Hello kettle, it's the pot calling ...

Yep, I'm guilty of thought crime. I'm just a seething mass of hate and fear. You don't even need an argument or evidence. You don't ven need to have met me - you can just tell. Stamp me out quick - my memes might spread and do untold damage.

I do not believe that Christians should apaologize for accepting God's view of homosexuality, as clearly taught in Scripture.

Certainly there is little to be gained by engaging in a slanging match on the subject, but it is hardly the loving thing to do to pretend that homosexual practice is anything other than sinful - and it is not less so because someone like Jeremy Marks changes his mind about it.

The real tragedy of his current position is that it abandons homosexuals to a sinful lifestyle and cuts them off from the forgiveness and transformation they could have known through Christ.

You may remember that His attitude to someone caught in sexual sin was indeed not to condemn, but also to say, "Go and sin no more." (John 8v11) Seems to me we need that balanced approach to the homosexual issue.

I'm so consumed by hatred of sin that I spend every day discriminating against liars, cheats, cowards, adulterers, thieves, investment bankers, people who double park, Jonathan Ross and grumpy people. Members of my congregation regularly go out on a Sunday afternoon to beat these people up and spray rude messages onto their garden fences.

Not agreeing with someone's views or behaviour is not a phobia. It's time liberal Christians stopped this name-calling. Everyone's a sinner, even those closest to us, but that doesn't stop us loving them.

Well said, Ekklesia et co. And the attitudes of the three commenters so far indicates the extent of the problem they are addressing, especially in places like Norn Iron, where we know all about concepts like sin (what a useless, silly word!) because they prefer obsolete words which are used as substitutes for real thought.

The whole idea of sin is ridiculous: your actions are wrong, not because they are harmful to another person, but because God dislikes it. Huh! If sin means without God, then I'm a sinner and proud of it.

NEW BUS SLOGAN

"There's probably no God, so whether you are straight or gay, stop worrying about sin and enjoy your life".

So, Brian, why are actions that harm another person "wrong"

"obsolete words which are used as substitutes for real thought".

I don't expect an answer, of course. at least not one that isn't self-serving, circular, and ultimately selfish

Oh, come on Brian, you know me better than that. My sexual morality isn't based on slogans or the "yuk" factor. My thinking may seem obsolete, but I've done my best to think the issue through and made my best judgment. So I don't appreciate it when people tell me that my ideas are wrong just because they don't fit their preferred fashion.

As a matter of fact I've far more time for your position than Ekklesia's. If they want to base their sexual morality on the "quality" of sexual or romantic relationships, then I want them to be consistent. If sex is not to be valued primarily as a biological union with the potential to create new life - that is, if sex is divorced from family - why the insistence on monogamy? Why Ekkelsia's reference to "faithful, long-term" homosexual relationships? What about homosexuals who do not feel fulfilled living within those restrictions?
If they want to abandom the traditional norm, then exclusive commitment should be no more than a lifestyle choice that suits some, and not others - *especially* when children are not involved. I can see no compelling reason for making relationships analogous to marriage the only suitable context for sexual activity, or even seeing such relationships the preferred context for sexual activity, once the traditional concept of marriage has been abandoned.
Now if some groups want to abandon the traditional concept of marriage, fine. That's their right. But they need to lose their hang-ups. They should accept co-habitation *and* open relationships. They should even be open to sexual adventurism, provided there is consent between equal partners, provided each partner gives of themselves willingly, and so long as appropriate precautions are taken.

So why should Bartley pontificate just because his views are just a little more tolerant than mine? He still has restrictions - faithful, exclusive, long-term relationships. Presumably he would "reject" church members or pastors who are in sexual relationships with individuals they are not exclusively commited to for "the long term" (He never says "for life"). On what possible basis can he make this restriction?
Your views on sexuality, so far as I can see, are genuinely open and coherent. And, up until now, I've been able to have very reasonable discussions with you on the topic of sexual morality. I don't think that you've ever compared me to individuals like Geert Wilders. You've never "moralised" me - maybe because you've been "moralised" yourself by my Norn Irish brethren.

G Veale

Could someone let LSV know that I'm not ignoring him- the C2K system won't let me on the "Jeremy" thread.

GV

I wonder if it is going to be possible to contribute to this thread in a way in which what I actually said is heard, and not what others presume I am saying is heard? Indeed it seems to me that whatever ones view on gay relationships, or sexuality in general, at least part of this thread is related to what we hear in communication, how we hear it and how it is communicated.

If I summarize what I hear being said it might be helpful, and it might highlight one of the issues which, while related to homosexuality in this case, has broader application.

A number of Christian groups EA, URC and Baptist Union among them have issued a statement criticizing Westboro BC for 'stirring up homophobic hatred', this, I can only presume, is based on the actions of the Westboro church which we have come to know via their website and the media. They use the word 'hate' unequivocally. It would also seem reasonable to describe their actions as 'active harassment', in other words they seek out members of the gay community with the aim of telling them they are hated.

Since the statement criticizing Westboro, this initial group has now been asked to reflect on their own attitudes to the gay community as their theological position might send out a damaging message even to the extent of providing excuses for some to harm gay people.

So, what do we do with this? First up, I think it is perfectly reasonable to respond seriously to the call for self-examination, often disagreement with a lifestyle or moral issue can be simply a mask for hatred and self-righteousness. This is something all Christians should be aware of. 'Christian' means neither, 'always right' nor 'perfect'.

Second, we need to ask if it is possible to disagree with someone and not hate. This is important because whatever the issue, it is highly unlikely that we will all ever agree, so, in contexts of disagreement how we speak to one another is important.

Third we need to ask, does the expression of disagreement with a lifestyle actually provide excuses for others or are we an intelligent enough society to be able to figure out the difference between 'points of view', 'expressions of hatred', and 'harmful actions'.

It concerns me a little that those (EA, Baptist Union etc.) who stated, "We do not share their (Westboro's) hatred of lesbian and gay people. We believe that God loves all, irrespective of sexual orientation, and we unreservedly stand against their message of hate toward those communities." have, in effect, been called 'little Westboro's'

In short, is it possible to disagree with others without being accused of hatred, and indeed without actually hating others?

I have absolutely no doubt that gay and lesbian communities have been (and are) discriminated against, have been harmed and have been hated, this is wrong, there is no excuse for it, but what does one do when one disagrees, and what does one do when another community (i.e. in this case the church, or part of the church) disagrees? Linking disagreement, with hatred, doesn't, in my view, help.

I would appreciate the view of a member of the gay community on my thoughts, the 'tone' of them and the dilemma raised.

Gosh - I find myself agreeing with both Graham and PeterM - soon I'll be calling myself an Evangelical!

Graham - in your second paragraph on post # 6 you spell out fairly precisely my view of sexual behaviour. Mutual informed meaningful consent is all that is required to make any sexual act moral. God has no interest whatsoever in the sexual behaviour of humans. Passionate sexual intensity and deep emotional commitment can concur in a relationship but one does not necessitate the other and the absence of one does not vitiate the other.

PeterM - I really could not agree more. If one is truly liberal one has to accept the right of everyone to propose and argue points of view with which one might disagree. I had the interesting experience of being reproached as something of a backward-looking conservative reactionary at the Jeremy Marks talk last evening. Members of the audience were asked to tell their immediate neighbour how they viewed a real life situation where a CoI rector limited the public ministry of a young parishioner who had declared his homosexuality. I remarked that I would consider the rector unenlightened but would respect his right to be true to his theology. It would be only a mild exaggeration to say I was berated for my spinelessness. I would have no hesitation in arguing the error of his ways with that rector but ultimately I would respect him far far less if he professed a set of important beliefs and then acted in a way which negated their significance.

There is, in my opinion, all the difference in the world between groups like the EA and Westboro - attitude and approach do matter, it is possible to think behaviour wrong without hatred of those practising it.

I must state, however, that I would like to see more churches welcome practising homosexuals to public ministry and more Christians affirm, as I would, that there is nothing sinful in same sex attraction, nothing sinful in loving a person of the same gender, and nothing sinful in the enjoyment of sex with such a person.

I have to agree with RevDMK and Peter Morrow.

Yes, it is reasonable to reflect on whether your own attitudes to the gay community concur with the compassion grace AND truth of Christ.

But it does sort of smack of Orwellian thought police to imply that disagreement with someone cannot be done with love and grace and automatically means hatred.

Come on W&T, enough of this line!

OT

I think that some Christians on this blog are in constant denial. Words are cheap; in the end it's actions that count.

Thus it is disingenuous to persist in proclaiming that the quarrel with gays and with other Christians who are either gay or who fully support gays is merely a matter of disagreement. You wouldn’t get away with that feeble 'excuse' outside Norn Iron.

The question is not merely a matter of disagreement about what constitutes a 'sin'. It is a matter of ACTIONS resulting from your disagreement.

Go back to the Ekklesia statement as a starting point. Do you:
(1) engage fully with lesbian and gay Christians?
(2) accept them as equal under your God?
(3) rethink church policies of exclusion?
(4) support gay bishops, ministers, priests etc of your particular Christian brand?
(5) support civil partnerships?
(6) support the law of same sexual conduct between consenting adults (even though you personally disagree with the practice?)

If you say no to any of the above, then it is not merely a matter of disagreement: you wish to discriminate against gay people. This is homophobia, which is defined as engaging in behaviour aimed at denigrating or restricting the human rights of people who have a homosexual orientation and/or who engage in homosexual behaviour.

As for the red herring question why actions which harm others are wrong, this seems a fairly obvious principle for people living in groups as social animals. It also seems to be in keeping with our best desires. As Bertrand Russell put it, “our desires are, in fact, more general and less purely selfish than many moralists imagine”.

Hi Brian

If I am one of the christians who you think is being 'disingenuous' and 'in denial' I wish you'd just say, at least that way we'd be clear.

What should I say? Not sure really. You seem to take a different view from Portwyne and are telling me that I am homophobic and that I am exercising discrimination.

Maybe we need to tease this out a bit more.

First, do you accept that I do not hate those in the gay community. I know you only have my words to go on, but are you willing to accept them?

Next, your appear in your argument in post 11, to make links between my point of view (which I force on no one) and a number of actions which I am not necessarily in a position to fulfill. By way of clarification, you also mix and connect civic and church society in a way I do not, and you seem to be suggesting to me that unless I actively express support for the validity of gay relationships then I am by default discriminating against gay people even if I should never come into contact with them; however I shall try to work through your points in order.

I'm also tempted to say that it is interesting the way you set up your own set of parameters for acceptance or rejection of my outlook with the phrase, "If you say no to any of the above, then..."(!)

(1) Do I engage fully...? I don't actually know any openly gay christians, although I do know other gay people and within the context in which we met I fully engaged with them and treated then in exactly the same way I would non gays.

(2) In terms of equality under God, I take the view that we are all equal under God.

(3) A question. Which specific exclusions are you thinking of?

(4) I do not support the appointment of bishops, ministers, priests at all. I would much prefer it if the church ceased with the distinction between 'clergy' and 'laity' altogether. This is a non issue for me.

(5) I do not personally agree with civil partnerships (that would be inconsistent) but in the area of civil government I do not see how people can be discriminated against. My view is that church and state should be separate. On this issue all I have ever done is state my view and only when asked, I have never protested in any way (cross ref answer 1)

(6) My answer is as (5) How could it be other?

Now Brian, in your opinion have I answered 'no' to any of your arbitrary questions?

Am I, on the basis of anything I have said, actively denigrating or restricting the human rights of those who engage in homosexual behaviour.

Of course our actions harm one another, did I say they didn't?

To finish with, another question or two, do you fully engage with those with whom you disagree? How, in your view might the church disagree without discriminating, and if you were a bishop, what would you do with me?

Brian

Another thought.

If a member of the church I attend explained openly that he or she was gay or lesbian I imagine that it would cause some controversy. I further imagine that some might openly and actively disagree and seek to exclude them. So, in that context what would my response be.

My best guess is this. I would seek to be their friend. They would be welcome in my home. I would defend them against name-calling or slanderous or hurtful comments. I also imagine that they would feel very uncomfortable in attending each week, but if they came I would meet them, sit with them and be happy to communicate with them regarding their feelings and point of view.

I would also disagree with them, and I would tell them I disagreed with them. I would explain my theological point of view and I would also expect them to tell me which aspects of my lifestyle they disagreed with.

Brian, can you see how disagreement doesn't mean hatred?

Yet another thought!

Can you see how it might be friendship?

Good grief, friends who fundamentally disagree with one another!

One comment on a semi-related, semi-unrelated subject. Homosexuality is considered and referred to as "Sodomy". However, from my reading, the men of Sodom didn't want to romantically love the men in their midst- they wanted to rape them. Further, if they desired only men for sex, why would Lot (who was an elder in Sodom, and hence knew them well, BTW) want to offer up his virgin daughters to them? (In the similar story in Judges 19, the men of Gibeah used similar words to the men of Sodom, but, unlike the men of Sodom, they were happy to use and abuse the Levite's concubine.)
The sin of Sodom wasn't men loving men- it was men wanting power over other men(and women, possibly)- by rape. Rape isn't about sex- it's about power. (Read also the other later references to Sodom among the prophets. Their sins aren't described as sexual, but "Pride, fulness of bread and abundance of idleness", as well as not "strengthen(ing) the hand of the poor and needy." In short, it was about power, not sex.)
It should also be noted that not calling Homosexuals "Sodomites" doesn't necessarily mean one has to approve of Homosexuality. One can argue that the sins of Sodom (and Gibeah) were rape and violence, among other things, and simultaneously still argue that homosexuality is condemned in other places.
Finally, this interpretation of mine of the sins of Sodom is significantly more applicable than the modern interpretation of mere inhospitability. After all, nobody can say "I'm so inhospitable I wanted to rape a visitor."
I hope I haven't lost anyone.

Petermorrow has asked any gay christians to respond to his comments. I am a gay Christian, so perhaps I can say a few things. I think Ekklesia is right to point out the inconsistency in opposing Westboro while remaining anti-gay yourself. Westboro are just more honest. They say that God hates all sin and therefore God hates homosexuality. That is at least a clear view. Peter and others want to sound openminded and loving, but they are essentially saying the same thing. They don't personally know any gay Christians, and they are not likely to when they are members of churches where, he says, someone coming out could face exclusion and insult. That's a disgrace in itself. Ask yourself Peter: why would you want to be a member of an organisation that could behave that way?

If you want your tone to be loving and open, you could start by dropping the phrase "lifestyle". My sexuality is not a lifestyle. Golfing is a lifestyle. My sexuality is a part of who I am. It's part of my identity, just like my gender, by ethnicity and, I would say, my religious commitment.

Hi Peter:

'Hatred' is a strong word, and not one I have used. Homophobia doesn't necessarily imply it. Dislike and disapproval are probably more relevant in many instances.

The first three points I listed are not mine but Ekklesia's, on the link which William provides. You would need to ask them what they mean by point 3, but my point 4 possibly covers some of it.

You say that 'we are all equal under God'. I would presume that this means entitled to equal rights, not just in civic society but also in 'church' society. It would be most odd if 'equal under God' didn't mean 'equal in God's church', would it not?

There are also many things of which I disapprove but which I wouldn't wish to ban. Boxing is one. If people want to punch each other's brains out, that is their choice. I nevertheless think it is a barbaric sport because its primary aim is to hurt one's opponent. I would hope that one day enough people will agree and it will 'fade away' through lack of interest.

But I don't dislike boxers. I don't call them names. I don't 'talk down' to them. I don't tell them that they are committing a grievous 'sin' (whatever that is).
In other words, I do not wish to vilify boxers or make them feel guilty or inferior.

I am not saying that having gay sex is like boxing. But what I am saying is that if you disapprove of it, then you are morally bound to give a reason that does not merely repeat a biblical prohibition (a greater 'abomination' than eating shellfish, for example).

In other words, it's not good enough to say that gay sex is wrong because you think God disapproves of it. This needs to be 'teased out', to use your frequent phraseology. It's not enough to say that he made us 'naturally' to have straight sex for procreation. Why is sex only for procreation?

To say that God made sex for procreation is, of course, to rule out all sex for most of over 50 year-old females, who can no longer procreate. Is it therefore the Christian duty of all males who wish to procreate to have sex with under 50 year-old women?

Too many Christians, especially in NI, think they KNOW what Christianity is, even though it is obvious that in reality they strongly disagree on many aspects. Their simple certainty about what constitutes their God's thoughts and feelings is really quite frightening (and depressing).

Sodom is a good example. Orville's interpretation above is as good as any, and similar to one I posted on another thread. But, alas, there are some Christians who KNOW what their God meant, just as there are some Jews and Muslims who know likewise what THEIR God meant.
They KNOW the difference between the 'abomination' of eating shellfish and the abomination of gay sex and are determined to impose it on everyone else.

A little bit of humility would not go amiss. Indeed, it might even be 'Christian'.

Brian

Do you "just know" we should have humility? I do.

Okay, that's a bit disingenuous on my part. I think I recognise the attitude you're referring to. As long as we realise that it isn't unique to religious communities, then I agree. It's a very real danger in the workplace or in politics. I certainly encounter it in the liberal sections of the media - people who just know that certain moral or religious positions are nonsensical just because they are not fashionable. There is a simple certainty among liberal commentators that I find depressing. Or listen to Bill Maher or PZ Myers discussing religion. Pulpits aren't confined to Churches.

I certainly like to think that I've given more than a biblical prohibition. And I certainly don't think that sex is purely for procreation. (Neither does the Roman Catholic church). I said that
(a) sex has an intrinsic purpose, and cannot be given any purpose that we find valuable
(b) that the purpose of sex is creating and sustaining family. When a man and woman have sex their bodies are striving to reproduce. That's what their bodies are trying to do. That's what their bodies are designed to do.The union of the reproductive organs of man and woman really unites them biologically.
Of course, not every act of intercourse can produce a child. It is also obvious that a sexual relationship helps sexual partners bond, and that children that result can be cared for by the two partners and siblings.
That is to say there is a "unitive" element in a sexual relationship (two bodies focused one purpose) that is dependent on a "procreative" element (the creation of family). So only sexual acts *consistent* with it's unitive and generative functions are permissable, as only these relationships fulfill the goods that sex was given for.
Or to put this in terms that an Evangelical Protestant might be more comfortable with "God didn't give us the gift of sex. He gave us the gift of marriage, and sex is part of *that* gift."
In fact, outside of this view I cannot see why monogamy, faithfulness and commitment should be viewed as goods. What would be wrong with prudent and moderate promiscuity? Nothing forbids a person from being in love with a few people at the same time. So why monogamy? Some may prefer the lifestyle - but so what? (And in fact, Ekklesia are not clear on the value of marriage. So why retain faithfulness? Why monogamy? Other than some vague references to covenants and the Trinity, typical of Theologians, I can't see any substantial argument on offer).

Of course, you can just reply that (b) isn't the only obvious interpretation of human sexuality, and that (b) depends on (a). That is, I assume that sex has a moral *purpose*. If teleology goes, so does the moral purpose. If you take ,say, a Humean view of morality, or see revealed religion as irrational then what I've argued will have no force.
But at the very least (b) is consistent with the facts. It is not an unreasonable interpretation. So if I am committed to a revealed religion which teaches (b) I'm not assuming an unreasonable interpretation of sexuality. And I think it is helpful to understand how different viewpoints view the world.

G Veale

Permit me to give my two penn'orth on the subject of the church and homosexuality.

We need to recognise the distinction between "idealism" and "realism". "Idealism" is a perfectionist vision of the world in which the application of a set of absolute principles produces what would be termed "the good". "Realism", on the other hand, understands that "absolute" moral principles have to be applied within the context of real, "felt" (and often messy and complicated) situations which present themselves in daily life. An example: I personally think that abortion is utterly and totally abhorrent. But I have never been and will never be a doctor forced to face the situation of having to choose between the life of a mother and the life of her unborn child. My idealism would then be tested in a "real" situation where its perfectionist aspect may be found to be seriously wanting.

Now it is all very well idealists - including Christian idealists - sitting in the comfort of their studies, churches or housegroups discussing "absolute principles" and lamenting the so-called situational ethics of liberal theology and secular philosophy (and I am not saying that I am a believer in situational ethics per se), but the real discussion should take place out in the real world.

The fact is that there are some people - and one of these is a close relative of mine - who genuinely only have a sexual desire for members of the same sex. They may not feel any sexual desire for the opposite sex, and neither are they asexual or naturally celibate. That is the reality. We can debate until we are "blue in the face" about why this should be so. We can hypothesise about "nurture" versus "nature" and so on. We could try and justify our absolutist biblical idealism by dismissing such people as somehow morally inferior and wilfully "living in rebellion", but I dare to suggest we may sometimess be doing that more for our own benefit and spiritual reassurance than out of any motive of Christian love, compassion or understanding.

The Bible is actually an astonishingly un-absolutist book if we bother to read it carefully. Need I go through all the examples? Here are a few just to make my point:

1. In Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 the prostitute Rahab was praised for her faith and good works by hiding the spies who came to Jericho. But integral to that "good work" was the telling of a bare-faced lie (Joshua 2:4-5). By the way I know that this whole passage about Jericho is extremely difficult to understand for other reasons (the divinely ordained slaughter), and I confess that I, as a Christian, do not find it at all easy. But my point here is about Rahab lying as part of her "good work".

2. In Exodus 1:19 the Hebrew midwives brazenly lied to the emissaries of Pharaoh to save the lives of the children, and in verse 20 it says that God "dealt well with the midwives".

3. Jesus himself, on one occasion, affirmed the right to break the law of God for reasons of human well-being. How does the idealist explain Mark 2:23-28 when Jesus referred to David breaking the law to feed himself and his men with the showbread which only the priest was allowed to eat (see the particular law about this in Leviticus 24:9). In the context Jesus is clearly acknowledging David's right to do that, because even though David was technically "breaking the law", the aspect of human need overrode any absolutist concept of law. It was the Pharisees who used the law to ride roughshod over human well-being, and Jesus' conflict with that attitude is one of the mega-themes of the gospels (can anyone possibly dispute that??)

The last example highlights a vital understanding of the nature of the law of God. Is the law an end in itself, or is it supposed to serve an ethic of love? After all "love is the fulfilment of the law" (Romans 13:10).

Some Christians object to these examples - such as the lie of Rahab - by saying that God never condoned her lie. The trouble with that is that her "good work" would not have succeeded without the lie. It was actually dependent on the lie. Another example would be the Nazis knocking on your door looking for the Jews they suspect you are harbouring. If you are harbouring Jews, what do you say to murderers? You are forced into a moral dilemma. What do you do? You cannot remain silent as that would implicate you, so you have two choices, both of which, according to an absolutist idealist reading of the Bible, lead to eternal hell:

1. To commit the sin of betrayal (like Judas Iscariot - the son of perdition - John 17:12, who was "lost")

2. To commit the sin of bearing false witness - a.k.a. lying (which leads to the "lake of fire" - Revelation 21:8).

Both are serious sins before God. So you're doomed!! Therefore in the situation you have to choose the "lesser evil" for the sake of the well-being of the innocent. On what basis do you make your choice? The answer is "love".

I'm sorry if this offends some people, but this is reality, I'm afraid. The real world does not work according to some neat, tidy cut-and-dried theological system!! As Christians we are not automatons programmed by a set of rigid laws, but we should have an understanding of the nature of God, who is real (I know some readers will disagree with that!), in order to make intelligent decisions when faced with moral dilemmas.

Now do we just preach down at homosexuals with our absolutist idealism, or do we choose to walk the more costly, messy, complicated and difficult path of love? (And can anyone say I am being "liberal" since I have, as far as I can see, accurately quoted the Bible, and therefore have submitted to its authority!! Please show me where I have been twisting Scripture, if that is what anyone thinks!!)

a_modest_proposal.

Thank you for your comments, and apologies for my use of the word 'lifestyle', I didn't realise it could be a 'loaded' term. I was thinking of lifestyle in terms of the breadth of who we are, there are many aspects to our identities, indeed I imagine that for some even golf is part of their identity! I shall however take care with my use of the word.

I've been thinking a lot about how to reply, in particular wondering if it is possible to find a middle way between the Westboro approach while still holding to a different theological position than yours, or, am I indeed, just the same as those who shout "hate".

I wonder then if I can ask you to reread my comments in post 13 especially those aspects of it where I said that I would seek to defend someone against slanderous or hurtful comments. Indeed, let me state my position in a slightly stronger way. I would actively defend a gay christian against disparaging comments or actions and criticize those who took that line, with the likely outcome being that if I did this I would probably be on the receiving end of a lot of criticism too. This may be dis-grace-full, but it is also pretty much how it is and 'how it is', is the context in which we all have to work.

I've also been doing a bit of reading tonight and have focused this on gay Christian web-sites to try and better understand their points of view. In doing this I came across this debate between two gay Christians and would be interested in your thinking. It can be found here,

https://gaychristian.net/greatdebate.php

Peter, I've now read the debate you referenced. This is a debate between two gay christians, where one of them believes that gay christians are called to live celibate lives because God regards same sex relationships as sinful. You won't be surprised to know that I regard this argument from a gay man as an example of internalised homophobia, much as I would regard a black person who believes white people should rule the world as internalising racism, and a woman who opposes gender equality as internalising sexism. In every case of an oppressed minority throughout history, one can find examples of members of that minority who collaborated with the oppressors in one way or another. Sometimes gay people have been made so vulnerable through political or religious abuse that they begin to mimic the arguments of those who oppress them. I wish it were not so. There are many examples of gay christians who have presented the kind of anti-gay arguments that one finds in the debate you reference, and many examples of those who have later regretted those same arguments. Jeremy Marks not only made these anti-gay arguments, as a gay man, he held high office in Exodus International, the world's largest ex-gay ministry. But eventually he saw through those arguments and now writes in opposition to them.

In other words, the fact that you can find a gay man who makes anti-gay arguments is neither surprising, nor is it persuasive. I made those arguments myself for more than a decade of my adult life.

Peter, I do not know you, but I sense that you are concerned to be faithful to your religious views while at the same time showing respect and love to gay people. You want to be respectful while at the same time maintaining that my sexuality is disordered and broken, and while believing that my committed relationship with the man I love is a relationship that will ultimately damn me to hell. I cannot regard those beliefs as respectful or loving. Your rejection of my relationship isn't merely an attitude on your part. If you are consistent, it means you would deny me full membership of the church and deny me an opportunity to serve in leadership within the church. That is an action that represents a kind of violence against gay christians, just as those who exclude women from leadership within the church are guilty of an act of violence against those women.

It is simply not possible to express love and respect while acting to exclude and remove a person from their place within the church.

I could very easily feel part of a victimised and oppressed minority myself tonight. Liberals have been shamefully disparaged on the blog and that without comment from those who profess the desirability of tolerance and inclusivity.

LSV has been very careful to distinguish his liberal views from those awful people, evidently sub-Christian, the Liberals - a word he helpfully encloses in inverted commas and to which he appends the dismissive epithet wishy-washy in post # 66 in the Jeremy Marks thread.

It is fortunate I have a thick skin or I could very easily have been most offended! It raises an interesting point nonetheless: could I, as a liberal, expect to go to Peter Morrow's church and take on a leadership role or a high representative profile while disagreeing fundamentally (as I do) with that church's understanding of the Bible and how and what it teaches. I certainly would not expect to be able to do any such thing. I would expect to find love and welcome if the church professed to offer them but I would equally expect to have to abide by that church's teaching or to go elsewhere.

I have actually no interest in what the Bible's position on homosexuality might be but it does appear to me that those for whom, inexplicably, it is important could quite reasonably conclude that it does prohibit and condemn homosexual behaviour.

Other conclusions are certainly possible but the consensus of the Roman church and most Protestant literalists suggests it is by no means wholly unreasonable to adopt a traditionalist position. I do not consider that I have any right to expect those who disagree with my point of view to surrender their integrity and accept my understanding over their own - anyone who would expect that needs to downsize the ego pretty radically.

My suggestion to anyone who finds the church they attend not up to scratch, is to move on and "shake off the dust of your feet" - what did Jesus say? "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for them".

I agree Portwyne. Find a church that has a place for you. That's the best advice for gay Christians. I know some who stay in anti-gay churches hoping to change those churches through encounter and friendship. Those who do this are sacrificial and have my complete respect. But I know too many people who have been hurt inn anti-gay churches, emotionally and spiritually hurt so much that they now avoid church altogether.

#22 - portwyne - "Liberals have been shamefully disparaged on the blog and that without comment from those who profess the desirability of tolerance and inclusivity. LSV has been very careful to distinguish his liberal views from those awful people, evidently sub-Christian, the Liberals - a word he helpfully encloses in inverted commas and to which he appends the dismissive epithet wishy-washy in post # 66 in the Jeremy Marks thread."

Thanks for your post, and I confess, portwyne, that you have a good point here. I apologise for the insensitivity of my wording.

All I can say in my defence is that, having been brought up and having lived for so long within "evangelical" circles (another label, I'm afraid!), the term "liberal" is often a term of opprobrium. It is regarded as a convenient way of dismissing someone's views. I have tried to show that a more "liberal" approach to the Christian life (in the sense of interpreting the Bible with more latitude) is not an act of heresy or denial of the inspiration of Scripture, which is what "liberal" is often understood to mean in some circles.

I agree "wishy washy" is a nasty phrase, so I also apologise for that. I accept that the use of that term does not advance the cause of tolerance.

Modest, I am very aware of the hurt and pain many gay Christians experience and I appreciate your bringing it to the attention of the blog. Most people who are identified as straight have not even the beginnings of an understanding of the profound sufferings of some Christians with same sex attraction.

Exclusion and isolation can be grasped fairly readily by the sympathetic but the pain and even damage can run much deeper.

I have encountered men suicidal because of self-loathing, and I know Christians who are so deeply conflicted because of the indoctrination of their childhoods that their sexual experience is disordered even though they have superficially accepted their orientation.

I see evangelical and ex-evangelical Christians addicted to psychologically harmful BDSM practices which essentially are simply their punishing of themselves for what they still feel deep down is sin. (I have no objection to recreational BDSM play by people who have examined themselves and understand what they are doing).

I see gay Christians in loving relationships suffering psychosomatic ED because, whatever the extent of their rationalisation of their position, they feel at some sub-conscious level that, what I would stress is gloriously right, is actually profoundly wrong.

The above are only examples - the reality and the extent of the pain bring me to my knees. There are few sections of our society more in need of affirmation, support and love than those gay Christians (and ex-Christians unable to escape their past) for whom what can be transcendent joy is rather an enduring agony of the soul.

I would contend that loving followers of Christ should seek to understand the reality of life for those people, should seek them in their churches for they are surely there, and, in their encounters with them, offer nothing but love, fellowship and prayer.

I think gay Christians too, however, ought to be willing to accept the reality of the faith of others and the demands that faith may lay upon them.

Graham:

Your post 18 is infused with the negative spirit towards sexuality which all the monotheistic religions share.

Nowhere do you define sex, but it is clear that you have a narrow, male-dominated conception of the activity, which sees it solely in terms of orgasm. Kissing, massaging, even just holding hands may all be sexual acts, if sex is defined as physical contact for pleasure.

And there's the key word  – pleasure. The pagan and Eastern cultures enjoyed sex because they regarded it, rightly, as a natural activity. They produced classics like the Kama Sutra and The Perfumed Garden.

Then along came Judaism, Christianity and Islam and treated it as some kind of heinous, sinful activity. Indeed, today some Christians still believe that ALL sex is an 'abomination' (though some activities are more abominable than others).

This censoriousness is evident in your use of restrictive terms like 'purpose' and 'permissible'. In the first case, your assumption that sex has an 'intrinsic’ purpose' is quite simply wrong. It is not necessarily a means to an end. It can be an end in itself  – the pleasure of the activity.

You also talk as if the marriage union was equal. You seem to forget that in many 'Christian' countries for centuries, marriage was often by contract, and the woman had little say in which 'union' was forced upon her. She was treated as the property of the male, with religious sanction.
In one of these religions a man is still permitted more than one wife, though the woman is not allowed a reciprocal arrangement.

The equality which you seem to imply by all this talk of 'union' has only been recently, and imperfectly, established in countries like the UK, and that is no thanks to religious institutions, which thwarted it at every stage, just in the same way that they thwart homosexual desire.

Monogamy is good for those who chose it. But your idea that sex is primarily for procreation is made redundant by one invention: contraception (it is also made to look ridiculous by the sexual act of kissing, which there is less fuss about). You should accept that we are not alike in our sexual preferences and it is wrong to impose a straitjacket on those who wish to pursue alternatives, whatever they are (straitjacket here should not be interpreted literally!). The key issues are harm and consent, and treating others as ends in themselves, not whether the person is married, straight or gay. This is the positive morality of happiness, in contrast to conservative Christianity, which is negative and exclusive.

In sum, the immorality on sexual matters derives as much from negative, killjoy attitudes to it by powerful institutions and ideologies, creating guilt, shame and unhappiness for millions of people.

attn Modest Proposal

I dont think we are going to agree on this, but as a traditional, I echo points made by John Stott, below, another traditional;-



* "At the heart of the homosexual condition is a deep loneliness, the natural human hunger for mutual love, a search for identity and a longing for completeness. If a homosexual cannot find these things in the local 'church family' we have no business to go on using the expression. The alternative is not between the warm physical relationship of homosexual intercourse and the pain of isolation in the cold. There is a third option, namely a Christian environment of love, understanding, acceptance and support."

* He echoes calls for a double repentance, where the church renounces hostility towards homosexuals and homosexuals renounce the active lifestyle. He also echoes a call that the church has no right to make such calls unless it is providing real and practical love and support for people in this position.

* He says the very existence of the Gay Christian Movement and the evangelical section of it "is a vote of censure on the church".

* He notes we are all fallen beings with fallen sexualities.

OT

LSV

I don't like to be this blunt with someone I respect, and whose posts I admire, but that argument simply isn't good enough. First of all you imply that I've reached my conclusions in a study group, and that I don't know any Christians who have had to deal with an exclusive attraction to members of the same sex. I've known three. One has passed away, another left the church and now has a homosexual partner, and the third has not engaged in same-sex activity. (He's quite old now, so he's unlikely to). Now either two made pointless sacrifices, or one has embraced an identity that God forbids.

Second, you simply ignore the arguments that I've presented. Now truth and consistency have to enter the equation somewhere. You can either have a biblical sexual ethic, or something like Portwyne's. In the first you have "heterosexist" norms that at the very least we must approximate to. In the second consequentialism dominates. I can't see a middle ground that can be defended in a rigorous manner.

Third, I'm not embracing an unqualified absolutism. Different duties can conflict, as can different virtues. That is rather different than a desire conflicting with a duty. Paul, along with all the ancients, were aware that different individuals could have an "excess of passion" and that some individuals could have a strong attraction to members of the same sex. He did not modify his ethics.

Fourth – effectively you are just bracketing off *everything* the Bible says about sex. Take the incident of incest in Corinth. The two individuals were not blood relations. They may have had a strong romantic attraction. There may have been goods of friendship and fidelity in the relationship. However, the relationship was ruled as forbidden by Paul. Why? Some of the father’s children would have called the woman in question mother, and some of his children grandmother. The relationship would have been contrary to nature – that is contrary to design.
Paul drew on Genesis and the characteristic Stoic appeal to the providence of Nature which insisted that men and women were made for each other. Greek philosophy and Hebrew scripture meet in Paul, so revisionists have had to meet an impossible burden of proof. The prior probability that his attitude was anti-homosexualist is just too high. Of course I'm willing to argue this in much more detail.

The story in Genesis 2:21-24 involves images of transcendent realities that do not have to be taken literally in all details. Nevertheless the story conveys the point that man and woman are each other’s sexual complement, ordained by God for sexual pairing if sexual relations are to be had. Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 are the foundation texts for Biblical thinking about sexuality - and Jesus' thinking in particular. So if you want to endorse homosexual relationships you must set Biblical morality aside . Don't smuggle in fidelity and exclusive commitments to make the ethic more palatable. On your own arguments there may be other goods that outweigh these duties. Polyamorous relationships are non-possessive and can be supportive, generous, and trusting. Or so it could be argued. Or couldn't a person be emotionally exclusive but sexually polyamorous? What principled objection could you give?
I have to ask, why should anyone see exclusive fidelity and commitment as anything more than preferences? Why should we ask people to make such commitments? Shouldn't we ignore Jesus’ teaching on divorce and make divorce as easy as Rabbi Hillel and Graeco-Roman culture insisted? Surely Jesus was needlessly restrictive. He just should have given men and women the same right to divorce and given women economic liberty).

As I said, I'm sorry to be blunt. I just think that Brian's Humanism and Portwyne's Postmodernism have a substantive sexual ethic. I can't really see what your argument is.

Graham Veale

A Modest Proposal

a) First of all cool name.
b) Take what I say personally, or don't take it personally. Your choice. I don't think that I mean it personally. I'd come close to saying that I'm certain that I don't mean it personally. Mainly because I don't think I know you. But you seem to know why people say the things they say.
c) Could anything convince you that a person, including a person with strong same sex attractions, might believe that same sex activity is wrong on principle, rather than a loathing or fear of homosexuality? Or do you have an unfalsifiable belief? It just seems that I'm in the wrong because you really, really believe I am. Which is difficult to argue with.
d) All the same, cool name.

Graham Veale

Brian
I wonder if you could read what I wrote, and not what you assume that I wrote. I do not – DO NOT – believe that every sexual act needs to aim at reproduction. In my view male-female pairs are told to be fruitful and multiply. That is the point of sexual relationships. To PAIR in a way that means that allows the human race to MULTIPLY.

It is the RELATIONSHIP that is to be fruitful. Not every act of intercourse. And of course kissing and holding hands and dancing and dates are all sexual acts. I communicate my sexual attraction to Nicola in many ways. And sexual attraction goes beyond the desire for intercourse. It includes the desire to stay together and to bring new life into the world and love those new lives together. If marriage and sex cannot be divorced neither can romance and sex, and love and sex. I said sex was part of the gift of marriage, so how you could assume that I believe that the purpose of sex is male climax is beyond me. The purpose of sex is found within marriage, and it doesn’t have a purpose outside marriage. It finds its purpose in a whole relationship. That holism precludes reductionism.
Sexual attraction is a fairly powerful incentive to remain in a pair. It doesn't take scientific training to realise that heterosexual intercourse keeps humans in plentiful supply. And human children need love and care to thrive - so mere intercourse is not enough for a healthy family. This isn't abstruse theology.

Song of Solomon doesn't seem to figure in your analysis and you ignore Platonism and Gnosticism. So your default position of blaming monotheism on everything from the credit crunch to the demise of comedy on public television has taken you off target once more.

Now I also made it clear that I was aware that we all have different impulses and preferences. I made it clear that a moral teleology in human nature was essential to my view, and that there were alternatives – like Humean ethics. I'm not imposing my own preferences (which aren't unambiguously monogamous). I'm just explaining why my conscience is bound on this issue.

Graham

Graham"
Perhaps you should read my posts.
"I do not DO NOT believe that every sexual act needs to aim at reproduction". I didn't say you did, did I? I will respond more fully later.

Graham:

Your post 30 is really a logical mess. You do not believe that every sexual act needs to aim at reproduction, BUT male-female pairs 'are told to be fruitful and multiply' i.e. reproduce. ????

"The relationship must be fruitful". What on earth this means is a mystery. Does it mean, for example, that you cannot kiss unless you are seeking to 'multiply'???

Perhaps you could explain what Song of Solomon actually is about. It would be interesting to hear your take on it. Is it about sex purely for pleasure?



"Sexual attraction includes the desire to stay together and to bring new life into the world (reproduction again) and love those those new lives together"
No, it doesn't. Having restricted sex to reproduction, you are now expanding it to include things that have absolutely nothing to do with it - life, the universe and everything!

Love and sex, for example, are quite distinct emotions. Sex is a physical-psychological desire; love is along-term emotional relationship between two people (who do not have to be married: a mother can love a daughter or son etc; a pupil can 'love' a teacher; friends can love one another, and sex may be totally irrelevant).

What you are describing is your own personal tastes or preference (which is probably at least partly determined by your religious beliefs). You should not make moral rules out of them for everyone else.

I certainly haven't blamed the credit crunch or 'the demise of comedy on monotheism. Where has that accusation come from?
The credit crunch is partly caused by an excessive adherence to free market, deregulated neo-classical economics and has nothing to do with monotheism.

This post is about pots and kettles. Perhaps you should do me the courtesy of not deliberately misrepresenting what I say.

I am sorry, but I make little sene of what you are actually saying.
Are you implying that people should not kiss or hold hands unless they are married??????

Brian

If that last question indicates how you read my position what's the point of trying?

Instead of trying to pick holes in what I wrote, you could try reading it with a little generosity to see if you can discern where I'm coming from.

But if you can't pick up on friendly sarcasm what's the point?

GV

To try to outline the conservative Christian position again -
We ought to respect the principles of our sexual design. Human sexual powers have a purpose.The human design for procreation requires marital and family life. For dogs and fish it doesn't; they manage to procreate without them. For humans it does. To put this another way, we are made with a view to marriage and family. When a heterosexual couple have sex it is a "Token" of the "Type" of act that can produce children. I'm using "token" and "Type" as a logical terms here. Look it up.

A few commands follow - Honor your parents. Care for your children. Save sex for marriage. Try to make marriage fruitful. Be faithful to your spouse.

Marriage is not just a private emotional bond between lovers, or a mere religious affair,but rather a natural and public institution.
Marriage attaches a father to his children and fulfills the societal need for children to have sustained love and care. Marriage as an institution is the natural response to human sexual embodiment as male and female, to human longing for bonding and intimacy, to sexual (as opposed to asexual) reproduction, and to human dependency and need (especially in view of the fact that human newborns, unlike newborns of many other species, require many years of nurture before reaching self-sufficiency).

Pleasure can come naturally as a by product of pursuing something else. Given that enjoying sex helps your marriage, enjoy sex as much as you both can. Have sex purely for pleasure and your relationships won't last long.

(Of course if there is no design there are only preferences that should not be imposed. But that would probably go for all moral and knowledge claims).

GV

LSV

you say this;-

The fact is that there are some people - and one of these is a close relative of mine - who genuinely only have a sexual desire for members of the same sex. They may not feel any sexual desire for the opposite sex, and neither are they asexual or naturally celibate. That is the reality. We can debate until we are "blue in the face" about why this should be so. We can hypothesise about "nurture" versus "nature" and so on. We could try and justify our absolutist biblical idealism by dismissing such people as somehow morally inferior and wilfully "living in rebellion", but I dare to suggest we may sometimess be doing that more for our own benefit and spiritual reassurance than out of any motive of Christian love, compassion or understanding.
/////////////////////////////


Without question this statement may be frequently absolutely correct.

But please note I dont see any Christians on this blog saying that gay folk are inferior to others, but rather that we are all equally sinners before God.

You also seem to imply that there is no possible answer to what causes homosexuality or whether someone can change their sexuality.

There is quite a bit of serious research evidence cited on this blog on this in the past few days ie see Jer Marks thread.

It hardly seems rigourous of you to make such an assertion when you have not addressed this information in any detail.

OT

Attn A Modest Proposal

Thanks for taking the trouble to post so honestly.

I have to say that I don't think you have made a good argument as to why Peter Morrow is not entitled to his views.

The church/jews has taken a traditional viewpoint of the plain reading of scriptures on this matter for 4000 years.

It seems to be a rather arrogant assumption that people should be able to march into churches and demand that they change their position just like that.


The term "internalised homophobia" is often used by W&T but I have yet to see an argument as to why it is a better explanation of the facts than the traditional Christian one.

The argument appears to lean heavily on the victimhood card, cultural whipped sympathy and sometimes politically correct intimidation rather than evidence.

Is it correct that in countries where homosexuality has long been legally approved that there is no evidence of reduction in "internalised homophobia"?


OT

AMP

I appreciate this does not make a conclusive argument, but it is a valid contribution to the discussion on "internalised homophobia".

This study on mental health in gay people was done in the Netherlands which is very tolerant of homosexuality, being the first country in the world to legalize gay marriage.

"The findings," says the authors, "support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders."

https://www.narth.com/docs/studyconfirms.html

LSV - thank you for your very candid response in post # 24 - much appreciated. I have, in fact, enjoyed reading your posts to date.

Graham:

I shall ignore your post 33. Post 34 is highly problematic and begs many questions.

Take this statement: "we ought to respect the principles of our sexual design". Clearly, this is deriving an 'ought' from an 'is'. By principles I presume you mean laws. But laws are descriptive, not prescriptive, positive, not normative. We cannot disobey the 'laws of nature' e.g. gravity. The same applies to 'sexual laws'.

Moreover, in any case you interpret 'principles of our sexual design' much too narrowly. Take another example. Hearing has the early biology function of warning animals like us of the approach of predators, but does that mean that I shouldn't listen to Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony because it is purely for pleasure? Of course not. Similarly, should I refrain from eating chocolate because I enjoy it and because the body doesn't need it? Sorry, but I refuse; I need my daily fix.

Same sex relationships take place throughout the animal kingdom and are therefore 'natural' for the participants. In other words, the 'laws of nature' are much wider and more varied than your narrow perspective allows for.

You try to make a distinction between humans and other animals; dogs, for example. Of course, you know that dogs do not have sex with the intention of procreation, so that having sex is purely a response to their sexual urges and it is entirely 'fortuitous' if it results in procreation. Therefore you want to say that they are radically different. But they are not. All living things derive from a common source, as Darwin and others have clearly established.

In primitive times we too did not know that sex caused procreation. We did it for enjoyment! Clearly, for us too it was natural to indulge in something which was a pleasurable thing in itself. Religious prohibitions restrict this basic instinct and, as I say, create guilt and unhappiness as a result.

There are a number of circumstances which your restrictive view of sex does not address and indeed they render it absurd. Here are a few:

1. The world is overpopulated. To suggest that sex is primarily for procreation is arguably immoral in an overcrowded world.

2. We can fertilise an ovum in a test tube without sexual intercourse? Is this 'wrong'?

3. Should couples refrain from sex during pregnancy?

4. Should married couples who cannot conceive refrain from sex altogether?

5. Should women over 50 refrain from sex, since they are unlikely to conceive?

6. Is masturbation wrong?

7. Should married couples refrain from using condoms?

When will the world learn...*sigh* some times I just wonder.

Sam

Can I reply to gveale. You are right, I do not know you, in fact I've never written to you here before either. If I sound like I "know" people when they make anti-gay statements laced with Christian language, it's because I used to make those statements myself. I understand, because I understood in the past, that people wish to make those statements while feeling loving and compassionate. I merely suggest that it is a self-delusion. You may think you are not hurting people, but you are. And I don't simply mean that you are offending people. I am not worried about personal offence, I can take care of myself. I am worried about the young gay people who are taking their own lives or experiencing severe depression as a consequence of a culture that is anti-gay. That culture is created and sustained by anti-gay religion more than any other factors. Those who make their arguments, use the anti-gay language, perpetuate that culture of rejection are partly responsible for the hurt and harm caused to many young gay people who have attempted suicide, or, tragically, succeeded in their attempt. Please give thought to the consequences of your speech and actions. One day, like me, you may wake up to this and utterly regret what you have done. One day your children will look at you shamefully, in the way children and grandchildren today look at parents who have expressed racists views for religious reasons.

Christian anti-gay people seem to think we should give them more space for their views or describe their views as a respectful state of mind merely because their views are based on their reading of the Bible. There are many racists who read the Bible and make religious arguments for that shameful view. There are sexists who find a Biblical defense for their misogynistic views. All these views are shameful and hurtful and lead to a culture of discrimination. The Bible needs to be rescued from the racists, sexists and homophobes who have no interest in reading the text intelligently, responsibly and with the guidance of modern science.

During the 1980's in her infamous 'Sermon on the Mound', Mrs Thatcher arrogantly told clergy to stay out of politics and concentrate on matters of morality. (The backdrop happened to be matters like churches verbalising opposition to the imposition of the infamous Poll Tax and more specifically its imposition on the Scottish people one year before it was imposed on anyone else in the UK. It was seen as punishment on Scotland for not voting Conservative.)
Since that time we have watched hundreds of clergymen being dragged through courts charged with sexually abusing minors, church leaders such as Bishop Casey and Bishop Roddy Wright being exposed for fathering children and numerous others like Cardinal Law of Boston standing accused of allegedly covering up for clergy 'misdemeanors.'
I have long since arrived at the conclusion that Mrs Thatcher, as usual, got it absolutely wrong. Clergy should keep very quiet with regard to moral matters - especially sexual morality - and involve themselves far more actively and vocally on matters of politics, especially with regard to themes such as peace, justice, equality etc...
As one ordinary, church attending Catholic once stated to me, "No longer will a wee man in a black frock get to tell me what I can and cannot do in the privacy of my own bedroom."
Here, here! I say, especially when the wee man in the black frock bases his 'teaching' solely on sporadic scripture texts often elevated out of context (as can be seen frequently on this site.)
One doesnt need a particularly thick magnifying glass to arrive at a fairly accurate conclusion as to what Jesus taught about, hypocrasy, double standards, corruption, poverty, exploitation, judging others harshly, lack of mercy etc... etc... etc... You do need one to search for what he has to say about sexual indiscretions.
In one of the few texts where Jesus is asked about adultery (the Pharisees are deliberately trying to discredit him. Remember, if he doesnt condem the poor woman he is guilty of not following the law. If he does condem her he will be seen as lacking in mercy), Jesus' response is "Let he who is without sin....." It is fairly conclusive.
It didnt take long for someone to get in there with the old chestnut "But he did say go away and sin no more!!" Pastor Philip!! (Post#2!!) when that is clearly not Jesus' emphasis - but they use it all the time to justify their own deep seated condemnatory attitude towards 'sinners' and to let themselves off the hook.
Bottom line, if Christian churches want to condemn people on matters of perceived sexual indiscretions, the texts are there, if one searches hard enough for them. But was it a matter which passionately consumed Jesus' thoughts and teachings?
Absolutely not!

Romejelly bean, I think you've hit the nail pretty much on the head there.

Long gone are the days when the church could demand obedience to its views of morality, and that is a good thing.

however, I think there is a slightly different element to this issue.

Condemning is wrong, and you are right to quote "let he who is sinless cast the first stone"

But isn't this about the right to hold an opinion on sexual morality, rather than the right to enforce it?

I totally agree that sexual morality is far from the most pressing moral issue that the Church should be concerned with...that is quite clear in the Gospels. If Jesus' life had a multitude of purposes, i would say that defining sexual morality and condemning its transgressions is very close to the bottom of the list.

However, don't we have a right, having taken a considered view, to hold a moral opinion on the issue.

It should by no means be top of the agenda, and it is by no means a particularly important part of the Gospel of Christ.

But when discussing the issue and attempting to take a considered view, aren't we entitled to say, in the last analysis, that it may well be immoral?

That does not mean that we should devote our lives to that view, or feel obliged to preach it, using offensive language.

But if, for example, our children were to ask us about it, in a spirit of genuine inquiry, shouldn't we be entitled in full conscience to hold the view that it is immoral, and to explain that view if asked?

This DOES NOT neccessarily imply hatemongering, hypocrisy, or self-righteousness. It's a simple moral inquiry, like the hungry child stealing a loaf of bread.

Modest Proposal, Rome Jelly Bean, Brian


I would like to add a few thoughts to others' comments so far please.


1) Sex was not created primarily for procreation.

I see Brian McClinton has been making hay out of the argument that sex was created for procreation.
Actually the bible does not say that sex was primarily creatd for procreation at all.

In Genesis 2 it is clear that God creates woman from man as a complimentary companion for Adam. None of the English translations do justice to the excitement revealed by Adam when he sees Eve naked in front of him for the very first time. But the entire context of the creation of marriage in Genesis 2 is about companionship, not procreation. You can read in the next chapter from God's conversation that procreation is assumed to be a part of their relationship, but the creation of marriage was explicitly and primarily for complimentary companionship. I must restate the obvious here and point out that male and female bodies are designed for each other sexually AND for procreation whereas this is not the case for same sex intercourse, that is, if you believe that God created mankind. But marriage was clearly primarily created for complimentary emotional and spiritual companionship.

Also Brian, you do come out with some crackers, such as the idea that all monotheistic religions see sex as evil etc. I dont understand you Brian, you are too intelligent to believe so much of what you say, so what is going on in your mind. Are you just trying to be provocative or do you hope that you will convince a certain category of the audience who just don't know any better?

The bible is clear that sex is a good and perfect gift. Only our sinful natures twist it away from communion between man and wife. In Genesis 1:31 God looks over all his creation, including the sexual relationship between man and woman, and says "it was excellent in every way" NLT. Song of Songs is a celebration of sex within heterosexual marriage. Proverbs 31 says that "he who finds a wife findeth a good thing"and Proverbs 5 uses striking sexual imagery to encourage sex within marriage. Paul warns in 1 Cor 6:5 for the husband and wife not to deprive each other of sex. In verse 7 he says marriage is a gift from God.
William, you really should have Brian on the radio more often for he is fantastic value! The last time he came out strongly in favour of incest which caused not a few complaints from the humanist community.


2) The story of Sodom has nothing to say about long term gay relationships?
This argument is serious misdirection because life-long physical monogamy is such a rare thing in gay culture. A friend of mine who came out of a gay lifestyle to marry and have children says: "Physical monogamy in gay culture is a very, very rare thing indeed". Bell and Weinberg, in Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (1978), found three times as many gay men lived actively promiscuous lifestyles as were in monogamous relationships ie not lifelong committed relationships.
I note some very perceptive comments from Graham and others here asking why Ekklesia and others advocate gay relationships of the long term committed kind. But why indeed should they be committed and for how long? From my understanding the concept of lifelong monogamy comes directly from the Judeo Christian scriptures on marriage and nowhere else. So why nod weakly in the direction of one part of the bible's teaching on marriage and arbitrarily reject the other? Why indeed should we not simply endorse any and all forms of open relationship and group sex, so long as it is among consenting adults. Indeed, why set an age of consent at all (perhaps the next big sexual taboo to be discussed in mainstream discourse). Is the aim perhaps to convince the heterosexual community that such relationships are a mirror image of marriage in order to gain popular support among those who do not scrutinise the facts? So, the story of Sodom has nothing to say about lifelong physical monogamy in gay culture because such a thing is so vanishingly rare.


3) ref the tone of Peter Morrow
I think you are making an exemplary presentation of how the church is required to demonstrate both grace and truth on this matter, especially with your tone. I once had to repeatedly defend a colleague from homophobic jibes in the workplace, with none of my non-Christian colleagues having the slightest interest in getting involved. The victim of the jibes at a later date turned on me for being Christian and in particular for lobbying for persecuted Christians overseas, during an open office debate. Why did I only lobby for Christians he snarled? It appeared he had never thought of doing any lobbying himself mind you, but I bear him no ill will and would do it all again.


4) The character of God is ignored by homosexuality advocates
This debate seems to miss entirely the character of God throughout scripture. From start to finish God is characterised as gracious, searingly holy, incredibly patient, dedicated to mankind's welfare in love to such an extent as complete personal sacrifice and also, ultimately, completely ruthless in his dealings with sin. Completely aside from any mention of sex in scripture, the pro-homosexuality lobby on this thread seem to entirely miss this point. When the absolute gravity of sin, the command to live holy lives in all respects, the need for compassion AND truth of the highest order (even for 'enemies'), the availability of God's forgiveness and grace...the command to repent...when these things ie the message of the fall of man and God's rescue plan of love put in place since before the foundation of the earth...when these issues are obviously not central to the thinking of a 'Christian' argument, then I am sorry but it is not a Christian argument at all. Christian means disciple of Christ after all. I am not even talking about homosexuality here at all but rather the fact that the pro-homosexual arguments on this blog are obviously shot through with an ambiguous view of the sin nature, holiness and the need for and means of salvation from the sin nature. There is no hint of awe at the holiness of God revealed in scripture. We all, many of the professing mainstream church too, want to embrace the gentle Jesus meek and mild, but what about the Christ that said he would tell many people on judgement day to depart from him forever or the Christ that said that most people would choose the broad road to destruction? Or the Christ that said "no man comes to the Father but through me"? The spirit of these radical new "Christian" arguments is exactly the opposite of what Paul called for ie he said we should not conform to this world but be transformed by the renewing of our minds. The radical new arguments have no precedent in the church but are common currency in common culture.


5) A Modest Proposal - questions.
Thanks again for taking part in the discussion. I appreciate you appear to have experienced unacceptable treatment from churches and Christians. If I may ask, sorry if you have already said, have you had an experience of God where you have submitted homosexual feelings to him as sin? Have you experienced time when you did not feel bound to such feelings in this context? If so, how do you now dismiss such a period as an illegitimate experience of God's grace and holiness? I am not talking down to you here BTW, for me this experience is normal for all Christians.
If not, is it fair to judge those that have in absolute terms? Obviously you are entitled to your views and it is good to have you express them here honestly, but how do you argue that your view is more valid than that of a Christian who is fighting homosexual feelings with the support of God and the church? True Freedom Trust says there is a massive constituency of people with homosexual feelings in the church who are adamant that homosexual practise is sin. It does seem a bit arrogant to dismiss the sincerely held views of such Christians as invalid and effectively brainwashed without a good explanation. Are the experiences, integrity and intelligence of every one of such people to be so easily swept aside as delusions? Why?



6) Is discrimination against homosexual practise the same as discrimination against race and disability?
This argument is wheeled out frequently today in the media but is it valid? The key question is, are they fair comparisons? No. People are born of particular races and with disabilities and cannot change these factors. But the evidence does not support an argument that people are born gay or that are powerless to change sexuality. The immense body of professional research on the subject from the 20th century suggests that a major factor in causing homosexuality is impaired or incomplete relationships with parents eg see work by Irving Bieber. This research work also cites huge volumes of people who changed sexuality through therapy. See peoplecanchange.com (a non religious website).
This massive body of research work over some 80 years is now commonly ignored, slandered, smeared and or rejected BUT NEVER REFUTED. The key question for those that would equate homosexuality with disability and race issues ie this - what causes homosexuality? The main answer I have been given in this context to date has been "I don't know and I don't care" but this is no answer at all and confirms the view that homosexuality is in no way akin to race or disability.
The evidence that homosexuality it primarily caused by genes or hormones is not convincing at all and roundly rejected by Peter Tatchell for example. People can and do change their sexuality, as confirmed by Alfred Kinsey and Andy Comiskey; Unwanted homosexuality is still a recognised psychiatric condition which by professional ethical standards demands counselling in any respectable client directed context around the world.
It is also frequently overlooked that many people from disabled and ethnic backgrounds (regardless of thier religious views) will firmly reject their position being equated with homosexual practise.


A pat on the back to anyone who read all that!

;-)

OT

Rome Jelly Bean

I dont get the impression that any of the Christians here are posting from a self righteous position, but rather from the righteousness of Christ, all to aware of their own failings and frailty.

Is the church really to ignore all sin in its midst and pretend it is not there?


I dont think the Christians here are looking for chances to condemn anyone but rather defending the historical faith and also reaching out the hand of honest and gracious dialogue to those that strongly disagree.

Is it possible you are projecting past experiences on to people on this thread? Do you allow them to disagree with you respectfully?

OT

OT

I am afraid I gradually lost the will to live after reading your loonnnggg post.

However in the first part you go on about Adam and Eve, this is of course a silly myth and obviously not meant to be taken seriously. I really don't know why you keep going on about your 'god' when you gave us empirical evidence that your god doesn't exist.

You do seem to have an unnatural obsession with all things gay.

OT
Two points:
1. People are protected against discrimination on the basis of religion. Religion can change.
2. As I said earlier, the men of Sodom weren't wanting to romantically love the visitors. They wanted to rape them. But, if they only wanted men, why did Lot offer his daughters? (You could argue that they did want the men by their rejection of Lot's offer. However, they themselves stated that they were upset over Lot's judging over them- not of his offer of females.) In the parallel story of Gibeah in Judges 19, the men of Gibeah also wanted to rape the visitors. (And, unlike Sodom, they didn't get upset at the visitors offering someone else. They freely used and abused (to the point of death) the Levite's concubine.) IMHO, the story of Sodom isn't about Homosexual love or lust. (Or, for that matter, the modern "inhospitability".) It's lust for power. (See the references to Sodom later in the Old Testament, which make it clear that Sodom's sins included lust for power.)

To make my post clearer, my statement was that Sodomy is a misguided term for homosexuality. Further, one can condemn homosexuality from the Bible without even referencing Sodom. (One could make a similar argument that "Onanism" is a misnomer as well- Onan only got punished for keeping his brother's wife from having a son in his brother's name, not just...you know what...)

Thanks Orville

I dont understand your 1st point. I take it you are implying that sexuality cant (or should not be expected to) change while religion can change.

If so I would suggest that Jeremy Marks is free to change his religion but why after 4000 years should you expect the entire world of Christian believers should revolve around his radical new views?

Are we saying we are advocating an end to freedom of conscience and religion on this matter?


Ref Sodom, again not sure of your point. You are certainly not refuting the point I was making when I referred to it, above, ref promiscuity.

To me the story of Sodom is not a condemnation of homoseuxuality but a condemnation of a city sold out to sin in all its forms (including abuse of power) and this is the only real way to reconcile all scripture says about Sodom.

Scripture does condemn Sodom for pride and oppression of the poor, yes, but the Genesis account and the book of Jude make it 100% clear that the city was also sold out to sexual sin too;-

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1608&t=KJV

Christ uses a variation of the same term here, the greek for which includes a condemnation of many sexual practises, including homosexuality;-

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV


Perhaps the key point in this discussion is not the detail of what the Sodom story tells us but what it doesnt tell us. It does not affirm any form of sexual relationship outside of heterosexual marriage.

In fact, every single mention of homosexual practise in scripture is strongly negative.

And more importantly, the companionship designed for man in Genesis was with woman.

I am not saying this to try and close the debate, but rather to affirm that I dont think you have made a strong argument against these points.

The fact that the term Sodomy can be used misleadingly I dont contest, but rather I state that i dont think it advances one side of the argument or the other.

You certainly make some valid points but I repeat, I dont think they actually really advance any particular argument.

Interesting chat though, cheers

OT

(With reference to #76 on the Jeremy Marks thread....)

Here's a little intellectual exercise which some people might find helpful (although I anticipate that if our friend OT reads this those in his/her vicinity may hear a loud, frustrated and painful groan!).

Imagine that you are a defence attorney and, because of the nature of your job you are required to defend in court a position that you feel you do not altogether agree with. But it is incumbent on you to think up some defence arguments as best you can. Such an exercise may for some people seem rather corrupt, but I would suggest the opposite. You may find that you see aspects of the case in a completely different light from before. It may challenge some deeply held prejudices and assumptions. It would certainly concentrate the mind!

Now my understanding of justice is that you reach a verdict and pass sentence after the case has been properly heard. And both the arguments for the prosecution and for the defence are to be heard in equal time and measure. Forgive me if I have misunderstood the concept of justice, but I always thought that reaching a verdict before hearing the case was a "pre-judgment" (a.k.a. prejudice). I know the "original sin and guilt" brigade have a radically different understanding of justice to me (in which people are condemned for something over which they have no control), but I am of the view that Christian justice should not in fact be based on "pre-justice" (prejudice).

That is why I am interested in considering the case for the defence as far as homosexuality and the Bible is concerned. OT has stated (#76, Jeremy Marks thread) concerning my position: "You appear to be in a position where you are asking people to suspend judgment and to examine new interpretations of scripture and this appears to be your own position at the moment."

I make absolutely no apology for this. I am not asking people to "suspend judgement" but to "use their judgment"!!

Because of the command in Proverbs 4:7 ("with all your getting, get understanding"), each generation has to read the Bible for themselves. If we believe in a God whose name is "I AM" (not "I WAS"), then it cannot be right to simply hand over our minds and consciences to our supposed "betters" from previous generations (if indeed they were better! I sometimes have my doubts!). The case has be evaluated afresh by each generation, while respecting and also assessing what has gone before, otherwise each generation is deemed to be somehow less privileged than the last, since it has less justification to think for itself. I resent the idea that I am not allowed to seek understanding, because such-and-such supposed "giant of the faith" from the sixteenth century has done all my thinking for me!

That is not freedom in Christ; that is tyranny. Furthermore, it is interesting how evangelicals often criticise the Catholic concept of magisterium (and I am not defending it either) with reference to the "sola scriptura" principle. But when someone comes along and actually appeals to "sola scriptura" and then suggests that we should listen to those who interpret the Bible differently (and who appeal to biblical evidence) and if such an interpretation is not to the liking of the evangelical constituency, that person is then condemned according to what is in reality "the evangelical magisterium".
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways!

I may pen some more thoughts about Romans 1 and homosexuality later (or I may not - depending on how I feel!)

logica_sine_vanitate

I know that I shall regret these comments in the morning, :-) but just now, I am in a foul mood, /-( and can only hope that you will extend to me your forgiveness ahead of my repentance. ;-)

These comments have nothing to do with the topic of either this thread or the 'Jeremy Marks' one but I can't help noticing that you keep on having, and expressing, a view of original sin and Reformed Christianity in general. I won't quote much of what you said, I'm sure you know what you said, but this is the 'biggy', you said,

"I believe that the judgment of God will be based on the reality of people's hearts - what people really are at the deepest level..."

The reality of my heart? Well I might as well just go right on ahead and lie down and die now, cos my heart's as dark as a dark thing. It's expressing itself right now, in sarcasm, (and sarcasm is only the tip of the iceberg), I'm speaking out of the fullness of it and am only holding back for fear of being moderated, (so there's deceit)

Here's the thing, you seem perfectly happy with our "deliberate conscious choice", but not God's deliberate conscious choice.

I was once a Pelagian too ;-) but one day I bumped into me.

(Otherwise you say some interesting useful things - that wasn't repentance by the way!)

And with that I'm off the purge the irritations of the day.
:-)

I should also say that I don't usually use as many smileys.

Peter

Peter,

All I am saying is that I cannot understand how people can believe that any person deserves the judgment of God as a result of being born into a fallen world, since no one chose to be born into a fallen world. I am not denying our need for God's grace. I believe God's grace is extended to all people in some way or other, and that we all have a choice as to whether to accept that GIFT or reject it. I do not believe in "salvation by good works".

But if perhaps some people think my views are off-topic please understand that Westboro Baptist Church are driven by a theology of a God of hate, who "has it in for some people" - the doctrine of reprobation, which is based on the belief that some people deserve hell simply because of the moral state they were born in - and God chooses to withhold his grace from them. I believe that that is unjust. This theology of God's hatred and injustice is then the theological basis for their obnoxious attitude towards gays. I am not saying that a belief that homosexuality is wrong is, in itself, "hate" (that's patently ridiculous), but WBC clearly are driven by a deep theology of hatred - and where does this come from? And what theology do they use to rationalise it?

You may disagree with my view, but if I have no right express this then I suggest the BBC shuts down "Will and Testament" without any further ado.

All the best,

Al (aka LSV)

Several people have wondered what I believe.

Here is a quote from the Bible translator, J B Phillips, which expresses my position far better than I could:

"In Christian circles we must see that what purports to be the Christian Gospel is always, and in the best sense, Good News. It is not good news, for example, for a man to be told that he is a hell-deserving sinner; but it is good news for him to be told that he need no longer feel guilty and afraid towards God, and can begin here and now to live as God's son. The stimulation of the guilt-sense in sensitive people can never be the proclamation of good news; and neither can the attempt to perpetuate an image of God who is either Church-bound or Bible-bound, or both. Such distortions cause untold damage to the human spirit, and create a dozen rebels for every convert. A great many people repudiate what has been put before them as the Christian gospel; they have never been able to see how good is the true Good News.

"Reduced to its simplest possible terms the Good News is simply that God is Love. And this statement, although it sounds like a wild over-simplification, is in fact the enormously compressed kernel of all truth."

From: Good News: Thoughts on God and Man, J B Phillips: 1963.

He goes on to expand on this throughout the book, but this is it in a nutshell.

Al - not sure you will want my endorsement but I agree totally with everything Phillips said there.

I would perhaps go further than you do in post # 51 and would not hesitate to say that people of Westboro Baptist church are demon possessed:they are inhabited by evil, they worship Satan but call him Jesus. They pervert the gospel of Christ and profane the name of God.

I am pleased you are arguing the points you do - I am an absolute believer in personal freedom: freedom of thought, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.

I defended the right of Peter's church to hold its conservative theology and act accordingly just I would defend the rights of racists to meet together in the Ku Klux Klan, just as I would defend the rights of misogynists to refuse the supervision of women bishops , just as I would defend the right of the greedy, the selfish and the aspirational to join the Tory party.

I do, however, deny all those positions, I strenuously oppose them in every way I can, I roundly and unequivocally condemn them, and I work to diminish their appeal and confound their purposes.

OT (44):

1. I am not greatly concerned about what it says in the Bible about sex, because most of it is a work of fiction, some of it cruel and nasty. But what does concern me is the use that some people make of it to impose their narrow and unloving view of sexuality on other people. I do know from what I have read that Christians disagree on many points of interpretation, including sex, yet insist that their reading is the only true one. In Leviticus ALL sexual acts are unclean. This book also associates sex, the female body and disease. Menstruation is called a sickness. Of course, it's all nonsense, but dangerous nonsense because some people actually still believe it.

2. The idea that 'God creates woman from man as a complimentary companion' is absolute trash. Like Leviticus, it reflects the patriarchy of those who wrote it.

3. You keep referring to incest in my connection. Incest is legal in many countries including France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Japan and Israel. So stop making it appear that the idea is somehow 'weird'. It isn't. Perhaps it seems weird in a place like Ireland which is hardly the acme of morality. Also, some humanists agree with me and others don't. So what? We are freethinkers.

4. Your reference to Kinsey is interesting, for of course it was Kinsey among others who suggested that few people are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual but that the 'living world is a continuum'. On his scale 0 was exclusively heterosexual and 6 was exclusively homosexual. The majority of the human race, in his experience, fell between 1 and 5 (as much as 75%, according to some studies). This schemata isn't really allowed for in your narrow, certain and censorious biblical universe.

Al (LSV)

Good morning. I am in better form, although not quite yet repentant!

Thank you for your reply, a couple of points of clarification.

When I wrote, "These comments have nothing to do with the topic of...", I meant, 'These comments of mine..., I apologise for my poor communication.

Second I have no desire to prevent you from expressing your views. I quite enjoy reading them. That's what the blog is for.


I understand your concern at the demonstrative hatred of Westboro, I share it, although I am not convinced that Christian hatred, or to use a softer term self-righteousness, emanates from only one doctrine.

I have heard many 'Arminian' Christians beat others up by telling them they needed more commitment and zeal. I know of a minister who regularly tells his congregation that he has left them with no excuse having explained the gospel to them. In effect what is being said is, "If only you did what I have done, then..." Likewise there are 'Calvinists' who appear to arrogantly assume themselves to be among the elect.

Unfortunately we Christians are good at finger-pointing, we appear to have forged a name for ourselves in this regard. Too many of us are also happy to speak casually of hell, funny how it's everyone else who is going there, yet not us. Earlier on this thread, a_modest_proposal was concerned that consistency on my part would damn him to hell. But I do not apply my consistency to him, I am not his judge, I apply it to me. In the end the righteous judge might redeem him and damn me to a hell of the reality of my own cynical heart (I don't understand hell in terms of burning sulphur pits).

But after all that, theological words aren't really worth all the time and effort if I am only using them to justify me, maybe however I am guilty as charged!

I see no reason to disagree with the words of J B Philips.

Regards

Peter

Portwyne

Sorry for the double post, I forgot to add this to the last one.

I have yet to notice any 'white robes' in church, no one appears to wear them, not even the choir!

Peter - sometimes I am given to what the Apostle James called a superfluity of naughtiness! ;-)

It's usually to provoke a thought at least though...

Al/LSV

Thanks for your thoughts in 49.
I can assure you they did not in any way provoke any frustration, pain or groaning. This blog is supposed to be all about free speech and debate, within the bounds of the house rules of course. I concur with Portwyne 100% on this.

I also agree with you 100% about pre-judging the case.

I am glad we appear to be reaching some sort of understanding, which is of course distinct from agreement.

I think it would be very helpful if you discarded the notion that I am in any way hostile to you or frustrated by you. I’m not. I certainly do debate vigorously and will attack ideas I disagree with though.

You say you are not asking me to suspend judgement but to use judgment.
My response to that is that I believe I have heard pretty much all the arguments for the opposition and believe I have taken them into account. I feel I understand both sides of the argument for every facet of this discussion. I reject any suggestion of prejudgement or prejudice.
In fact this would be more true of my opponents who throw constant ad hominens but are clearly unable to intelligently discuss the facts.

I feel fully justified in drawing conclusions therefore but I assure you my mind is not closed.
If someone presents me with new evidence I will be glad to consider it. But I make no apology for having a bias towards traditional mainstream Christianity.

I believe that the challenge for you is that you will have to draw a conclusion eventually, event an interim one and I do not perceive that you have done so, but perhaps you will correct me.

I believe I have given at some length a rigorous explanation for how all the arguments and evidence in this debate are in harmony with traditional views.

I contend that my opponents are majoring on ad hominems but are not really trying to refute my arguments at all.

I will certainly agree with JB Phillips 100%. Perhaps where we have differed is that I have treated this thread primarily as a discussion about the doctrinal issue of homosexuality where your emphasis appears to be on majoring on the love and grace of God. I see no conflict between those positions and I think I do feel rebuked that I have perhaps been guilty of on occasion of unconsciously treating this as an academic debate when there will doubtless be people reading for whom the topic is a very raw issue.

In my defence I have repeatedly linked to both Christian and secular minisitries that offer practical help to people in despair. Ie www.desertstream.org and www.peoplecanchange.com

With this in mind I was reading 1 John this morning. To me the message is;-
1) All have a sin nature
2) All sincere Christians WILL fall into sin
3) God will freely forgive us every time.

A preacher once said to me the key point for God in this book was whether we were walking towards our Father or away from him. So that means that God is not looking for the chance to pounce on us for sin but rather he is so happy when we are walking towards him and becoming more like him, and even if we occasionally fall into sin, it is the progress and the motive that counts. I appreciate that may be crude but I think it is consistent with what we would expect of a loving Father. In practise, removing situations which encourage sin, meditating on the word, passionate prayer and worship and a disciplined productive life are all helps in this regard to transforming our minds, as Paul put it.

From 1 John 3;-


9No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and [h]habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him [His principle of life, the divine sperm, remains permanently within him]; and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God………….


From 1 John 5;-
18We know [absolutely] that anyone born of God does not [deliberately and knowingly] practice committing sin, but the One Who was begotten of God carefully watches over and protects him [Christ's divine presence within him preserves him against the evil], and the wicked one does not lay hold (get a grip) on him or touch [him].



From 1 John chapters 1&2
8If we say we have no sin [refusing to admit that we are sinners], we delude and lead ourselves astray, and the Truth [which the Gospel presents] is not in us [does not dwell in our hearts].
9If we [freely] admit that we have sinned and confess our sins, He is faithful and just (true to His own nature and promises) and will forgive our sins [dismiss our lawlessness] and [continuously] cleanse us from all unrighteousness [everything not in conformity to His will in purpose, thought, and action].
10If we say (claim) we have not sinned, we contradict His Word and make Him out to be false and a liar, and His Word is not in us [the divine message of the Gospel is not in our hearts].
1MY LITTLE children, I write you these things so that you may not violate God's law and sin. But if anyone should sin, we have an Advocate (One Who will intercede for us) with the Father--[it is] Jesus Christ [the all] righteous [upright, just, Who conforms to the Father's will in every purpose, thought, and action].
2And He [[a]that same Jesus Himself] is the propitiation (the atoning sacrifice) for our sins, and not for ours alone but also for [the sins of] the whole world.




Attn Brian
Why do you persist in exaggerating and misapprehending people’s views? I just can’t understand you.


For example, you say in Leviticus that ALL sexual acts are unclean. But Leviticus NOWHERE suggests that heterosexual sex within marriage is unclean. You are talking nonsense.
As for Kinsey, I see no conflict at all with his views and mine in the points you raise.


Sincerely
OT

Warning: this is a very loooooooooooong post!! I'm sorry, but I have to put my point of view clearly. I've split it into three.

Here are some thoughts about Romans chapter one (which I said I would share), with particular reference to homosexuality (and some readers may be pleased to know that this post does not mention anything about original sin and related subjects!).

I will sometimes refer to homosexual practice as "sin" (using inverted commas). I hope that this will not present a barrier to anyone reading this, but, it is purely for the sake of the argument. Let's see where logic leads us. I take as my starting-point the assumption that the Bible is true. I know that some people reject that idea, but at least respect my right to investigate the internal content of the Bible on the basis of that presupposition.

Romans 1:18-32 describes a process of moral degeneration. Verse 18 begins this section with the phrase: "...the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men..." It does not specify any particular group of "men" (or "people") - e.g. Gentiles - so I assume that Paul is referring to the human race in general.

At the end of this section (verses 29-31) Paul lists those sins which characterise "the debased mind" (v. 28), which is the end result of moral decay. Those overlapping sins encompass all manifestations of evil: unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness etc etc... But there is one form of "sin", which Paul has singled out - and that is homosexual practice in verses 26-27. Verses 23-25 describe idolatry, and then it says: "for this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women... etc ..." and then the mention of homosexuality.

Now I find this passage quite odd, to be honest, for the following reason: since Paul is speaking in general terms about the human race, it seems strange that he should focus on a "sin" which only concerns a minority of people.

Perhaps some may argue that Paul mentions homosexual acts here, because, even though performed by a minority, they are representative of the idolatrous mind-set. Homosexuality is then viewed as the epitome of idolatry. If that is the case, then it seems astonishing that Jesus was silent about it during his ministry, and, in fact, there are only a very few verses in the entire Bible dealing with this issue. It is clear from the ministry of Jesus that sexual sins - although serious - are nowhere near as serious as, for example, self-righteousness, hypocrisy and the abuse of the law to control the lives of others. In fact, in Matthew 23:35 Jesus pins on the scribes and Pharisees "all the righteous blood shed on the earth". It was their attitudes which characterised evil more than anything else, and you could hardly charge the Pharisees with homosexuality!! So therefore it is hard to see, from the biblical record, how homosexuality could possibly be the supreme example or epitome of idolatry.

Since most people are not homosexuals, and since, as I have argued, this "sin" cannot be seen as the epitome of idolatry, one has to wonder what Paul was getting at in this chapter. By singling out homosexuality Paul seems to be presenting a very confusing argument, and it is not surprising that there are some Christians who seem to view this issue as more important than any other - with WBC being an extreme example of this.

to be continued...

...continued from my previous post

Let's apply some rules of logic to try to make sense of this problem (and when I use the word "idolatry" I am including the whole idea of rebellion against God in general terms):

The cause "idolatry" (X) leads to the effect "homosexual practice" (Y). Is X a necessary condition of Y, a sufficient condition of Y, both or neither? Let's list the possibilities:

1. If X is only a necessary condition of Y, then Y cannot occur without X. But X does not always lead to Y.

2. If X is only a sufficient condition of Y, then X always leads to Y. But Y can sometimes occur without X.

3. If X is both a necessary and sufficient condition of Y, then X always leads to Y, and Y can never exist without X.

4. If X is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of Y, X can still be a cause of Y, but not invariably, and Y can exist without X.

The more conservative position concerning homosexuality is based on #1. This is that homosexuality cannot exist outside of some form of idolatry (rebellion against God to some degree).

#2 states that idolatry always leads to homosexual practice, but this is absurd from a biblical point of view. Are all evil people, who are mentioned in the Bible, gay? Of course not! This then shows that #3 above cannot be true either, since that also includes the idea of X as a sufficient condition of Y.

#4 is also a logical possibility. It is possible that idolatry can lead to homosexual practices in certain contexts. But it does not therefore mean that idolatry must always lead to such practices, nor does it mean that all such practices are dependent on idolatry.

A less conservative view would plump for #4, which is my position. This is just as logical as #1.

It is clear that some form of homosexuality is the result of idolatry, if we accept the truth of what Paul is saying. So therefore X can cause Y. We know from the rest of the Bible that X can exist without Y. But the really key question is: can Y ever exist without X? Can homosexuality ever exist without the cause or condition of idolatry (rebellion against God)? If that is the case, then there may be certain forms of homosexuality, which operate within a certain context, which we, as Bible-believing Christians, should accept. After all, Romans 1:26-27 is a description of what some people do in a certain context - it is not phrased as a law or general prohibition (why did God not simply fill the Bible with lists of "Thou shalt not..."?)

Is Paul writing about a specific form of homosexuality, or just homosexuality in general?

to be continued...

...continued from my previous post

Now I accept that some Christians will not agree with my conclusion. But I believe that the morality of the Bible has to applied within the context of real, messy and complicated situations (as I have argued elsewhere), rather than morality being detached from real-life situations and being imposed idealistically. As I have argued elsewhere, there are moral dilemmas in life and some of these are described in the Bible.

I acknowledge that the biblical understanding of sexuality is based on the marriage (life-long faithful relationship) of two people of the opposite sex. That is the biblical ideal, rooted in the creation story (and I am not getting into a debate about Genesis 2, but simply looking at it from a doctrinal point of view). Romans 1 describes a situation in which the "natural" order is subverted and one effect of this is that some people deliberately reject this sexual "ideal" and then engage in that which is contrary to it. But note that these are people who have undergone moral degeneration through their own choice and as a result have rejected God's sexual ideal. This is the context. We are talking here about genuine heterosexuals deliberately engaging in promiscuous homosexual activity.

But what about those individuals who were never heterosexuals (either at all or in their real sense of sexual orientation)? Who never depart from "what is natural", because it was never their nature anyway? Now this, of course, comes back to how we understand the concept of "nature" or "against nature" (para phusin), which I have mentioned elsewhere. Paul's use of the word "phusis" and the phrase "para phusin" is ambiguous - see Romans 11:24 (in which God does something "para phusin") and 1 Corinthians 11:14 (where long hair for a man cannot be "against nature", since nature dictates that hair grows). "Nature" can refer to "the natural order", but also something more specific such as a "custom" relating to a particular context. So it is not being perverse to suggest that Romans 1:26-27 does not include those who have a deeply ingrained homosexual orientation, and therefore who have never had a "nature" - a "phusis" - of heterosexuality, from which they could ever depart, as a result of moral degeneration.

It seems to me that the weight of argument in the Bible does indeed uphold what is often termed "the traditional Christian view of sexuality". However, since the Bible itself acknowledges moral grey areas (as I have argued), and since there is biblical evidence to support a less comprehensive view of homosexuality in verses 26-27 (due to the ambiguity of the term "nature"), then I am of the view that there is a certain latitude in the text to allow for a certain form of homosexuality, which is not promiscuous, but which concerns those people who genuinely (and they know their own hearts) believe that that is their sexual orientation. The realism of the Bible tells us that we should then show mercy and understanding to such people, and not conduct campaigns against them (as has been the case in the denomination of which I am a member - the C of E).

I know my position will not satisfy some people, and I may be regarded as too "liberal" for some - and perhaps far too conservative for others. But that is how I read the Bible, having tried to weigh up all the evidence.

I also conclude, therefore, that the Bible, on balance, is not a homophobic book, but it is against abusive and promiscuous forms of sexuality. How one defines "abusive and promiscuous forms of sexuality" is a discussion for another time.

Further to my last few posts - here is an extremely insightful article about Romans 1, which is well worth a read:

https://www.courage.org.uk/articles/Romans1.shtml

It appears to answer a question I asked in my previous contribution.

Al, LSV out of time but will come back to you after reading your thoughts.

shalom

OT

OT, My first point was misunderstood by you. What I meant was that even if sexual orientation can be changed (I'm inclined to believe it can be, under many circumstances) this doesn't necessitate its removal from legal protection. People can change religious beliefs, but should be protected from employment or similar discrimination for said beliefs. The same should apply for sexual orientation, IMHO.
(Of course, in regards to marriage, religions can and do discriminate against homosexuals (and others), but religious marriage by a specific denomination isn't a right...)

You do raise good points in your second statement. Same-sex relationships aren't looked on with praise in scripture. I may not agree with all your interpretation, but I am glad you do hear mine, and you do raise some very valid and unobjectionable points. (We do use the same bible version, incidentally...)

And, I'm sure all those of us here would firmly disagree with Westboro in their belief that homosexuality is the unpardonable sin. (Unless you count Chesterton's statement that the unpardonable sin is not wishing to be pardoned...)

Al, LSV

sorry for delay in coming back. no excuse really but the xs and ys did scare me as it reminded me of algebra in school!!

Anyways...

I think you need to continue your argument you are only half done; if homosexulity is possible aside from rebellion against God them please demonstrate this from scripture, which would be the natural conclusion of your argument, which started with scripture. In other words you begin by assigning authority to scripture but then appear to discard it.


You speak about people who have "always" been homosexual but I am not sure there is such a thing. I dont think anyone properly informed in ALL the latest science is suggesting that this is the case. To affirm the validity of your point you need to answer the question "what causes homosexuality?" and you need to do so with some authority.

Even if your argument was valid, are you then going to affirm that all homosexual practise outside lifelong monogamy is sinful? I have never heard anyone coming from your position make such a claim.

As far as I understand the consenus of the 20th century was that it was mainly caused by deficiency in the relationship with the same sex parents (which is very different to a missing same sex parent).

While hormones and genetics were known to be a factor they were by no means the determining factor at all.

As I understand there is all sorts of research not to find other "causes" which Peter Tatchell for example roundly scorns as being from people who are afraid to "be" homosexual without moral approval.


The last point, and I common fallacy I contest, is that the bible can be set aside on this matter, if only for the highest moral type of homosexuality, the monogamous type.

The problems is that the very existence of such a thing is in serious question.

Government research to bring in civil partnerships in the UK estimated only about 3.5 per cent of the gay communiity were interested in monogamy.

A former gay man I know tells me "Lifelong monogamy in the gay community is a very very rare thing indeed".

Nobody seriously contests this at all.

Anyway, I have to come back to the good news IMHO;

NO relationship with another human being is every going to complete anyone. I have tried.

Only Christ offer the intimacy, trust, committment and affection which we were all designed for.

For me that is the Alpha and Omega of this discussion and it is so often trampled underfoot.

The entire context of this debate always seems to be that if only individuals can be free to meet and settle down with the person of their dreams they will be happy, either straight or gay.

But this desire and argument is going nowhere, it is a false hope. Every human can and will betray their nearest and dearest in some lesser or greater way.

The wise man builds his house on the rock and the foolish man builds his house upon the sand.

All the other questions on this page are minor details in comparison.

shalom

OT

..sorry if that last point wasnt clear, I had to rush but if Christ is not central and first in any life then that life is already in idolatry regardless of sexuality.

We only hurt ourselves if Chirst is not first. The context of these debates always sets the Lord to one side as peripheral to a desireable relationship.

got to run...

shalom

OT

OT

You said,

NO relationship with another human being is every going to complete anyone. I have tried.

Only Christ offer the intimacy, trust, committment and affection which we were all designed for.

We're going to have to be careful on this one. Real careful. God intended me to enjoy my marriage and relationship with my wife, and to find fulfilment in it, and he expects me to enjoy a relationship with her which I, or my wife cannot have with Jesus. And are not supposed to have with Jesus.

Of course humanity is meant to be in relationship with/to God but I'm a little tired of people telling others that Jesus will be the partner, (usually husband) they don't have. This is patent nonsense.

We ought not to push these analogies too far.

Piety and mysticism in Christianity are overrated!!

#65 - OT -

Thanks for your lengthy response to my even lengthier post. (By the way... you wouldn't happen to be American would you? Not that it matters of course. I just saw the word "anyways" in your post - an obvious Americanism! Or perhaps just a typo? Sorry - I'm just being mischievous!!).

You suggest that I have perhaps discarded the Bible - or the authority of the Bible. But I think you can discern from some of my other posts that we need to think about how we approach the Bible. I sometimes imagine that some Christians feel frustrated (and I am not suggesting you) that the Bible isn't simply a long set of laws with clauses and sub-clauses neatly tabulated, and expressed in unambiguous legalese. The "problem" with the Bible is that it is very far from that!!

Life is complex and so is the Bible. I made clear in my posts that the "normal" biblical understanding of sexuality is heterosexual marriage. But the question is: does God, through his word, reveal an understanding of the human condition which allows us some latitude when dealing with a certain group of people who genuinely believe themselves to have a homosexual orientation (and if you read some of the stories, it is clear that many, or indeed most, of these people are not just making it up)? The fact is that, according to the strict rules of logic, Romans 1 does not condemn homosexuality, because if it did the prohibition would be framed in the language of law. It is not. There are a number of interpretations of this passage - and I gave a link to one of them, which offers an argument which cannot be easily dismissed. Even if you disagree with it, it does not alter the fact that that is a perfectly legitimate interpretation. And so people are free to believe such an interpretation in good faith (in obedience to the command in Proverbs 4:7 - "...in all your getting, get understanding").

Even if you are right, and we should take a hard line position, and if I eventually come round to accepting that (which I doubt), there is one thing I am absolutely certain about: many groups in the church are acting like utter hypocrites on this issue. They "obey" the Bible on one issue, but flagrantly ignore it on other more important matters (e.g. how many pastors demand that all their members tithe their income - even if some of those members are struggling financially? But the Bible reveals that the poor in Israel were exempt from tithing and 2 Corinthians 9:7 forbids "giving out of necessity" - i.e. because you feel you have to give. But if, for example, an Anglican clergyman started oppressing his congregation with the imposition of tithing would a group like "Reform" stand up and oppose him becoming a bishop? I doubt it! In fact they would probably laud such a person as a fine example of godliness and submission to the authority of Scripture. The reality is that such a person is a rebel against the "clear" teaching of the Bible, and is oppressing the poor - something the Bible says far more about than homosexuality!). So, in my view, God is far more angry with these self-centred and manipulative hypocrites than he could conceivably be concerning people who struggle with their sexual orientation.

This attitude of focusing on and picking on gays is just a kind of moral cowardice. Romans 2:1-3 (which is a continuation of the argument in Romans 1) condemns people who judge others, but who commit the same sins. This, of course, is the definition of hypocrisy. But we can understand how "wonderfully convenient" it is for a heterosexual Christian to pick on gays. He will think to himself, "If I make a stand against homosexuality, no one could possibly accuse me of being a hypocrite, because I am not gay, never have been and never will be." If such a Christian made a moral stand against "hatred" or "materialism" then he may not be able to assure himself in quite the same way. Because homosexuality is so particular to a minority of people, it is an easy target. So, in my reckoning, this is the real reason why homosexuality is being emphasised more than almost anything else.

There is a lot more I could write, but I'll shut up now.

Al

Hi Al

no not american!

You seem to have missed my question;-

What causes homosexuality? It is a key question. The main 20th century consensus is completely compatible with the understanding that some people never felt heterosexual attraction in their formative years.

Sincerely I think you need to read up on this more, you have made no valid argument here.

Ref the bible, my point was how you can accept the authority in some passages and then appear to discard it arbitrarily in others.

I certainly agree that there is hypocrisy "in the church". But the problem could be that at the final judgement, God does not find any of these hypocrites to have been in his church at all.

This would make any appeal to church hypocrisy as a defence of homosexual practise in the church rather meaningless.

The main hypocrisy I see on this issue, from both sides perhaps, is that Christ condemned mental adultery explicitly.

Neither side wants to discuss this issue. It is one of those standards that is so high, it prompts me to ask if it is any easier for straights than gays to live up to Christ's standards?

shalom

OT

LSV
I've replied to you on the "hate" thread re. Hell. I don't know that we disagree on much concerning that issue (could be wrong. Let me know).

Your thoughts here are insightful, and worth consideration. I'd like to look over them all this evening, and reply tomorrow.

Graham

#69 - OT - "Ref the bible, my point was how you can accept the authority in some passages and then appear to discard it arbitrarily in others."

I'm glad you said "appear" to discard it (the authority of the Bible) arbitrarily. Your claim that I "appear" to discard the authority of the Bible is, of course, your particular understanding of biblical authority based on your interpretation of those passages which I happen to read differently. As a matter of fact, I am not discarding the authority of the Bible, but simply trying to understand the Bible.

Actually, you should really target this analysis at Christians who trample on the clear teaching of Scripture when it comes to denying God's desire for all to be saved (do you campaign vehemently against those "rebels", I wonder?) Or do you speak out against pastors who impose tithing on their congregations - contrary to the teaching of the Bible (as I argued in my last post)? Do you harangue the self-righteous, as our Lord did? Mmm, I wonder....

You ask what causes homosexuality, but I am not aware that I have attempted to answer that question. I have said that some people genuinely believe that they are homosexuals, and claim not to have experienced heterosexual desires. Do we call all these people liars?

I find it very interesting that Christians who speak out against homosexuals are only able to do so because gay people have had the courage and honesty to "come out" about their sexual orientation. What if they had kept quiet about it? Shouldn't we, at least, thank them for their honesty? All the thanks they get is to be targeted!

But let's suppose that Romans 1:26-27 condemns all forms of homosexuality. Let's assume that no one can be gay unless he is in rebellion against God. What do these verses actually condemn? Let's read them: "...For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, MEN WITH MEN COMMITTING WHAT IS SHAMEFUL..."

Now this last statement, which I have put in upper case, reveals (if we assume that "against nature" means "against the natural created order") that God condemns the actual sexual acts these men are performing on one another (the word "what" in this statement clearly denotes the actual acts being performed). Now, for fear of my comment being moderated, I am not going to spell out what these acts are. I think you probably know! Likewise, it does not take a great deal of imagination to work out what lesbians get up to. There are certain sexual acts which serve as the homosexual equivalent of sexual intercourse.

I don't think anyone can deny that these same sexual acts can be performed by heterosexuals on each other. And in fact there are Christian books on sex which recommend at least two of these acts (if both partners are OK about it). Now if God is condemning these sexual acts, which are "against nature", then they are as much "against nature" when performed by heterosexuals on each other, as they are when performed by homosexuals on each other.

So therefore if we condemn homosexuals for what they do, then we must also equally speak out against heterosexuals who perform the same sexual acts. And if a person who identifies himself as an active homosexual is denied certain offices in the church, then those same offices should be denied to heterosexuals who perform the same sexual acts as homosexuals. If that is not the case, then we would have to conclude that God is not condemning those sexual acts per se. And if God is not condemning those actual sexual acts, then what meaning does his supposed condemnation of homosexuality have?

And if someone should say that those particular sexual acts are only wrong when performed by two members of the same sex, then such a person would have to argue that such acts are "unnatural" for some people and not for others. But without wishing to be explicit about this, how can the use of the "wrong" orifice by a male on a male be any more unnatural than the use of that same orifice by a male on a female?

So I conclude, therefore, that the only way Christians can condemn homosexuality in practice, without being hypocrites (and therefore without being in rebellion against Jesus Christ, who spoke out against hypocrisy), is to know exactly what heterosexuals get up to in the privacy of their beds. But how is that possible? The church would need to be extremely prurient! In fact, the only way would be for the church pastor to actually observe what his church members get up to in bed!!!

So even the very conservative reading of Romans 1 presents a problem. It is unconscionable to make a stand against homosexuality without also making a stand against "homosexual" acts performed by heterosexuals on each other. But I don't see the church doing this. I conclude that anti-gay churches are acting hypocritically, inconsistently applying their own reading of Romans 1:26-27, and therefore picking on gays, who have had the decency to come out about their homosexuality, when they could have kept quiet about it (in the same way that a Christian married couple have the luxury of keeping quiet about the sexual acts they perform on each other).

I remember one vicar who supports "Reform" and their anti-gay stand once preaching on sex and Christian marriage, and he said that "a Christian couple can be as creative as they like with each other". The mind boggles as to what he had in mind!! Of course, he did not qualify this statement, and if certain Christian books on sex are anything to go by, I can only conclude that the "creative" sexual acts he had in mind were no different from the sort of acts homosexuals would perform on each other - acts, which, as I have argued, are condemned by a conservative evangelical interpretation of Romans 1:26-27.

So, you go ahead with your condemnation of homosexuality, but I challenge you to be consistent about it - so make sure you speak out as vehemently against "wayward" heterosexuals within Christian marriage!! And make sure you know exactly what all married Christians get up to in bed!!

Now you can rubbish my argument as much as you like with strong and menacing words, but I challenge you to fault its logic.

#70 - Graham -

I haven't forgotten you!

Al

thanks Al

If you are really interested in the truth on this subject you will satisfy yourself as to what causes homosexuality.

Why are you not interested? If the cause is malign would that not undermine your advocacy? You appear determined not to examine this. Why?

If you note I highlighted Christs warnings against mental adultery in gays and straights.

Can you imagine straights committing the act of adultery without thinking about it?

ref categorizing physical acts, I really dont think it necessary to go into such details. Marriage was created for man and woman, remember?

If you really want to explore this issue you might google; homosexuality bowel disease.

It is widely accepted this practise is exceptionally common in the gay community and uncommon outside. I see no sanction/direction for it in scripture for heterosexuals.

Also, I do not subscribe to the idea that gay people can wake up one morning and "choose" not to be gay any more than anyone with any other life controlling habit can do so.

fyi Freud said homosexuality was caused by arrested heterosexual development, I was reading last night.

sorry for staccato conversation, no time, got to run.

I hope i didnt use any strong menacing language...

shalom

OT

#73 - OT - "ref categorizing physical acts, I really dont think it necessary to go into such details. Marriage was created for man and woman, remember?"

By saying this you obviously refuse to engage properly with the biblical text of Romans 1. I made a perfectly valid point that Romans 1:27 condemns specific acts which are deemed to be "against nature" - according to the conservative reading of this passage. I then drew out the logical implications of that interpretation.

By doing this, I showed that those acts which are associated with homosexuality are also performed by heterosexuals. This has serious moral and practical implications for the life of the church.

This passage (according to this conservative interpretation) is not about the social aspects of marriage, but is about particular PHYSICAL ACTS.

Now why is it that I am looking fairly and squarely at the conservative interpretation of the Bible, and then I am told that I am not respecting the authority of the Bible when I seek to understand the implications of that interpretation? There is even the suggestion that I have a malign agenda (a sign of desperation on your part I think, and it assures me that I have won the argument when you have to resort to that kind of insinuation). If I have any agenda it is to encourage Christians TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

This is why so many people are so frustrated at evangelicals. They will not even believe and defend their own reading of the Bible, when challenged!!

I have encountered this unteachable and close-minded attitude many times - when an evangelical is challenged on his interpretation of the Bible he just dismisses any view which does not fit into his own preconceived idea.

All I can do is appeal to anyone reading this and say: please understand the Bible for yourself and do not be taken in by those who think they have the last word on what the Bible says!

Al
Pagans kept me back today. I'll get to you on Monday. Have a good weekend y'all.

GV

thanks LSV

I did defend my reading of the bible.

I asked you to go and find out some objective facts about

1) The causes of homosexuality

2) The medical results of sodomy

You have given no indication that you intend to do either.

After you have done both of the those then you can tell me that sodomy is healthy for heterosexuals, and gays.


Al, with respect, it has to be repeated here that you are particularly excercised by this matter at the moment because you recently had a close relative come out as actively homosexual and this all by your own admission.

I do feel your concern and distress.

It APPEARS to me that having come from a traditional background that your are trying to reconcile your relative's position with your theology, which is to be expected. But the one possibility you seem to refuse to consider is that your relative could require his sexuality to be redeemed, as was/is required of mine.


I think we are soon ending any further conversation but thanks for the discussion.

Kind regards
OT

Peter Morrow

I hear your concerns in post 67.

I am not speaking against marriage but I am saying that many promiscious (of any sexuality) people seek the fulfillment that only Christ can give, through sex.

I nowhere went as far as saying that widows should find a husband in Christ.

I am saying that if you seek the intimacy and relationship with God you were designed for, but with man, that is idolatry.

Putting spouse before Christ is idolatry and harms the human being.

I am saying -without apology and without suffering contradiction from anyone -that if you presume to advocate any relationship - gay or straight - and you dont accept this, you are preaching idolatry.

God created marriage and said it was not good that man should live alone.
I speak as a married man

But if you are seeking God in a human relationship you are doing yourself harm.

Shalom bro

OT

PS Would be nice to have some mutual support from you in certain debates sometime ;-)

PS Peter, all our greatest Christian pathfinders, leaders and hymwriters were mystics, the best of them also very practical too.

Orville

ref post 64

sorry for the delay in responding.

A pretty gracious and generous response from you. thanks.

You know, i think it is clear from the NT that we can be so right that we are wrong.

I am not familiar with the details of Westboro, by all acounts they do some to be pretty full of hate, ie wish harm to other people as their central motivation.

The NT requires a right spirit along with truth, and that is certainly not Westboro.

OT