|
RISING STAR
|
Think Again wrote: <quoted text>
KCG,
Matthew 19: 10-12 (NIV)“The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
I am glad you brought this up but you are only half right. Sure eunuchs who are born that way could mean homosexual males. But it also could mean men who have genital abnormalities that result in impotence and men whose genitals are still capable of begetting children. It would also include both asexual persons and persons who, in time, develop exclusive same-sex attractions.
Jesus replied,“Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.” What word was given? The answer is in verse 10. The disciples ask,“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
The word Jesus is referring to is celibacy (not to marry). He goes on to discuss “others” who have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of Heaven. Referring again to celibacy for the kingdom of Heaven.
No orientation isn’t sinful, just the act.
So the only answer for any under the description of eunuch is celibacy. TA - I dare say this is the basis for....."love the sinner, not the sin." So many of those who openly practice homosexuality don't want this to be true, it gives them pleasure in somehow believing they aren't loved by Christians, only the Chief Christian, Jesus Christ. Why would I or any other NOT love them? As a person who claims Christ as the head of my life, wouldn't I be the first to offer a hand or hug according to the Word? It is preposterous what the enemy will put forth in the mind of some in order to advance his cause, that they forever remain caught in the same hateful and what they call "bigoted" circle. I argue a point of fact based on Scripture, they argue the person based on feelings and the world. And as a true Christian, they shouldn't even be "of the world" though they are in the world.
|
|
Luigi
|
Judged:
1
KGC wrote: <quoted text>
Rising Star, neither you or Luigi are right in this issue. Both of you are hanging on to a misconception; a disproved, stereotyping view of your fellow man.
If there is a parable told by Jesus that gives insight to the misconception - and that is all it is - the parable of the Good Samaritan is the one.
As the Rabbi passed by the injured man, he crossed to the other side rather than offerring needed help. His religion required him to do so because the injured man was "unclean" and therefore a sinner unworthy of assistance and who by receiving assistance would threaten the Rabbi's ability to serve others in righteousness.
But, to the Jew, one of the chosen and a recipient of the benefit of the Covenant of Abraham, the Samaritan was a sinful reject and a heretic, unworthy of any consideration. Yet, it was the Samaritan who stopped, helped the wrongly injured man and saw him taken care of at the local inn.
Finally, it was the Samaritan who Jesus said would receive the Heavenward Grace despite his non-Jewish inferior birthright because he had seen through the injustice, having shown compassion for and providing help and assistance without regard for the "uncleanness" or any sin of the wrongly injured man.
KGC "...and that is all it is..?!" You have no authority to say that. And don't forget the parable of the seeds that fell on rocky terrain.
|
|
Luigi
|
Judged:
1
KGC wrote: <quoted text>
Dan,
I can't speak for BookGuy. But, I've got a pretty fair idea about where and how he is establishing his position. And, I concur.
In all of accepted scripture there is simply no mention of homosexuality in terms of long-term committed and caring same-sex relationships.
There is, however, one passage in the New Testament where Jesus is expounding on marriage and similar issues. He mentions eunuchs who are born that way. He says that this involves a teaching that some will not be able to understand. Then he says, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." It is a rather cryptic passage, inconclusive, vague and not definitive. But, it indicates that He was aware of variations in the human sexual expression and that such variations can be expected. I do not believe He regarded the variations as intrinsically sinful.
This is a passage that is not well understood and to which reference is not frequently made. But, I think it is a significant acknowledgment on the part of Jesus that can be construed to have bearing on the present dispute over scriptural interpretations. It leaves a door open.
KGC Long-term committed samesex relation is not a "modern' concept. The ancients knew. It's the 'moderns' that put a new spin on it.
|
|
Luigi
|
|
|
Luigi
|
|
|
Luigi
|
|
|
“Reader”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
|
Dan wrote: <quoted text>
Understand you point-I perhaps did not make my position strong enough opposing acts of discrimination i.e. Akinola etc. I oppose it.
To the matter here, you would concede at least that homosexual behavior is not treated benevolently when mentioned in Scripture; there at least is no affirmation or benign treatment of the practice evident to me.
If you would extrapolate meaning from your reading saying that it is not sinful, you must at least admit that your opponent (of whom I am not one) possesses something a bit more concrete declaiming it. I don't quite follow you. There's nothing in the bible against riding in trains or cars (or trains vs. cars) either; but we do it all the time and no one seems to question it (though perhaps we should). I do think that Mims, Anderson, et al (and their ilk) spend a good deal more time talking about the "sinfulness" of homosexuals and a good bit less time talking about Akinola's advocacy of murder. They are willing to be in conversation and close relationship with someone who advocates wholesale murder of an entire class of people who‘s only offense is that they want to love one another in peace; but Mims et al are not willing to be in conversation with someone who disagrees with them on what is essentially a political (not a moral or doctrinal) issue. That seems a more than a little un-balanced to me. I do think that there are gradations in acts of discrimination. Simply barring people from full participation in the life of the church and denying their marriages (as would TA and RS, for example) is likely somewhat less reprehensible than those who advocate killing them (which seems to be Akinola's position). But those too are still acts of discrimination and still hateful and still damaging (sometimes even life threatening). Those gradations seem to be a mere differences of degree; they are still entirely reprehensible, if less outright criminal. I do think that some of what we see in terms of emphatic response from homosexuals is due to this factor. How would you respond if your marriage was systematically denied (by both the state AND by the church) based on someone ELSE'S religious interpretation (including hospital visitations, for example, denial of which might well be life threatening); or if you were declared ineligible for full participation in the church because you were married to a woman (but wait... you're Roman so you ARE, in fact, denied full participation in the church because of that... sorry. Different, if similar, subject I guess...).
|
|
“Reader”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
|
Dan wrote: <quoted text>
Understand you point-I perhaps did not make my position strong enough opposing acts of discrimination i.e. Akinola etc. I oppose it.
To the matter here, you would concede at least that homosexual behavior is not treated benevolently when mentioned in Scripture; there at least is no affirmation or benign treatment of the practice evident to me.
If you would extrapolate meaning from your reading saying that it is not sinful, you must at least admit that your opponent (of whom I am not one) possesses something a bit more concrete declaiming it. There are, however, some benevolent references to homosexuality in the bible. For example, the situation of David and Jonathan is pretty clearly a homosexual one and that relationship is upheld in benevolence. There are other examples as well. But, like I said, those don't seem to me to be essential. What IS clear is that long-term nurturing love is supported in the bible, especially in the new testament; why does it need to be expressly stated that homosexuality is good when it so clearly says that love is good? Do we really need more than that? As for the concreteness of my opponent's argument, it really just is not present. For example, the most concrete opposition to homosexuality is in Leviticus. But it is abundantly clear that these laws were intended for ritual purity and that they were specifically overridden by Jesus ; they simply don't apply for Christians and they are specifically over-ridden by Jesus in favor of love. There is the same concrete opposition to eating pork and shellfish in those passages, too, for example. I think that those who would exclude homosexuals from the church because of Hebrew purity laws, and who do not follow all of the laws are hypocrites: a class of people whom Jesus clearly and repeatedly DID condemn and exclude from his association (yes, TA and RS, that last part IS just my opinion and it isn‘t a basis for casting you out). One might also note that similar "concrete" arguments were made in support of slavery and segregation with the case against slavery and segregation were, like mine against anti-homosexuality, based on the 'default setting' of scripture's advocacy of love and acceptance, full inclusion and grace.
|
|
|
|
“Reader”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
|
Dan wrote: <quoted text>
Understand you point-I perhaps did not make my position strong enough opposing acts of discrimination i.e. Akinola etc. I oppose it.
To the matter here, you would concede at least that homosexual behavior is not treated benevolently when mentioned in Scripture; there at least is no affirmation or benign treatment of the practice evident to me.
If you would extrapolate meaning from your reading saying that it is not sinful, you must at least admit that your opponent (of whom I am not one) possesses something a bit more concrete declaiming it. Getting to what I think is the core of your question, I think that the difference is that TA and RS have raised anti-homosexualism to core issues in the church. The rest of us, and all of church history, do not agree. It may be a little flip to point out that there are only 7 deeply ambiguous citations used against Homosexuals from the bible, but there 190+ citations in favor of Justice and many many more in favor of love. I think that the real issue, the reason TEC has not tossed these people out and we intend (come what may in the courts over separation) to attempt dialogue with them is that we just don't see this as a core issue to the faith. Those core issues are in the creeds, the prayerbook, and scripture. These folks want to break up the church, separate, based on what is essentially a political issue. TEC's position to these people is that "we can find ways to get around your political problems" AND we are not willing to toss you out solely based on your political positions AND we are willing to go on discussing these problems with you for as long as it takes to come to a resolution of this political problem. They are not being allowed to overrule the political opinion of the vast majority of their fellow congregants, but we will keep listening to them (as we have all along) and they still get a voice in our councils (none can deny that they have been present and voting) until they, themselves, chosse to leave as individuals. I guess the bottom line TEC position is essentially that there can't really be a schism because there isn't a genuine doctrinal difference; just a political difference that is dressed up in docrinal drag.
|
|
RISING STAR
|
bookguybaltmd wrote: <quoted text>
Getting to what I think is the core of your question, I think that the difference is that TA and RS have raised anti-homosexualism to core issues in the church. The rest of us, and all of church history, do not agree. It may be a little flip to point out that there are only 7 deeply ambiguous citations used against Homosexuals from the bible, but there 190+ citations in favor of Justice and many many more in favor of love.
I think that the real issue, the reason TEC has not tossed these people out and we intend (come what may in the courts over separation) to attempt dialogue with them is that we just don't see this as a core issue to the faith. Those core issues are in the creeds, the prayerbook, and scripture.
These folks want to break up the church, separate, based on what is essentially a political issue. TEC's position to these people is that "we can find ways to get around your political problems" AND we are not willing to toss you out solely based on your political positions AND we are willing to go on discussing these problems with you for as long as it takes to come to a resolution of this political problem.
They are not being allowed to overrule the political opinion of the vast majority of their fellow congregants, but we will keep listening to them (as we have all along) and they still get a voice in our councils (none can deny that they have been present and voting) until they, themselves, chosse to leave as individuals.
I guess the bottom line TEC position is essentially that there can't really be a schism because there isn't a genuine doctrinal difference; just a political difference that is dressed up in docrinal drag. Again, if you choose to deny the fact that there is doctrine to support living an actively homosexual lifestyle - coming from that premise you will always have the ability to deny the Word. Trying to associate politics with doctrine is like trying to compare apples with oranges, this isn't what is being done - only attempted to associated by those of your persuation. Also, you point out the fact that there are 190+ directions concerning love and justice, and seven (7) regarding homosexuality. You know, "Jesus wept", crying for compassion of his people and their city. That is compassion for the suffering of His people brought on by their own sin - suffering due to their own sinful nature. This is the closest analogy I can get to those who defend a sinful practice - yet deplore the proper instruction of what the Word says (seven means complete instruction) and that's good enough for me. Seven lessons on homosexuality - enough for you to know that you know it is a sinful practice.
|
|
KGC
|
Think Again wrote: <quoted text>
KCG,
Matthew 19: 10-12 (NIV)“The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
I am glad you brought this up but you are only half right. Sure eunuchs who are born that way could mean homosexual males. But it also could mean men who have genital abnormalities that result in impotence and men whose genitals are still capable of begetting children. It would also include both asexual persons and persons who, in time, develop exclusive same-sex attractions.
Jesus replied,“Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.” What word was given? The answer is in verse 10. The disciples ask,“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
The word Jesus is referring to is celibacy (not to marry). He goes on to discuss “others” who have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of Heaven. Referring again to celibacy for the kingdom of Heaven.
No orientation isn’t sinful, just the act.
So the only answer for any under the description of eunuch is celibacy. Dear TA, I appreciate your attempt to define what Jesus meant using simple logic to conclude your point. But, of course, he did not say what you concluded. There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn by this scriptural passage. The passage does leave a "door" of interpretation open. We can understand that Jesus was aware of Human beings who did not fit the ideal of simply male and/or female. We can understand that he did not regard their differences from simply male and/or female as intrinsically sinful. We can also understand that He regarded marriage as an institution, fully acceptable and a Holy Sacrament. However, for us to conclude by this passage in scripture that people who do not fit into the simply male and/or female ideal cannot, therefore, be qualified to get married is to draw our own conclusions and to interpret the passage in a way that is not clearly evident. That is why this particular passage has been quietly and conveniently ignored and misinterpreted for a very long time. KGC
|
|
KGC
|
Luigi wrote: <quoted text>
Long-term committed samesex relation is not a
"modern' concept. The ancients knew.
It's the 'moderns' that put a new spin on it. Luigi, You place a lot of value and authority in scriptural passages, and rightly so. You say the ancients knew. Well, they certainly did not have the evident basis for the knowledge that we have acquired in the last 20 years about the human genome, did they? But, aside from the reality of this modern knowledge, what scriptural passage(s) would you cite that would indicate that the ancients knew of and understood the nature of long-term, monogamous, committed same-sex relationships? KGC
|
|
KGC
|
Luigi wrote: <quoted text>
"...and that is all it is..?!"
You have no authority to say that.
And don't forget the parable of the seeds
that fell on rocky terrain. Yes, Lweeg. It is a simple misconception. And, yes, I do have the authority to say so. But, apparently it is you who do not have the authority to say that I don't have such authority because you question mine. Seeds fall in various places, Lweeg. And, as the Lord has said, some are able to survive and grow in their surroundings and some are not able. But, also of significant importance is whether or not such seeds, when they mature into an adult life, are able to produce valuable fruit. And to this I say, some that have fallen into rocky soil are able to produce good and valuable fruit and some that have fallen into fertile soil are able to produce copious amounts of bad fruit as well as others that despite their fertile surroundings, produce no fruit at all. KGC
|
|
“Reader”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
|
RISING STAR wrote: <quoted text>
Again, if you choose to deny the fact that there is doctrine to support living an actively homosexual lifestyle - coming from that premise you will always have the ability to deny the Word.
Trying to associate politics with doctrine is like trying to compare apples with oranges, this isn't what is being done - only attempted to associated by those of your persuation.
Also, you point out the fact that there are 190+ directions concerning love and justice, and seven (7) regarding homosexuality. You know, "Jesus wept", crying for compassion of his people and their city. That is compassion for the suffering of His people brought on by their own sin - suffering due to their own sinful nature.
This is the closest analogy I can get to those who defend a sinful practice - yet deplore the proper instruction of what the Word says (seven means complete instruction) and that's good enough for me. Seven lessons on homosexuality - enough for you to know that you know it is a sinful practice. But it's not a sin and you have not shown anywhere that it is? So, other than your claims (which I believe can only be politically biased in view of the complete absense of scriptural support for your position), how is anyone to come to the same conclusion. Face it, God is all on the side of love. Your insistence that he hates your political opponents is doing serious harm to Christianity.
|
|
“Reader”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
|
RISING STAR wrote: <quoted text>
You point out the fact that there are 190+ directions concerning love and justice, and seven (7) regarding homosexuality. Just a small clarification. There are 190+ instances of Justice alone (I think the exact number was 194 in the biblical reference guide I was using when I was at home before); references to love are, of course, far greater. I think we are in agreement on the "fact" of the disproportion of justice references to supposed homosexuality references; though we clearly disagree about the 7 supposed "references" to Homosexuality. The central problem, of course, is that, if you actually read what scripture says, there is, in fact, no negative reference to long-term, loving homosexual relationships at all (not even in Leviticus). If you are going to push people away from the message, you need to have a profound justification for doing so. You have not shown me anything that even remotely resembles that kind of justification.
|
|
“Reader”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
|
HarleyRider wrote: BOOKGUY,
2) An accredited English professor
to explain the concept of semantics. Funny you should mention it, that happens to be exactly what 2 of my my degrees are in.... I try to read closely what is actually in the text; I demand that others show me where in the text is valid support for their position; and I refuse to allow others to hijack that text for Did you have something constructive to add? Maybe you would like to point out some biblical (or even scientific) support for your views (whatever they may be)?
|
|
Think Again
|
KGC wrote: <quoted text>
Dear TA,
I appreciate your attempt to define what Jesus meant using simple logic to conclude your point. But, of course, he did not say what you concluded.
There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn by this scriptural passage. The passage does leave a "door" of interpretation open. We can understand that Jesus was aware of Human beings who did not fit the ideal of simply male and/or female. We can understand that he did not regard their differences from simply male and/or female as intrinsically sinful.
We can also understand that He regarded marriage as an institution, fully acceptable and a Holy Sacrament.
However, for us to conclude by this passage in scripture that people who do not fit into the simply male and/or female ideal cannot, therefore, be qualified to get married is to draw our own conclusions and to interpret the passage in a way that is not clearly evident.
That is why this particular passage has been quietly and conveniently ignored and misinterpreted for a very long time.
KGC KCG, It boils down to how we interpret our experiences. You choose to interpret scripture through your experiences. I choose to interpret my experiences through scripture. Acts 17:11 (KJV)“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Scripture should interpret scripture. This is how scripture should be interpreted. Simply put, you can use the clearer places of Scripture to help illuminate those places that are less clear. It has only one sense and that is the plain, grammatical sense. Through this approach, what the Spirit is trying to tell us through Scripture is unlocked by, tested by, qualified by, and balanced by, the whole of Scripture. Therefore if one genuinely studies what the Bible says concerning this issue, it is plainly clear. There really isn’t some Gnostic deeper meaning in these plain texts. We know that any sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful. The only form of marriage endorsed in Scripture is between a man and a woman. Therefore it is not a stretch to conclude that anyone who cannot prescribe to these two statements needs to remain celibate.
|
|
“Reader”
Joined: Oct 2, 2007
|
Think Again wrote: <quoted text>
KCG,
It boils down to how we interpret our experiences. You choose to interpret scripture through your experiences. I choose to interpret my experiences through scripture.
Acts 17:11 (KJV)“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Scripture should interpret scripture. This is how scripture should be interpreted. Simply put, you can use the clearer places of Scripture to help illuminate those places that are less clear. It has only one sense and that is the plain, grammatical sense. Through this approach, what the Spirit is trying to tell us through Scripture is unlocked by, tested by, qualified by, and balanced by, the whole of Scripture.
Therefore if one genuinely studies what the Bible says concerning this issue, it is plainly clear. There really isn’t some Gnostic deeper meaning in these plain texts.
We know that any sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful. The only form of marriage endorsed in Scripture is between a man and a woman. Therefore it is not a stretch to conclude that anyone who cannot prescribe to these two statements needs to remain celibate. I think we are in agreement about everything EXCEPT the last part. Marriage is something that is defined and created between loving and committed individuals. It wasn't and isn't created by the state. It wasn't and isn't created by the church. It wasn't and isn't created by god. Who am I or who are you to define the meaning of a relationship between two other people. You and I and the state and the church and even God can celebrate that relationship. But the relationship is created by the couple. The sacrament is the outward and visible sign of that inward and spiritual grace: the love between those individuals. The whole of scripture, what I have been calling the 'default setting' is all about honoring deeply unitive love between individuals. If you think there is some part of scripture that sets up some kind of exception to that 'default setting', it needs to be one that is VERY clear. What you are saying about homosexual relationships and even homosexual marriages (for they exist whether you or anyone else like it or not) does not contain that level of substance let alone clarity.
|
|
Think Again
|
bookguybaltmd wrote: <quoted text>
I think we are in agreement about everything EXCEPT the last part.
Marriage is something that is defined and created between loving and committed individuals. It wasn't and isn't created by the state. It wasn't and isn't created by the church. It wasn't and isn't created by god.
Who am I or who are you to define the meaning of a relationship between two other people. You and I and the state and the church and even God can celebrate that relationship. But the relationship is created by the couple.
The sacrament is the outward and visible sign of that inward and spiritual grace: the love between those individuals.
The whole of scripture, what I have been calling the 'default setting' is all about honoring deeply unitive love between individuals. If you think there is some part of scripture that sets up some kind of exception to that 'default setting', it needs to be one that is VERY clear.
What you are saying about homosexual relationships and even homosexual marriages (for they exist whether you or anyone else like it or not) does not contain that level of substance let alone clarity. Read Genesis 2:24. Jesus refers to this in Mt 19. This is marriage plain and simple.
|
|
KGC
|
Think Again wrote: <quoted text>
Read Genesis 2:24. Jesus refers to this in Mt 19. This is marriage plain and simple. Powerful arguments, both. From a Scriptural and Traditional view, the most rigorous reading of Scripture makes direct and clear reference to the union of a Man and a Woman. Likewise, that union, exemplified by the union of the first Man and the first Woman (even though the following passages make an obtuse reference to people living elsewhere) was not referred to as "Marriage" until the Priesthood created a Sacrament for the purpose of acknowledging, celebrating and sanctifying that union. But, much as any biblical scholar would agree, even after carefully translating the original texts, marriage between two individuals who do not fit the most ideal examples of what is a Man and what is a Woman has never been either proscibed or specifically allowed. Its like you said, TA. It is not a "stretch" to interpret what is not written, if I may paraphrase. Well....... Yes, it is. You say YOU let Scripture dictate how you subjectively understand YOUR experience. Then, you say someone other than you lets THEIR experience dictate how they subjectively understand Scripture. What a CROCK !!! Any subjective understanding or objective understanding is filtered by the experience of the individual who is reading and interpreting it, either on their own behalf or on behalf of anyone else. THAT'S WHY WE READ IT !!! If our understanding did not grow and improve in the course of gaining experience, there would be no purpose for reading the Scripture. One compliments the other like the chicken and the egg. Plus, any dolt knows that many passages in Scripture have to be taken in context because they are no longer based on what we now understand to be true. You are not me and vice versa. But, we do share a common origin. We also ultimately share a common point of being because there is only One God. I didn't make this up. People don't understand what the real foundation is. So, they try to develop structures to define such things as Sin, once and for all. But, if, in time, their definitions become no longer adequate or valid to support their previous moral and theological structures, they get really upset. Usually they kill the Messenger. That's whats happening, TA. The former definitions are becoming obviously inadequate as a result of incontrovertible facts. And, just like when Jesus upset the bazaar in the outer Temple, people are getting very upset. KGC
|
Judge it!
Most Popular
