “problematic sexual behaviors” are also well founded. I was wrong in doing that. I was simply thinking in terms of sexual behaviors and grabbed at convenient ones that came to mind. Big mistake.

But these comments are out of the realm of this thread, as they are not about gay marriage per se. I was only reacting to what I popped into my head as I read along.

In any case, I appreciate the attention and the comments. I would be interested in any further observations, and apologize if I have offended.
 

Bawer is a high-church Episcopalian in New York City and he discusses his faith journey and how he gets along in church. He has a long-term partner. His thesis angers many gay people: that American gays are fighting their fight for acceptance with a self-defeating "Woodstock" confrontational mentality. When we have Pride Day, do the TV clips show people in suits, or khakis, or polo shirts? Well, they could, but if there's one little old drag queen or lesbian on a Harley or some drunk guy with his left butt cheek showing through his Levi's, that's what gets broadcast. He wants gay men and lesbians to be extra careful in putting forth a mainstream, patriotic image. (More militant gays have called him a "house Negro.")

A PLACE AT THE TABLE was published in 1994, but it articulates many issues that are germane today, including acceptance in church, and the desirability of some sort of civil-partnership accord with the government.

I'm rather new to BB's and don't know if this type of mention is kosher, but I assure you that I am not Bawer's press agent!! The book is still in print, at least in the USA.

 

You state: "I'm rather new to BB's and don't know if this type of mention is kosher..."

We have discussed the dietary laws at length on this board, and we are unanimous in our belief that breaking kosher may or may not be a sin.

Greta
 

ChastMastr - I'm with you on the sex/no sex thing - but you again have the problems of boundaries blurring. Is it wrong if you have the intention of creating the same sort of intimacy as with the heterosexual act - e.g. oral sex? mutual masturbation?

Freddy - I take your point about race, and the way mixed race marriages were banned at one time.

But, again, what is the bottom line about a marriage - you enter it with your own free will, a lifelong mutual commitment, with the intention of bringing about children. On the radio they suggested there might come a time when for the purposes of superior genetics 1 in 5 children would be born from a test tube. Part of the controversy was that it would allow lesbians to have babies, with no reference to a man.

Love doesn't get a mention in the BCP - you could have a lifelong commitment to someone, without necessarily loving them at the time.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishop Joe:
I'm rather new to BB's and don't know if this type of mention is kosher, but I assure you that I am not Bawer's press agent!! The book is still in print, at least in the USA.
[/QB]

---

Recommending a book is totally kosher (unless of course the book has previously been used in idol worship).
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Recommending a book is totally kosher (unless of course the book has previously been used in idol worship).

---

Which rules out the bible......
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Recommending a book is totally kosher (unless of course the book has previously been used in idol worship).

---

My understanding was that it was okay to use a book that *had* been used in idol worship, as long as it didn't cause other brothers and sisters to sin.

bb
 

Greta
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angel:

But, again, what is the bottom line about a marriage - you enter it with your own free will, a lifelong mutual commitment, with the intention of bringing about children.

---

Is an intention to have children an necessary part of marrage - I can think of plenty of people who have got married with no intention to have children at all.
 

[slight hyperbole]

but if you look at my OP, you'll see the 3-fold reason for marriage. The other two can be managed without getting married, and not be sinful.

Love
Angel
 

Surely there is more to marriage than avoiding sin. Few here would subscribe to the view that sex is solely for the purpose of procreation anyway, any I can't think of any NT references that would in anyway imply it is (Gospel or St Paul). The BCP or any other liturgy is hardly authoritive in that sense - it just reflects the thinking of the people and age that produced it.

Your post kind of implies that if, for example, Bronwyn's op had gone less well so that there was no possibility of her having children then there would be no point in us getting married, and that strikes me as absurd and mildly offensive. The support we can give each other in our lives and our following of Christ is just as legimate a reason as the children we will have and their upbringing.
 

I didn't marry the Gremlin because I wanted to have "legitimate" sex, but because I fell in love with him, and wanted to spend my life with him. I wanted to have children, but because of an arthritis like problem I didn't know if I would be able to carry a baby. (Thankfully things have worked out really well.)

Even if I had not been able to have children I would still have wanted to marry the Gremlin. We may well have adopted children. But the reason why marriage is a good place to having children is because the loving, nurturing, caring environment already exists.

bb
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
But the reason why marriage is a good place to having children is because the loving, nurturing, caring environment already exists.

bb

---

well that rather depends on the marriage, i'm afraid.
 

In seminary we tried to imagine a scenario breaking as many Levitican imprecations as harmlessly as possible. We thought of a Jewish woman attending an art show as a fund-raiser for AIDS at her Reform temple. Funds raised will benefit Africans, not her co-religionists. The woman drove herself to the event because her husband is home watching the Friday-night "Sex and the City" on cable TV. (Him I might worry about.) She wouldn't miss this showing because she just ADORES modern art. The woman is hatless and wears a purple sweater made of a blend of silk and linen. At the buffet reception for the fund-raiser, she eats a deep-fried shrimp from a stick. Nobody else knows it, but she's having her period. By the way, she has CD's in the bank, but of course the usury restriction came along much later. Now, are these alleged deviances enough to send the lady straight to Hell? Or had she better be judged by other means?

 

Has anyone else come across this?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angel:
ChastMastr - I'm with you on the sex/no sex thing - but you again have the problems of boundaries blurring. Is it wrong if you have the intention of creating the same sort of intimacy as with the heterosexual act - e.g. oral sex? mutual masturbation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bishop Joe:
But some of those same clerics would rather be slathered with honey and tied up on a red-ant colony

---

you can't honestly be advocating that homeosexuals carry on with there lives, live together, have physical intimacies... but never have orgasims?????

that is so cruel that words fail me.
 

Did I sin when that happened? Or did she? Or did we both?
 

Please can I write the filmscript?

A Methodist Preacher who brings women to orgasm as he brushes past them in the street?

It'd be a cross between 'What Women Want' and 'Sister Act' - unexplained powers mysteriously filling a church with worshippers.

Brilliant!

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
chastmaster, i must be misunderstanding you, i really MUST.

you can't honestly be advocating that homeosexuals carry on with there lives, live together, have physical intimacies... but never have orgasims?????

that is so cruel that words fail me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:
Would you mind defining 'works', please? Do you mean, it allows you to get on and function in life, or do you mean you are content.. or both? Or something else altogether?

---

THe joining of souls is a sacred matter in whatever path you follow - and i truly believe that if two people love each other they should be able to celebrate their love and have it recognised.

Hang in there Dolphin...
 

As for the issue of gays, my own personal standpoint is that gays in stable loving relationships can only be better than the alternatives (just as for straights); and legal recognition of that (inheritance issues etc.) can often be of some help.
On the other hand, since I'm not gay, and not an expert on relationships of whatever kind, possibly I shouldn't be shoving my nose in on that issue.
 

There are plenty of both, I think.
 

One cannot use tea for baptism, the Africa spa line for the unction or confirmation, or a roasted chicken for the Eucharist. (I had a bizarre dream that a dear friend who is a priest involved in Affirming Catholicism was doing that last.)

No offense to Twinings, the Body Shop, poultry farmers, or the gay community is intended.
 

And no offence taken!

(I hope they don't take away my toaster for this!)

David
 

Well-put. Though you're going to get the 'but we can make babies however' brigade now.

BTW for those who are committed to the idea of Evolution (I have an open mind here I hope) does our capacity for genetic engineering count as part of the evolutionary process? Should be a new thread but I can't be ar - er bothered.
 

David
Hiding his toaster under the bed in case someone wants it
 

gods greatest joke in creation is that he
created 76 sexes and only told us about two

d.
 

As far as the "legalize-it-but-don't-call-it-marriage" position goes, its creation of a secondary status is vaguely reminiscent of the unfortunate "separate-but-equal" policy followed by my country for the first half of the twentieth century. Unless there is some legitimate State interest in maintaining a distinction, the State should not discriminate against its own citizens.
 

If tea cannot be used for baptism, then I guess I will have to break it to Sven that his baptism was invalid. Alas!

(Anyone who wonders what the heck that's about - check the 'adventures of Sven' thread in Heaven. I had the privelege of baptising Sven in a mug of tea last year.)

Does your Gay friend want exactly the kind of
ceremony as heterosexuals have? Is it important it is called marriage?

I dunno but is it better to have some alternative ceremony for gay people which maj of pop would accept as legitimate or
call in marriage and then a lot of people (most?) not accepting such a ceremony as being a valid marriage.
Would you say its about the social legitimacy that marriage has?

I guess you noticed that my acceptance of gay relationships as being 100 percent equivalent to straight relationship "philosophically and theologically" speaking (legal rights I think should for adults be equal) is somewhat less than a 100 per cent. I am willing to argue the point...
 

I've been to several commitment ceremonies, gay male and lesbian, and I can only say this:

One notices efforts have been made to avoid looking like a parody of the Anglo/American "white wedding." No three-tier white cake, no figurines on top, no Wagner, no Mendelsohn, nobody giving anyone else away.

Similarities: People dress nicely, there's some sort of officient, frequently the Bible is quoted (usually II Corinthians).

I don't think societal good will is a tangible product like green beans or pig iron such that if gays and lesbians start having their ceremonies recognized, the heterosexual majority will somehow have their privilege diluted or diminished. However, I am also aware that sociology has nothing to do with emotion and tradition.

I seriously doubt that anyone out there has the bad taste to parody a straight wedding. (Well, OK the USA is a big country and I can't speak for everyone.) But if I attended a ceremony that mocked Christian traditions I'd walk out, even if good friends were involved.

 

In Chicago we have a brave Methodist minister who blesses homosexual liaisons among members of his flock. Headquarters told him not to do so. He did so anyway, the church held a charming mock-Stalinist show trial in a nearby suburb and took his pulpit away from him for six months (his interim filled in during his banishment). Back in the pulpit, he resumed blessing homosexual liaisons (which we all know have abolutely no legal merit at all), and was warned off even more strongly. So his church worked out a system wherein most of the ceremony took place in the sanctuary except for the actual blessing, in which all assembled left the church building, went out on the street beyond church property, and were blessed by the Rev. Dr. Dell.

The home church decided that wasn't allowed either.

I am not the first person who have noticed the irony that it is the most conservative, stable gays and lesbians who pine for these ceremonies the most. Moderate Democrats, Liberal Republicans--Chicago even has a gay Rotary club. I'm too old to care whether The Priest says The Words. I've seen the little man behind the curtain once too often to have such a yearning for the church's official blessing. But a congregation's support really bucks me up.
 

Some things were just the same as for straight couples getting married in our church. The couples were church members. They had a series of counseling sessions with the priest before the ceremony. They consider themselves united for life. They consider Christ to be the head of their households. And in both cases some of the liturgy was taken from the American BCP marriage service.

In both cases, however, the priest (two different priests, but they both made the same point) said that that what he/she was doing was blessing a relationship, not performing a marriage. And the priests both said that if they can bless animals, cars, houses, etc, certainly they can bless the devoted love between two people.
 

I think the tone of dialog has been very civil and a lot of discussion (some of it quite thought-provoking) was accomplished without rancor, and efficiently. Bravo.

A friend of mine maintains that ultimately Anglicanism will come down on a more pro-gay stance because it leans toward a Pelagian-mercy orientation, as opposed to Roman Catholicism or Calvinism, which lean toward an Augustinian-justice orientation. I can just barely understand that but I'll put it down for the intellectuals out there. He also invoked the Lambeth Quadrennial, about which I ought to know more but don't.

It was a good show. Thanks to you all.

 

Which puts a whole new light on several things but one was the concept i have often heard that Gay/lesbian relationships as we understand it are modern whilst this would suggest two ideas Paul may well have heard of Gay relationships similar to what we understand today and parts of the church have long since covertly blessed same sex relationships long. Indeed the article makes sense of a tombstone I read in Llangollen (Wales)
 

There seems to be a lack of clarifcation from the church in general about this whole issue.

However I don't think that you can legislate people into the kingdom of God ( great phrase Tubbs therefore it makes no difference to me what people do outside of the church as God still requires me to love them.

My questions is that when a couple (straight or Gay) enters church and then want to make a commitment to the life of the church should should they be allowed to carry on their lifestyle ( if they are co-habiting) or should the church address the issue and explain that if they want to become "members" they should get married, if they are Gay to stop the practice of and if they don't what should the church say then
 

The latter has been rather done to death in the past, although new insights are always welcome. I'm totally undecided on the issue and will pontificate no more until I've decided whether:

(a) as a straight man whether this is really something it's my job to have a fixed view on, and

(b) I actually have a view, fixed or otherwise.

[host hat on]

As regards the former, and indeed the whole question of church discipline - if you want to open this interesting can of worms it might be better to start another thread on the subject, and leave this one for the specific question of gay marriage.

[host hat off]
 

Not surprisingly I know many fellow gay people who (unlike me) are not celibate, and many of them mention Boswell.

It could be argued, also, that even if he were right in his claim that some same-gender people were married at different times and places for some centuries in the Church, this still seems to contradict not only passages of scripture but the early Church Fathers pretty dramatically. But I am yet unconvinced that his claims are sound. The interpretations he gave to what may be brotherhood ceremonies seem to me to be making many (to me, modern) assumptions... but it has been years since I have seen this book.
 

By “you can’t legislate people into the kingdom” I mean two things:

1) Christians have a responsibility to get involved and state what the Bible teaches [or what the Church teaches] on a particular matter and engage in dialogue with other groups involved in it. And part of this involves “seeking to understand” and loving the other person(s) rather than judging
2) If helping people follow that teaching involves giving practical help then, ideally, Christians will be involved in providing it.
3) Christians don’t have the right to enforce our views on others. [Particularly if people aren’t Christians]

I kind of agree that the two things are connected – that if someone wishes to join a church then they would have to abide by its stance on a particular issue OR adopt the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” OR find another church where it wouldn’t be an issue.

But the reason that this issue is so hotly debated is because many people don’t wish to do that and others don’t see why they should. [Put it this way, when you hear that someone attempting to decide how they’re going to live out their faith and their queerness gets asked by their homegroup leader if they’ve “ever wanted to be a woman” then you do wonder where some people have been for the last 30 or so years!].

But I also agree with Karl that church disapline [sp] is probably a matter for another thread … And if you want to use this particular issue as an example I’ll buy you some asbestos underpants as you will need them in Hell!

Tubbs
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
It could be argued, also, that even if he were right in his claim that some same-gender people were married at different times and places for some centuries in the Church, this still seems to contradict not only passages of scripture but the early Church Fathers pretty dramatically.

---

Bear in mind--the Church Fathers were interpreting the scripture, just as we do today, and also bear in mind that interpretations are just that. Two Christians may honestly disagree on a the meaning of a passage.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
Bear in mind--the Church Fathers were interpreting the scripture, just as we do today, and also bear in mind that interpretations are just that. Two Christians may honestly disagree on a the meaning of a passage.

---

But an interesting comment about same-sex unions. In Susanna Gregory's latest Matthew Bartholomew book, she mentions a gay relationship in a monastery in the 13th century. When I asked her about this, she said that they often went on privately, but not secretively.

Love
Angel
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_Colonel:
If the state wishes to marry same sex couples, or blood relatives, or humans to animals...

---

{counting to ten very very slowly}
Please tell me you are not equating same-sex marriages or homosexuality to incest and bestiality?
 

Experience tells us that the linking of homosexuality with other sexual practices is likely to raise the temperature of debate above what is acceptable in Purgatory; whether that link is explicit or implicit, intentional or not. Please take care when writing your posts to avoid potential misunderstanding or insult.

Alan
Purgatory host
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_Colonel:
While we're arguing about the whole concept of marriage, where the H£ll did 'the State' get the idea that it has the authority to marry people?

---

Marriage is also a legal contract between two individuals. In that form the state can quite rightly 'legalise'/'make legal'/endorse
a contract between two individuals.

bb
 

All the same Alan, if you think this should be withdrawn I will do so, but not by way of an apology.
 

I will render unto Ceasar, but I must also render unto God.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_Colonel:
Well they are placed together as 'abominations' in one chapter of Leviticus, but apart from that who can say. I'm not trying to argue from my own 'authority' here, just committing the grave sin of allowing my religion to impinge on my opinion.

All the same Alan, if you think this should be withdrawn I will do so, but not by way of an apology.[/QB]

---

Alan is on vacation, so you're getting me.

Alan cautioned against linking homosexuality with bestiality, etc., because it can lead to misunderstanding and insult. You have reiterated that linking more clearly by citing Leviticus. You are not likely to be misunderstood, but unless you adhere to the Levitical law in your own life, you are certainly being insulting. You would do well to withdraw the statement.

As for allowing your religion to impinge upon your opinion, I hope you don't mean to imply that others here formulate opinions without regard for their religion.

RuthW
Purgatory host
 

I do try to use The Law, as I have been taught and moderated under the Teachings of Christ, as a guide to the correct way of living.

My intention regarding the 'regard to religion' bit, was that there are many people of no religion who seem offended when those of us who do believe make a stand on what we consider a matter of faith, and do not use a humanistic or relativist 'logic' instead.
I would not presume to accuse one of my Brothers and Sisters of failing to take account of their own faith - or at least not in public.
 

The bit about religion informing opinion made me wonder because the vast majority of posters here are Christians and I think may be assumed to have opinions informed by their faith. It hadn't occurred to me that you would be writing of people not posting on these boards.

Anyway, I appreciate your withdrawing the comment.

RuthW
Purgatory host