1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999So now you are into Paul? What of Pauls condemnation of homosexuality? Do you defend this position as well?
The point is Whodey, is the church unbiased in the application of the guidelines? I know you can never answer 'yes' to that. All the churches I know of tend to focus on sexual misconduct. Here is what Paul letter to Timothy says about the conduct of senior members of the church.
1 Tim 3 : 1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bisho ...[text shortened]... se to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
As for church guidelines, of coarse they are not unbiased. Who has a postion that is unbiased? Did Christ? I don't think so!! To say you are unbiased would be to say you are a liar.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAs I have pointed out, Jesus spoke out concerning sexual conduct by saying in Mark 10:6-7 that from the beginning God's intention was for man and wife to be one flesh and that men should not divorce or put assunder what God had joined together. It is not my fault that this is all that was said on the matter by Christ. It is not my fault that Christ continued to defer to Mosaic law rather than do away with it altogether. So what does the Mosaic law have to say regarding homosexuality? It is not my fault that the Bible ONLY talks of men and women who marry and not homosexual unions who marry.
, then why did Jesus speak several times against wealth while remaining mute on homosexuality?[/b]
It is my view that homosexual conduct was not mentioned by Christ specifically simply because it was assumed in that time that such conduct was unacceptable in terms of Mosaic teachings. It is only thousands of years later that it has become convoluted as it is now.
Originally posted by t0lkienYou want to update scripture? If you believe you know better than Scripture, then, and I don't say this to be offensive, I doubt you are really a Christian. What do you know about God and Jesus except what you have read in the Bible? What bits do you think you can update? How are they different to the other bits?
You want to update scripture? If you believe you know better than Scripture, then, and I don't say this to be offensive, I doubt you are really a Christian. What do you know about God and Jesus except what you have read in the Bible? What bits do you think you can update? How are they different to the other bits?
There is nothing wrong with questioning (i ...[text shortened]... inction. Notice I'm talking about gender, and not sexuality. They are two different things.)
RESPONSE- By update I mean put into a new context , which has been going on for years anyway.
Originally posted by whodeyI always read and take into consideration the writings of Paul. But unlike you I never make the mistake of letting Paul ursurp authority over Christ.
So now you are into Paul? What of Pauls condemnation of homosexuality? Do you defend this position as well?
As for church guidelines, of coarse they are not unbiased. Who has a postion that is unbiased? Did Christ? I don't think so!! To say you are unbiased would be to say you are a liar.
It is my view that homosexuality is as wrong as adultery, but a greater sin is not being charitable or giving to the poor or being overly concerned about material things and things of this world. This is the mistake of organised religion, they are obssessed with sexuality, and the 'weightier matters of the law' are ignored. Modern day religion has gone the way of the Pharisees.
Churches that have the spirit of the teachings of Christ will not expel homosexual members who are otherwise good Christians. They will instead exhort them to change and if that fails you simply leave them to be judged by Christ.
Originally posted by Rajk999I would agree in that there appears to be weighter sins than others. For example, Christ only spoke out against hypocrites such as the Pharisees. However, the average sinner who was "lost", he did not preach against in the same way. Also, in the OT we see Cain being marked and sent into exile for murdering Abel. I am sure both had sinned before this particular act, yet it appears that this particular sin was far weighter than other sins of the time and was therefore treated differently in terms of corrective action.
I always read and take into consideration the writings of Paul. But unlike you I never make the mistake of letting Paul ursurp authority over Christ.
It is my view that homosexuality is as wrong as adultery, but a greater sin is not being charitable or giving to the poor or being overly concerned about material things and things of this world. This is th ...[text shortened]... instead exhort them to change and if that fails you simply leave them to be judged by Christ.
In general, I think we can both agree that God's law is given in a spirit of love. The laws set before us are guideposts that have our best interests at heart. It just so happens that when we go against the laws of God people then begin to suffer for it. Some sins inflict greater suffering than others hence some are weighter than others.
The greater issue in all of this is how is our salvation effected by sin? Are we once saved always saved? Can our salvation be lost if we fall into sin and continue in sin? For me, the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all of your heart and soul and mind. Christ then went on to say that if you love anything more than me you are not worthy of me. He also said that if you love me you will try to adhere to my teachings because if you loved him you would then want to please him. Therefore, distancing yourself from his teachings would imply that your love for him is distant as well. For me, this is bordering on defying the number one commandment which is to love God with all of your heart. For me, this is what it is all about. For others what they love the most influences their actions as well. The question then becomes, who or what do you love the most?
Originally posted by Rajk999I’m really not arguing in this thread, Rajk—and I don’t want to seem like I’m playing “both ends against the middle” here, but—
I always read and take into consideration the writings of Paul. But unlike you I never make the mistake of letting Paul ursurp authority over Christ.
It is my view that homosexuality is as wrong as adultery, but a greater sin is not being charitable or giving to the poor or being overly concerned about material things and things of this world. This is th ...[text shortened]... instead exhort them to change and if that fails you simply leave them to be judged by Christ.
Chronologically, the earliest written “gospel” we have in the NT are Paul’s first letters to already established churches—established by Paul.
The only earlier church that I am aware of is the one in Jerusalem (I’ll stand corrected on this, if it’s wrong).
Prior to any of the Gospels being written, there was an oral “tradition”, of which I think Paul has to be considered part (and he may well have drawn on various oral sources, including the church at Jerusalem, as well as his own epiphany). However, Paul does not seem to have drawn much on the oral traditions of Jesus’ actual teaching (the so-called Q-source used by the synoptics).
This does not mean what Paul taught ought not to be contextualized by Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, any more than the fact that Paul wrote a bunch of surviving letters—compared to just one that we have attributed to James—that James cannot be used to contextualize Paul, rather than the other way around. It does mean, however, that earliest “core gospel” we have is Paul’s.
Obviously, this “faith versus works” thingy has been around since the very earliest written layers of the church. The only reasonable synthesis that I can see is that faith leads people to do, as you put it. However, I do not think that faith means that people always do perfectly, nor discern perfectly for that matter. There are clearly too many differences of opinion among people of faith, and I am not willing to deny them that label—I am willing to say that I think they’re wrong, even wrongheaded.
One of the problems with a “works righteousness”—and, quite frankly, with a lot of versions of “faith righteousness” as well—is that it can lay on one an extreme burden of anxiety (fear, even terror) in the face of one’s own errors and imperfection (which is the root meaning of the word “sin” ), as well as, sometimes compulsive, misdeeds. (Or, in the case of at least some treatments of faith-righteousness, in the face of one’s imperfect, or questioning, faith; crises of faith, etc.) For a person of faith, I would venture that such existential anxiety can itself be referred to as “sin”. It seems clear to me that the gospel message is aimed, in part, at relieving that burden.
(A Lutheran pastor friend of mine put it well, I think: “Do your best, ask for forgiveness for your failures, get a good night’s rest, start again tomorrow.” )
I do not think that you are arguing, here or elsewhere, from an anxiety-supporting position—you actually seem quite healthily free from that burden, to me. Nor do I think that is what you are trying to lay on anybody, and I think you would be misread if somebody came to that conclusion. (Actually, this post is not so much aimed toward you, as my just thinking out loud...)
On the issue at hand, I have stated my position here: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=65214&page=6. I urge anyone who is interested to read the source that I cited.
If homosexuality is a sin, then I am simply in agreement with you.
Originally posted by Rajk999Well said !
I have been following this discussion and I suspect that there is much misunderstanding of the teachings of Paul, which many churches try to apply without taking into consideration the obvious superiority of the teachings of Christ who in a nutshell said if you are sinful yourself then you cannot condemn anyone.
There are two mistakes that organised reli ...[text shortened]... ngs have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. [/i]
..although not all churches and christians are like this.
Jesus was a man of outsiders and the marginalised. He associated with the poor , those considered unworthy and those despised and oppressed. Where would his sympathies lie right now , with those who cast out or those who are rejected???
Originally posted by t0lkienand that is that God deals with people, not just men and women. We are people before we are men or women. Gender can be a real furby, and very misleading
You want to update scripture? If you believe you know better than Scripture, then, and I don't say this to be offensive, I doubt you are really a Christian. What do you know about God and Jesus except what you have read in the Bible? What bits do you think you can update? How are they different to the other bits?
There is nothing wrong with questioning (i ...[text shortened]... inction. Notice I'm talking about gender, and not sexuality. They are two different things.)
..........if only the church would see it this way too...
1 edit
Originally posted by t0lkienP.S. Your example of a hermaphrodite is a bit misleading.--tolk
You want to update scripture? If you believe you know better than Scripture, then, and I don't say this to be offensive, I doubt you are really a Christian. What do you know about God and Jesus except what you have read in the Bible? What bits do you think you can update? How are they different to the other bits?
There is nothing wrong with questioning (i inction. Notice I'm talking about gender, and not sexuality. They are two different things.)
No, my example is very clear. The point is that there are many individuals within God's creation who are through no fault of their own flung into turmoil about their sexuality or gender. This happens because clearly something has gone wrong with the biological process of sexual development (that affects the brain and body) . For such individuals the question of what is "natural" or not is a lifetimes journey. We simply cannot label sexual disorders and what amounts to a disability as "sin" as if it were a choice of that individual. A God of love would not condemn a person on the basis of this any more than he would condemn a man for persistent swearing in a church if he had torrette's syndrome.
Because it is easy to realise transexuals and those with gender/sexual deformities are not making a "choice" to be that way then the question of it being a clearly sinful act becomes wrought with problems. If the person born with two genitals (male or female) chooses one or the other (or both) to express their love how are we to judge what is "natural" or scriptural. The only thing we could do would be to fall back on basic morality and ask who is being hurt by this act?
So if we accept this , what happens if science actually starts proving that homosexuality is some form of deformity of the brain (which may or may not happen). Do we stick to our scriptural line or show some common sense? If a transexual hermaphrodite became a priest what should we make of it? Would we discriminate on the basis of disability?
Note whodey's silence on this issue.
7 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWhat is your fault is that you follow your own will rather than the teachings of Jesus.
As I have pointed out, Jesus spoke out concerning sexual conduct by saying in Mark 10:6-7 that from the beginning God's intention was for man and wife to be one flesh and that men should not divorce or put assunder what God had joined together. It is not my fault that this is all that was said on the matter by Christ. It is not my fault that Christ continue ...[text shortened]... aic teachings. It is only thousands of years later that it has become convoluted as it is now.
You freely admit that Jesus doesn't speak against homosexuality. You freely admit that there is nothing in the scriptures that give you the right to judge homosexuals as unfit for membership or leadership in a church while leaving other sins uncontested. So rather than follow Jesus you make your own brand of "justice".
As to Mark 10, you take the words of Jesus out of context to suit your own purposes.
2 Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.
The Pharisees ask him specifically about a man and his wife. So Jesus frames his response in that context. He explains about man and woman and how this specific union is supposed to work.
3 And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?" 4 They said, "Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY." 5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8 AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Could his response be limited to discussing the union of a man and woman simply because it was what he was asked about? How does this necessarily imply that man and man or woman and woman cannot be one flesh? It doesn't. Your bigotry is what informs you that it does.
Do you judge divorced people as unfit for membership or leadership in a church? Here Jesus is clearly speaking out against divorce. He explains that the only reason that the law of Moses allowed for it, is because man is hard-hearted, but that this goes against the will of God. You keep trying to explain your persecution of homosexuals as your following the "will of God". Do you follow the will of God when it's spelled out so clearly to you? As Rajk999 and I have continually pointed out, you have no right to make such judgements.
Perhaps what Varqa was trying to say is that it is of little use to try to reason with a bigot since he is incapable of reason. He is incapable of understanding until he gives up his bigotry.
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo what happens if I am married and I get hit on the head and have amnesia and can't remember a thing afterwad and I then, later in life, marry another woman not remembering I was ever married to begin with? Am I committing adultery? Is it sin? As a rule, there are usually exceptions to every rule.
So if we accept this , what happens if science actually starts proving that homosexuality is some form of deformity of the brain (which may or may not happen). Do we stick to our scriptural line or show some common sense? If a transexual hermaphrodite became a priest what should we make of it? Would we discriminate on the basis of disability?
Note whodey's silence on this issue.[/b]
Your objections remind me of objections regarding abortion. A general statement is made that it is "bad" for society because it takes a life and objections are immediatly raised regarding incest and a womans life being endanger, and back alley abortions going awry etc, etc. In effect, the general statement that abortion is "bad" for society is then swept under the rug for other possible exceptions for the rule in question. Another example is killing. Is it always wrong to kill? As a rule yes, but not always.
As far as human beings born with both male and female genitalia, In all honesty I have not as yet decided what should be done. I think we can both agree, however, that it is tragic.
I do take issue, however, with the notion that we have no control over our sexual urges. For example, heterosexuals according to Biblical teachings should suppress their sexual urges at certain times. Priests are even called to do this for an entire life time. A sexual desire is one thing. How one acts on it or copes with it is another thing altogether. It is one of the things that seperate us from animals, that is, unless you believe we are no better than animals.
Originally posted by whodeyNobody said this. The leaders of a church have every right to call a sin a sin, as laid out in the Bible. But they must do so impartially, without fear or favour and with love and understanding. It is a fact that many do not understand homosexuality, or kleptomania for that matter. Both are sins which have genetic origins and should be dealt with in a similar manner.
.... In effect, what I am hearing is that the church has no moral authority to call anything a sin. The church has no moral authority to ask its members to leave if they are perceived as promoting apastasy and causing others to go astray. ....
If in the case of the adulterous woman, the crowd insisted on stoning the woman, Christ would likely have said that everyone should also be stoned for their sins. If the church applied the expel rule to all members who sinned, there would be no church.
Originally posted by whodeyI would agree with much of what you are saying.
So what happens if I am married and I get hit on the head and have amnesia and can't remember a thing afterwad and I then, later in life, marry another woman not remembering I was ever married to begin with? Am I committing adultery? Is it sin? As a rule, there are usually exceptions to every rule.
Your objections remind me of objections regarding abort ...[text shortened]... s that seperate us from animals, that is, unless you believe we are no better than animals.
What I am saying is that judging them, condemning them and kicking them out into the street, is going to make them weaker not stronger, and its not the Christ-like approach.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe reason I hold Mosaic teachings in such high regard, even as if Chirst were talking, is because Christ did as well.
What is your fault is that you follow your own will rather than the teachings of Jesus.
You freely admit that Jesus doesn't speak against homosexuality. You freely admit that there is nothing in the scriptures that give you the right to judge homosexuals as unfit for membership or leadership in a church while leaving other sins uncontested. So rather ncapable of reason. He is incapable of understanding until he gives up his bigotry.
Here in Luke 16:31 is the parable Jesus gave about the man who went to hell and wanted to be resurrected to return to earth and warn his brethren about making the same mistake he did. And Jesus said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." I think there is no doubt that Jesus is referring to himself who later rose from the dead. If they rejected Moses and his teachings, they will likewise reject Christ and his teachings because they are the same teachings and because they come from the same God. In fact, Christ continually quoted scripture that is derived from the writings of Moses. After all, he is referred to in John chapter one as the incarnated word of God. In effect, he was the mouthpiece of Almighty God. When confronted by hard questions his response was 9 times out of 10, "Well, what is written?" When tempted by the devil in the wilderness his objections came when saying, "No, for it is written". So to glibly saying that one should follow Christ and not the teachings of Moses I think are in error, or at least according to Christ.
Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy the law but to fulfill. For verily I say to you, one jot or one title shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
This now sends us back the Mosaic law that does specifically cover homosexual conduct. As for your interpretation of Leviticus 18:22, how is this interpreted as being directed against any homosexual conduct other than between two comitted people? Also, are there examples of married homosexuals or committed homosexuals in Mosaic times or are you assuming that they simply existed as I assumed Christ was discussing proper sexual conduct for everyone even though he did not speak to homosexuality specifically? In effect, do you think a "committed homosexual" couple would be stoned in Mosaic times or embraced?
Originally posted by knightmeisterExactly .... certainly not with the church leaders.
Well said !
..although not all churches and christians are like this.
Jesus was a man of outsiders and the marginalised. He associated with the poor , those considered unworthy and those despised and oppressed. Where would his sympathies lie right now , with those who cast out or those who are rejected???