The following post on Facebook by JACOB BOLTON (father of 1) evoked quite a deep and meaningful lengthy conversation. Even Peace Activist Jessica Morrison is impressed by the extraordinary length of the debate.
8 SEPTEMBER 2013
Vic
Etherington It is such a shame that we don't have tolerance in this world
and people use the bible as their excuse of being homophobic. When they pic out
passages to suit their view they choose to ignore other passages that talk
about owning a slave, diet, killing etc etc on and on...
8
September at 20:57 · Edited · Like · 3
Jeremy Maitland ^^ e.g
Tony Abbot
Don
Cameron I think we've had this discussion before mate and according to the
bible, sexual immorality includes homosexual sex. I understand non-Christians
thinking whatever they like about sexuality on their own terms but Christians
don't have that luxury. Kevin Rudd lost a few votes by claiming the bible
condones slavery when it doesn't. (Check out Galatians 5:1) I'm still hoping
somebody can convince me of the error of my ways but every video, transcript
and weblink I look at has not shown me that the bible affirms homosexual
activity. As a sinner myself, I am aware of my own failings and I hope people
can point out where I'm wrong. Personally, I don't think you're missing out on
much by switching off LightFM.
Vic
Etherington Galatians isn't that a video game?
Suzanne
Ferreras Nope highly disagree. if you call yourself a Christian its not
condemning those homosexuals or anyone, its standing up for what is right in
God's eyes. And as a Christian YES the Bible is our truth which God gave to us
to know what is RIGHT and WRONG and to know His plans and what He has done for
us. Anything goes these days. Society is morally decaying. Doesn't mean
majority says yes, then that's what makes it right! Its not about the majority
its about truth. If you call yourself a Christian you will not and cannot
accept same sex marriage! Gays can live however they want, just like people who
choose to do what they want on their own freewill even if it's against God's
ways. IF you know the Bible (read the Bible) the truth will never change. God
loves anyone who comes to accept what He did on the Cross through becoming a
man as Jesus Christ, rose from the dead on the third, defeating death to pay
the penalty once and for all our wrong doings (past present and future) to give
us the freewill to choose his salvation by faith. Anyone that follows and trust
in Jesus and HIS WORD will NEVER perish but have everlasting life, we r
escaping eternal hell (God's final judgement on those who choose to reject Him)
when we die. YOU cannot call yourself Christian & compromise your
faith, or else why say you are Christian and then don't follow the Bible which
is God directly talking to us. We stand for what we believe (all for Jesus's
name and for what He did for us all). If others do not agree well its freedom
of choice and nothing we can do about but pray and continue to love others even
if they wrong us or even if they are homosexual. BUT for homosexuals we cannot
accept their way of life as being morally right. Marriage is ONLY for a man and
woman and God designed it that way for all the right reasons!! Society wants to
drift from what God originally designed as being good for us and that's our own
disobedience because of our stubbornness and rebellion. BUT there is always
HOPE. by changing our ways to follow Christ, you will have made the BEST
decision in your life and the TRUTH shall set you free!!
Don
Cameron Not condemning at all Suzanne. I apologise if I came across that
way. I am right with you on that one. When Jesus said 'whoever is without sin
may throw the first stone' I am just as ashamed of my sin as the next person.
Great post above.
Suzanne
Ferreras Hi Don, hehe no its ok. its for anyone to comment (freedom of
speech) but yes it is sad that people are condemning becos that's God's final
say not ours, but as christians we can stand for what is right in God's eyes,
even if it costs us our lives. It's ok. don't worry.
Vic
Etherington Wow powerful stuff Suzanne ever thought about being a preacher
you are a natural and I mean that most sincerely. I can't accept that any god
would create a man and woman to love anther of the same sex. Homosexual people
don't make a choice it's how god made them, my little brother is gay and I have
seen him struggle with who he is.. He is as god made him a wonderful caring
generous man he is not an abomination and if your god thinks he is then there
is something wrong here?.
8
September at 21:26 · Edited · Like · 2
Daniel Christiansz We
were diving tonight but with no radio!
8
September at 21:24 via mobile
· Like · 3
Belinda J
Terry ^^ wow people sure have some odd ideas. Shame on lightfm and shame on
any one human being judging the sexual choices of another. If you believe god
will punish gay people thats your right but not your right to punish them while
they are here on earth. Their are gay christians too fgs its 2013...
8
September at 21:27 via mobile
· Like · 4
Jeremy Maitland
Suzanne, if you dont like gay marrige, dont marry a women, why should your
beliefs impact the happiness of others.
Jan
Coates To Don Cameron and Suzanne Ferraeras - and anyone else out there of
similar mindset:
Of course there is nothing 'out there' which will convince you that homosexuality isn't condemned in the bible. Let's not worry about the fact that the word didn't even exist in the times that the bible was being written, or that the words used are incorrectly translated as 'homosexual'. And of course, we will ignore the fact that the bible was written by a bunch of very fallible human beings and the translated and edited further by more fallible humans for their own purposes.
You have your views, which you are perfectly entitled to, and which I respect.
However, I would also appreciate you respecting the views of others like myself, who prefer to believe that our Lord's one great command - "Love one another as I have loved you" overrides anything else that is written.
I consider myself to be a Christian. I happen to know a few gay, lesbian and trans people. I love them, and whatever they get up to in their bedrooms (or other rooms in their own homes or hotels) is up to them. They don't try to force themselves on me (unlike some hetrosexual males - including so-called Christian ministers), or shove their opinions of the bible down my throat.
Light FM has also lost me. too, Jacob. I only started to listen on the odd occasion recently (we often drive past the studio near Nunawading). Thanks for letting me know.
Of course there is nothing 'out there' which will convince you that homosexuality isn't condemned in the bible. Let's not worry about the fact that the word didn't even exist in the times that the bible was being written, or that the words used are incorrectly translated as 'homosexual'. And of course, we will ignore the fact that the bible was written by a bunch of very fallible human beings and the translated and edited further by more fallible humans for their own purposes.
You have your views, which you are perfectly entitled to, and which I respect.
However, I would also appreciate you respecting the views of others like myself, who prefer to believe that our Lord's one great command - "Love one another as I have loved you" overrides anything else that is written.
I consider myself to be a Christian. I happen to know a few gay, lesbian and trans people. I love them, and whatever they get up to in their bedrooms (or other rooms in their own homes or hotels) is up to them. They don't try to force themselves on me (unlike some hetrosexual males - including so-called Christian ministers), or shove their opinions of the bible down my throat.
Light FM has also lost me. too, Jacob. I only started to listen on the odd occasion recently (we often drive past the studio near Nunawading). Thanks for letting me know.
Don
Cameron Fair enough Jeremy. Does your opinion remain the same for things
you may not agree with?
Marriage equality should mean 'all forms of marriage are considered equal' but it does not. Here are the forms of marriage I know about;
- monogamous marriage
- open marriage
- polygamous marriage
- homosexual marriage
- incestuous marriage
- paedophile marriage
- bestiality marriage (google stuff happening in Germany)
- objectum marriage (people who marry objects)
Would you agree that people who want to be a polygamous marriage should be recognised as marriage? What about the man who 'married' a sex doll, the woman who 'married' the Eiffel Tower or the woman who wants to be 'married' to a roller coaster in the US? The man who wants to marry his mother? They aren't hurting anyone so what's the big deal?
I'm not having a go as you are entitled to your opinion as everyone else is. I'm just wondering if your reasoning extends to all forms of marriage?
Marriage equality should mean 'all forms of marriage are considered equal' but it does not. Here are the forms of marriage I know about;
- monogamous marriage
- open marriage
- polygamous marriage
- homosexual marriage
- incestuous marriage
- paedophile marriage
- bestiality marriage (google stuff happening in Germany)
- objectum marriage (people who marry objects)
Would you agree that people who want to be a polygamous marriage should be recognised as marriage? What about the man who 'married' a sex doll, the woman who 'married' the Eiffel Tower or the woman who wants to be 'married' to a roller coaster in the US? The man who wants to marry his mother? They aren't hurting anyone so what's the big deal?
I'm not having a go as you are entitled to your opinion as everyone else is. I'm just wondering if your reasoning extends to all forms of marriage?
Jeremy Maitland on
bestiality, objectum, pedophilia marriages, are both parties of able mind and
understanding know what they are agreeing to? also in all countries where
polygamy is legal, being gay is illegal and carries the death sentence, in
Australia it is LEGAL to marry your first cousin.
Vic
Etherington I want to marry a roller coaster, I want to marry a roller
coaster!! No wait can I marry my car? My wife thinks I should!
Jacob
Bolton Thanks Jeremy
Maitland precisely right.
Thanks Don Cameron as always I appreciate your openness. And I will read your recommendation about lightFM as wisdom
Also don we have spoken about this before but I'm not talking about homosexuality being some thing as sinful (although you know I believe there's nothing wrong with it).
I'm talking about refusing to love your neighbour, a Christians gonna believe whatever they wanna believe, but how their beliefs impact others are also important!
To restrict another from being married or having the right to be married just like anyone else in a consensual relationship is evil, it is the opposite of love. For Christians to deny others this right is to deny one of christs most important teachings and commandments.
Suzanne Ferreras the moment You feel you need to stand up for God is the moment that God becomes as powerful as the muscles on your arms.
Thanks Don Cameron as always I appreciate your openness. And I will read your recommendation about lightFM as wisdom
Also don we have spoken about this before but I'm not talking about homosexuality being some thing as sinful (although you know I believe there's nothing wrong with it).
I'm talking about refusing to love your neighbour, a Christians gonna believe whatever they wanna believe, but how their beliefs impact others are also important!
To restrict another from being married or having the right to be married just like anyone else in a consensual relationship is evil, it is the opposite of love. For Christians to deny others this right is to deny one of christs most important teachings and commandments.
Suzanne Ferreras the moment You feel you need to stand up for God is the moment that God becomes as powerful as the muscles on your arms.
8
September at 21:43 via mobile
· Like · 6
Jan
Coates How many 'wives' did King David or Moses, or any of a number of
other OT 'heroes' have, Don Cameron? (and for that matter, how many concubines,
slaves etc as well?)
Marriage between consenting adult human beings is a statement of their love for one another. The state (here in Australia) has recently redefined 'marriage' as the 'union of one male and one female'. Not that long ago, girls of 12 and 13 were sold into marriage on a regular basis, and this was considered 'normal'. Now we are horrified when it happens and try to stop it.
Marriage between consenting adult human beings is a statement of their love for one another. The state (here in Australia) has recently redefined 'marriage' as the 'union of one male and one female'. Not that long ago, girls of 12 and 13 were sold into marriage on a regular basis, and this was considered 'normal'. Now we are horrified when it happens and try to stop it.
Jan
Coates Vic Etherington - you crack me up!!!
Don
Cameron Thanks for writing Jan.
"....we will ignore the fact that the bible was written by a bunch of very fallible human beings and the translated and edited further by more fallible humans for their own purposes."
This is your assumption Jan and one that Jesus did not share. My view is that this is a faulty assumption. If the rest of your opinions are based on a faulty assumption then they are most likely wrong (just as mine are when my foundational thinking is wrong)
You have your views, which you are perfectly entitled to, and which I respect.
Thanks. A very genuine thanks. The best debates are civil ones.
I would also appreciate you respecting the views of others like myself,
who prefer to believe that our Lord's one great command - "Love one
another as I have loved you" overrides anything else that is written.
The tricky part is, who defines what love is? Jesus spoke the truth in love but commanded all people to repent. He told the sexually immoral lady 'Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more' He sent his disciples out to spread the gospel and teach people to obey his commands telling them that they would be hated, persecuted and put to death.
I have heard all kinds of definitions of love. I've read that in WW2 German soldiers were told they were doing a loving act by killing Jews who were vermin and better off dead. I've spoken to ladies many years my senior who were crying and telling me when they terminated their pregnancy many decades earlier they were told it was a loving thing to do but they have always regretted it.
Who gets to define what love is if we don't search out the rest of the bible?
Jesus told us to watch out for people who speak falsehood in his name. I reckon I would be guilty of this at times and often need correction. When does a person who claims to be a Christian cease being a Christian? When they stop believing and adhering to the teachings of God's Word?
"....we will ignore the fact that the bible was written by a bunch of very fallible human beings and the translated and edited further by more fallible humans for their own purposes."
This is your assumption Jan and one that Jesus did not share. My view is that this is a faulty assumption. If the rest of your opinions are based on a faulty assumption then they are most likely wrong (just as mine are when my foundational thinking is wrong)
You have your views, which you are perfectly entitled to, and which I respect.
Thanks. A very genuine thanks. The best debates are civil ones.
I would also appreciate you respecting the views of others like myself,
who prefer to believe that our Lord's one great command - "Love one
another as I have loved you" overrides anything else that is written.
The tricky part is, who defines what love is? Jesus spoke the truth in love but commanded all people to repent. He told the sexually immoral lady 'Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more' He sent his disciples out to spread the gospel and teach people to obey his commands telling them that they would be hated, persecuted and put to death.
I have heard all kinds of definitions of love. I've read that in WW2 German soldiers were told they were doing a loving act by killing Jews who were vermin and better off dead. I've spoken to ladies many years my senior who were crying and telling me when they terminated their pregnancy many decades earlier they were told it was a loving thing to do but they have always regretted it.
Who gets to define what love is if we don't search out the rest of the bible?
Jesus told us to watch out for people who speak falsehood in his name. I reckon I would be guilty of this at times and often need correction. When does a person who claims to be a Christian cease being a Christian? When they stop believing and adhering to the teachings of God's Word?
Suzanne
Ferreras @don I may hav misread your comment too, and I was just only
referring to the status . @Vic thanks for your sincerity, I'm just saying from
the Bible, the credit goes to Jesus. @ jeremy - Well that is your opinion too.
But as for anyone, Christians also have a right to an opinion. The foundations
of marriage is only between a man and a woman. This is not about punishing
gays, because why would keeping the marriage law as is, for only a man and a
woman punish a gay?? they still can continue living the same and be in a
defacto relationship as they are doing! Changing the marriage law affects those
that believe marriage since the beginning of age designed by God to be only man
and woman. There is so much more pressing issues than to change the law (which
costs money as well) for a few select who just care about their own happiness
to be considered as being a married couple legally! Marriage is not for a man
and man, never was and never should be. Next society would want for an animal
to marry a human, because there are a few select out their who believe in
having sexual relations with animals too!!! This is not about happiness but
about morality. IF the law does change to include gay marriages well, nothing I
can do, but pray for this nation and I will not stop believing in God but keep
looking forward to the future, because God is always in control and His Word
will never change, His plans will unfold. I would rather be on God's side,
believ in Jesus (I have nothing to lose) than to be a fool and reject Him,
becos if it is true (but many evidence scientifically and throughout history
has proven the resurrection of Jesus), so everything He says is true for a
christian and will happen. We can live however we want, and be happy however we
want, in the end their is justice for all (there is a reason why we exist). So
you can judge me and my faith that is fine, I don't mind, but I shouldn't be
afraid also to say what I believe, as like for anyone in this world, otherwise
we would just be like lemmings! haha.
Belinda J
Terry I go by the rule if its not hurting anybody or taking advantage of
any body/child/animal/object/rollercoaster! Then it is not my place to judge or
my business
8
September at 21:49 via mobile
· Like · 3
Jeremy Maitland Jim
Jones performed a loving act on his followers, People who are confused will
seek answers and acceptance no matter how outrageous and impossible they may
seem.
8
September at 21:52 · Edited · Like · 2
Don
Cameron I may have taken you out of context Jacob. I didn't hear the
article on LightFM and if it was teaching hatred towards people then it was
wrong. I'm oblivious to what was said as I didn't hear it.
I disagree on your definition of love mate. I can't marry my Dad or my Mum or many other people that I genuinely love.
Moses had one wife Jan. Look through the history of the bible and you'll find the leaders that had one wife mostly did ok and the leaders that had multiple wives often failed.
Jan and Belinda - Based on your definition, you are happy for a brother and a sister who love each other to marry each other? I'm not trying to poke a stick in your eye(s), just reflecting back what you are writing.
The roller coaster story is an interesting one. A little bit sad actually as the lady went on holidays each year since she was a child and rode on that ride and now feels an affinity with it and believes it feels the same way about her. In all other respects she appears normal and is not a criminal or behaving badly. She said other people can still ride the roller coaster as well.
I disagree on your definition of love mate. I can't marry my Dad or my Mum or many other people that I genuinely love.
Moses had one wife Jan. Look through the history of the bible and you'll find the leaders that had one wife mostly did ok and the leaders that had multiple wives often failed.
Jan and Belinda - Based on your definition, you are happy for a brother and a sister who love each other to marry each other? I'm not trying to poke a stick in your eye(s), just reflecting back what you are writing.
The roller coaster story is an interesting one. A little bit sad actually as the lady went on holidays each year since she was a child and rode on that ride and now feels an affinity with it and believes it feels the same way about her. In all other respects she appears normal and is not a criminal or behaving badly. She said other people can still ride the roller coaster as well.
Jeremy Maitland but is
the love you have for your family the same type of love you feel for your
partner?
Jacob
Bolton Don Cameron my
heart just sank when i read about the girls that got an abortion. I'm now
finding it hard to participate in this conversation due to how emotional I feel
towards these issues being discussed.
Lord, help us to see your will.
Lord, help us to see your will.
8
September at 21:54 via mobile
· Like · 2
Stephen
Graeme Slater Lol. Wow. I'm with you Jacob.
8
September at 21:55 via mobile
· Like · 2
Jan
Coates Don Cameron - you wrote:
"we will ignore the fact that the bible was written by a bunch of very fallible human beings and the translated and edited further by more fallible humans for their own purposes."
This is your assumption Jan and one that Jesus did not share. My view is that this is a faulty assumption."
Sorry, I don't recall Jesus actually writing anything of the bible. I recall a bunch of people writing about his life some time after he died.
King David was a failure? Please don't tell my Jewish friends that - or those who believe that Jesus is a descendant of David's line. Heroes aren't supposed to be failures. Even Jesus ended up overcoming his failure.
By the way, one of my friends has a wonderful quote about Christianity. It goes along the lines of: "Jesus was a Jewish peasant who never sought to create a new religion, and would probably be bloody ashamed of what we've done supposedly in his name."
And yes, abortion can be an act of love. Before you condemn anyone for doing so, you need to know the how, why and wherefore of the reasons behind such a thing. But that is for another kind of discussion, not this one.
"we will ignore the fact that the bible was written by a bunch of very fallible human beings and the translated and edited further by more fallible humans for their own purposes."
This is your assumption Jan and one that Jesus did not share. My view is that this is a faulty assumption."
Sorry, I don't recall Jesus actually writing anything of the bible. I recall a bunch of people writing about his life some time after he died.
King David was a failure? Please don't tell my Jewish friends that - or those who believe that Jesus is a descendant of David's line. Heroes aren't supposed to be failures. Even Jesus ended up overcoming his failure.
By the way, one of my friends has a wonderful quote about Christianity. It goes along the lines of: "Jesus was a Jewish peasant who never sought to create a new religion, and would probably be bloody ashamed of what we've done supposedly in his name."
And yes, abortion can be an act of love. Before you condemn anyone for doing so, you need to know the how, why and wherefore of the reasons behind such a thing. But that is for another kind of discussion, not this one.
Belinda J
Terry I dont care what a brother or sister choose to do. I care massively
if a child was brought into the world unhealthy because of their incest and I
would not support their marriage. I would NOT be happy if my children chose
that path by any means but I would still love them, same goes if they are gay.
It is not my place to judge others who are not like me. I also believe a lot of
real jerks hide behind religion but each to their own!
8
September at 22:04 via mobile
· Like · 2
Jacob
Bolton Don Cameron they
were discussing tony abbot as pm and his anti-stance on homosexuality, they
made mention of how good it was to not have a pm that is pro gay, they also
made mention of how his immigration policies are appropriate!
Despite what the bible says about hospitality to the alien!
Also Don, your not a fool! Why is that every time discussion about marriage equality comes up especially when talking about consensual same sex marriage, you start talking about marrying a direct family member?
You know full well the different types of love you used and mentioned in the bible, and you know full we'll the terms in which the marriage in which is being discussed is understood. So why do you feel you need to define it or broaden the meaning?
Despite what the bible says about hospitality to the alien!
Also Don, your not a fool! Why is that every time discussion about marriage equality comes up especially when talking about consensual same sex marriage, you start talking about marrying a direct family member?
You know full well the different types of love you used and mentioned in the bible, and you know full we'll the terms in which the marriage in which is being discussed is understood. So why do you feel you need to define it or broaden the meaning?
8
September at 22:08 via mobile
· Like · 1
Belinda J
Terry Sorry Jacob
Bolton for butting in on your post. I know of someone who just lost their
brother to suicide after the church tried to cure his homosexuality many years
ago. I just cant handle hearing these anti gay views from religious people. I
respect all religions just dont agree with the old school way of thinking xx
8
September at 22:09 via mobile
· Like · 4
Jacob
Bolton No Belinda J Terry
thank you.
What was your friends name dare I ask? It breaks my heart so much, when I hear such stories. I certainly have many friends whom are gay and are Jesus loving ppl too.
Not one of them have a nice story to tell about how great it is to be gay and Christian - many of them are struggling with mental illness that has developed due to their families, friends and churches rejecting them due to them being honest about who they are...
Someone very close to me whom I won't name came out to me last year. She said she hid the truth from her family for 10years because she felt she didn't want to be judged by them.
Her family has said they are ok about it but her father disputes that she has a right to be married.
My feelings towards her were of sadness, as I felt, now that she was open about it she would have to fight for her freedoms because ppl just couldn't except her for being anything else.
I certainly feel your pain belinda
What was your friends name dare I ask? It breaks my heart so much, when I hear such stories. I certainly have many friends whom are gay and are Jesus loving ppl too.
Not one of them have a nice story to tell about how great it is to be gay and Christian - many of them are struggling with mental illness that has developed due to their families, friends and churches rejecting them due to them being honest about who they are...
Someone very close to me whom I won't name came out to me last year. She said she hid the truth from her family for 10years because she felt she didn't want to be judged by them.
Her family has said they are ok about it but her father disputes that she has a right to be married.
My feelings towards her were of sadness, as I felt, now that she was open about it she would have to fight for her freedoms because ppl just couldn't except her for being anything else.
I certainly feel your pain belinda
8
September at 22:20 via mobile
· Like · 2
Belinda J
Terry I wont say their name as they wouldnt like it but you dont know them.
Thanks Jacob and yes a lot of people have had very bad experiences life
destroying traumas from others it is just not right. Its bullying and cowardly.
I am all for people being happy and not harming others xx
8
September at 22:40 via mobile
· Like · 2
Don
Cameron Jan. Here's some stuff Jesus said about the bible;
What Jesus Affirmed about the Old Testament
The Nature of the Old Testament's Authority. It Has:
A. Divine Inspiration -- Matthew 22:43
B. Indestructability -- Matthew 5:17,18
C. Infallibility -- John 10:35
D. Final Authority -- Matthew 4:4,7,10
E. Historicity -- Matthew 12:40; 24:37
F. Factual Inerrancy -- John 17:17; Matthew 22:29
G. Christ-Centered Unity --Luke 24:27, John 5:39
H. Spiritual Clarity -- Luke 24:25
I. Faith and Life Sufficiency -- Luke 16:31
The Extent of the Old Testament's Authority. It Extends to:
A. The Words -- Matthew 22:43; (cf. 1 Cor. 2:13)
B. The Tenses of Verbs -- Matthew 22:32; (cf. Gal. 3:16)
C. The Smallest Parts of the Words -- Matthew 5:17,18
Re; King David a failure. Sorry about the confusion. I was commenting on the success of his polygamous relationships which were outside the will of God. One of his children raped his half sister and was then killed by his half brother who tried to kill his Father and was killed in battle against his Father. It's not a pleasant history or a good advertisement for polygamous relationships. That was my point. Apologies for not stating it more clearly. David was "a man after God's own heart" but his hormones and choices let him down.
I shared the story about women telling me their history to point out how unhappy the women were that they had abortions. I grieved too. At the time they were told it was loving but even at the time they didn't really want an abortion but felt coerced into having one because people around them told them it was the most loving thing to do. Decades later these ladies are still grieving what happened and I saw their tears and feel at least some of their pain. These sorts of things are etched in my memory and I will never forget them.
Can aborting a baby be an act of love? That's a discussion for another time. I've never seen an abortion or known somebody who was terminated after an abortion but I see the effect it can have on women who experience abortions. I didn't mean to turn the debate this way, I was just saying there are all kinds of definitions for what is 'loving' which can include killing people. I think Martin Luther wrote a lot about executing a criminal saying this could be a loving thing to do. It's a big topic.
Belinda! You are one of the few people to answer a direct question in a clear an concise way. Thanks for that. You explained your position very well.
Jacob - thanks for explaining what was on the radio. Appropriate immigration standards? I'm glad Joseph didn't have to flee to Australia with Mary and baby Jesus when Herod was trying to kill him.
I do understand the different kinds of love in the bible (kinship love, erotic love and others) but I assumed that people here are not referring to love in the biblical context. There is no affirmation of erotic love between homosexuals in the bible. I think we've looked into that in detail before with a few of your mates and the best they could come up with was 'it may have been a possibility' while I harked on about the bible verses that said it was not and you said it was referring to worshiping Molech?
A few years ago the Labor party (a state one or local branch from memory) wrote that they affirmed the love of any two consenting people as the same as heterosexual marriage. My friend emailed them and asked if this meant incest and paedophilia. They emailed back very quickly and thanked him for pointing that out. They withdrew their statement and thought about it a lot more before posting up a more carefully worded statement expressing what they really meant.
I hate it that anyone takes their own life and I am very sad that homosexual men are way too highly represented in the statistics in this area. I can honestly say that homosexuals feel very comfortable around me and don't feel threatened or condemned by me or my actions. I have also stood at the funerals of homosexual friends. Last year a bisexual man told me I was his only friend and the only one who cared about him then added that he knew we didn't share the same views on sexual morality.
What Jesus Affirmed about the Old Testament
The Nature of the Old Testament's Authority. It Has:
A. Divine Inspiration -- Matthew 22:43
B. Indestructability -- Matthew 5:17,18
C. Infallibility -- John 10:35
D. Final Authority -- Matthew 4:4,7,10
E. Historicity -- Matthew 12:40; 24:37
F. Factual Inerrancy -- John 17:17; Matthew 22:29
G. Christ-Centered Unity --Luke 24:27, John 5:39
H. Spiritual Clarity -- Luke 24:25
I. Faith and Life Sufficiency -- Luke 16:31
The Extent of the Old Testament's Authority. It Extends to:
A. The Words -- Matthew 22:43; (cf. 1 Cor. 2:13)
B. The Tenses of Verbs -- Matthew 22:32; (cf. Gal. 3:16)
C. The Smallest Parts of the Words -- Matthew 5:17,18
Re; King David a failure. Sorry about the confusion. I was commenting on the success of his polygamous relationships which were outside the will of God. One of his children raped his half sister and was then killed by his half brother who tried to kill his Father and was killed in battle against his Father. It's not a pleasant history or a good advertisement for polygamous relationships. That was my point. Apologies for not stating it more clearly. David was "a man after God's own heart" but his hormones and choices let him down.
I shared the story about women telling me their history to point out how unhappy the women were that they had abortions. I grieved too. At the time they were told it was loving but even at the time they didn't really want an abortion but felt coerced into having one because people around them told them it was the most loving thing to do. Decades later these ladies are still grieving what happened and I saw their tears and feel at least some of their pain. These sorts of things are etched in my memory and I will never forget them.
Can aborting a baby be an act of love? That's a discussion for another time. I've never seen an abortion or known somebody who was terminated after an abortion but I see the effect it can have on women who experience abortions. I didn't mean to turn the debate this way, I was just saying there are all kinds of definitions for what is 'loving' which can include killing people. I think Martin Luther wrote a lot about executing a criminal saying this could be a loving thing to do. It's a big topic.
Belinda! You are one of the few people to answer a direct question in a clear an concise way. Thanks for that. You explained your position very well.
Jacob - thanks for explaining what was on the radio. Appropriate immigration standards? I'm glad Joseph didn't have to flee to Australia with Mary and baby Jesus when Herod was trying to kill him.
I do understand the different kinds of love in the bible (kinship love, erotic love and others) but I assumed that people here are not referring to love in the biblical context. There is no affirmation of erotic love between homosexuals in the bible. I think we've looked into that in detail before with a few of your mates and the best they could come up with was 'it may have been a possibility' while I harked on about the bible verses that said it was not and you said it was referring to worshiping Molech?
A few years ago the Labor party (a state one or local branch from memory) wrote that they affirmed the love of any two consenting people as the same as heterosexual marriage. My friend emailed them and asked if this meant incest and paedophilia. They emailed back very quickly and thanked him for pointing that out. They withdrew their statement and thought about it a lot more before posting up a more carefully worded statement expressing what they really meant.
I hate it that anyone takes their own life and I am very sad that homosexual men are way too highly represented in the statistics in this area. I can honestly say that homosexuals feel very comfortable around me and don't feel threatened or condemned by me or my actions. I have also stood at the funerals of homosexual friends. Last year a bisexual man told me I was his only friend and the only one who cared about him then added that he knew we didn't share the same views on sexual morality.
Duane
Wood im glad that people like you exist jacob, that can hold the bible
close yet still steer clear of that stereotypical anti gay bashing thing. Very
impressed.
Jessica Morrison
Please friends lets be careful with our words....gay people from religious
backgrounds have suicide rates even higher than those who don't, and I think it
is something for us to ponder. Do our words and actions tear down, or build up?
Is the generosity of spirit that Christ always showed to those who are
oppressed present in our selves? I love Jesus, and I have come to believe that
God does not condemn loving gay relationships... My favorite short article
reflecting this Biblical perspective is www.jmm.org.au/articles/20763.htm
If you are gay and Christian and want to meet others who are too there are plenty
of places to check out....i would suggest www.freedom2b.org/
...in loving memory of Damien Christie who was an inspiration to my
discipleship journey, a faithful disciple of Christ - but couldn't take anymore
condemning words and left us too soon
Jacob
Bolton Correct me if I'm wrong Don Cameron but in the same way
as how you don't define love to be taken biblically - you do define marriage as
biblical, and then expect that of others?
Whose right is it to define what marriage must be, and why is it filtered through a biblical viewpoint? (Especially considering how much the state is separate from the church)
Do you believe it's ok for non-faithful/believers to be married?
The law declares it as a civil union. What is a civil union to start with and how does it suddenly differ from ppl whom aren't the 1 woman and 1 man?
What if a man becomes a woman legally? Surely you don't believe it's a persons genitals that defines their sexuality?!
Further correct me if I'm wrong, and only after answering the questions I asked above, but does the bible define marriage? (I don't agree that the question posed to mr Rudd in Q&A was a definition)
Whose right is it to define what marriage must be, and why is it filtered through a biblical viewpoint? (Especially considering how much the state is separate from the church)
Do you believe it's ok for non-faithful/believers to be married?
The law declares it as a civil union. What is a civil union to start with and how does it suddenly differ from ppl whom aren't the 1 woman and 1 man?
What if a man becomes a woman legally? Surely you don't believe it's a persons genitals that defines their sexuality?!
Further correct me if I'm wrong, and only after answering the questions I asked above, but does the bible define marriage? (I don't agree that the question posed to mr Rudd in Q&A was a definition)
8
September at 23:46 via mobile
· Like · 1
Jacob
Bolton Jessica
Morrison great to hear from you jess, I hope all is well
Would love to catch up for coffee/wine sometimes?
Would love to catch up for coffee/wine sometimes?
8
September at 23:53 via mobile
· Like
Joel
Rothman Poor Don cops it on Facebook - too many FB friends of friends like
me ready to argue hard. But you argue back well Don.
A few points I'll make about the Old Testament are:
- the Old Testament understanding of sex, marriage and procreation is very different from the modern Evangelical Christian understanding of sex, marriage and procreation.
- yes, that includes polygamy. The narratives of the OT about polygamous families are no worse than the narratives of monogamous families. Start at the beginning: Adam and Eve were monogamous, and their first son Cain killed their second son. Cain's son took two wives, and there is no story of family discord. Yes, later Abraham had issues around potential rivalry between his two sons from different mothers. But then his son Isaac had the some issue with his sons, and he had only one woman.
- but yes, I agree with your presupposition: the narratives of the OT do convey theology. They are not just neutral stories of "what happened". It is clear to me as I read the OT that its narratives condemn various sex acts as immoral, e.g. adultery and rape, but they do not condemn polygamy.
- the OT never condemns homosexual acts or relationships except in Leviticus, which is the book that more than any other is concerned with ritual purity. All of the OT is reinterpreted in light of the Jesus event, but particularly ritual purity. It is a bit of a stretch to say that the OT defines homosexual acts/relationships as absolutely, universally, eternally wrong.
Finally, you say that the Bible never affirms homosexual erotic love. As I read the Bible that is true (though someone might disagree with me on that), but there are many things the Bible never affirms that Christians can validly celebrate, and many things the Bible never condemns that Christians can validly mourn, e.g. the deliberate termination of a pregnancy.
A few points I'll make about the Old Testament are:
- the Old Testament understanding of sex, marriage and procreation is very different from the modern Evangelical Christian understanding of sex, marriage and procreation.
- yes, that includes polygamy. The narratives of the OT about polygamous families are no worse than the narratives of monogamous families. Start at the beginning: Adam and Eve were monogamous, and their first son Cain killed their second son. Cain's son took two wives, and there is no story of family discord. Yes, later Abraham had issues around potential rivalry between his two sons from different mothers. But then his son Isaac had the some issue with his sons, and he had only one woman.
- but yes, I agree with your presupposition: the narratives of the OT do convey theology. They are not just neutral stories of "what happened". It is clear to me as I read the OT that its narratives condemn various sex acts as immoral, e.g. adultery and rape, but they do not condemn polygamy.
- the OT never condemns homosexual acts or relationships except in Leviticus, which is the book that more than any other is concerned with ritual purity. All of the OT is reinterpreted in light of the Jesus event, but particularly ritual purity. It is a bit of a stretch to say that the OT defines homosexual acts/relationships as absolutely, universally, eternally wrong.
Finally, you say that the Bible never affirms homosexual erotic love. As I read the Bible that is true (though someone might disagree with me on that), but there are many things the Bible never affirms that Christians can validly celebrate, and many things the Bible never condemns that Christians can validly mourn, e.g. the deliberate termination of a pregnancy.
Jacob
Bolton Thanks Joel I
had wondered if you had seen this, several of my other friends certainly agree
with me but are tired of talking to ppl on Facebook about it
9
September at 00:57 via mobile
· Like · 1
Jan
Coates Jacob - my
apologies for hijacking the thread a little, but I would like to try to
understand the thinking behind some of the opinions held here, if I may.
Don Cameron - thank you for telling me what "Jesus said about the bible" and the appropriate references. I am not being sarcastic: I am genuinely grateful for anything which furthers my education and opens my mind to the views of others.
I believe (and my knowledge is insufficient to supply the appropriate references) that on many, many occasions, Jesus lamented the fallibility of the human being and even selectively quoted from Scripture, according to the lesson he was trying to teach. I also believe that any translation (and I have recently read a statement by N.T. Wright in which he compares the NIV [I think] very unfavourably with the original [?] Greek which backs this up) is also an interpretation and will involve some degree of 'poetic licence' in which words are chosen to be recorded are selected and nuanced by the translator as a result of their own experiences and the 'lens' through which they view the world.
You say "Infallibility -- John 10:35". The NKJ version I read says "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),". How does this relate to the commandment "thou shalt have no other gods before me"?
You quote John 17:17 as representative of "Factual Inerrancy": (NKJ version) 'Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth.' I don't follow. I thought that in this passage, "your word" was Jesus - 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God' (John 1:1). I don't interpret 'the word' as being the stuff written down by a human being.
You also quote Matthew 22:29 'Jesus answered and said to them "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures not the power of God"'. I don't see this as representing "Factual Inerrancy" either.
I have only picked on this, because I recently read several threads on another FB friend's page about the I/I conundrum. I have also recently read "A New Kind of Christianity" by Brian McLaren, and am about to start a book which has been highly recommended to me "The Jesus Driven Life" by Michael Hardin. I wonder if you have read either, and have any comment to make on them?
Jessica Morrison - I would also recommend the website by Anthony Venn-Brown http://gayambassador.blogspot.com.au/ and Matt Glover's counselling service http://www.mgacounselling.com.au/Matt_Glover.html.
Don Cameron - thank you for telling me what "Jesus said about the bible" and the appropriate references. I am not being sarcastic: I am genuinely grateful for anything which furthers my education and opens my mind to the views of others.
I believe (and my knowledge is insufficient to supply the appropriate references) that on many, many occasions, Jesus lamented the fallibility of the human being and even selectively quoted from Scripture, according to the lesson he was trying to teach. I also believe that any translation (and I have recently read a statement by N.T. Wright in which he compares the NIV [I think] very unfavourably with the original [?] Greek which backs this up) is also an interpretation and will involve some degree of 'poetic licence' in which words are chosen to be recorded are selected and nuanced by the translator as a result of their own experiences and the 'lens' through which they view the world.
You say "Infallibility -- John 10:35". The NKJ version I read says "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),". How does this relate to the commandment "thou shalt have no other gods before me"?
You quote John 17:17 as representative of "Factual Inerrancy": (NKJ version) 'Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth.' I don't follow. I thought that in this passage, "your word" was Jesus - 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God' (John 1:1). I don't interpret 'the word' as being the stuff written down by a human being.
You also quote Matthew 22:29 'Jesus answered and said to them "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures not the power of God"'. I don't see this as representing "Factual Inerrancy" either.
I have only picked on this, because I recently read several threads on another FB friend's page about the I/I conundrum. I have also recently read "A New Kind of Christianity" by Brian McLaren, and am about to start a book which has been highly recommended to me "The Jesus Driven Life" by Michael Hardin. I wonder if you have read either, and have any comment to make on them?
Jessica Morrison - I would also recommend the website by Anthony Venn-Brown http://gayambassador.blogspot.com.au/ and Matt Glover's counselling service http://www.mgacounselling.com.au/Matt_Glover.html.
gayambassador.blogspot.com
Anthony Venn-Brown - LGBT Coach, Author,
Consultant, Trainer
9
September at 07:05 · Edited · Like · 2
Don
Cameron G'day Joel and Jacob. I think we've discussed polygamy in great
detail before and thrown a few weblinks at each other. Apologies to the
non-biblical people here but in the beginning, Adam and Eve. Jesus affirmed
this saying a man will leave his Father and Mother (as he is single and not
already married) and go to be with his wife (singular).
Jacob - I do affirm the biblical definition of love. For Christians 'This is love for the Lord... to....' you know the rest! When secular people use the word 'love' it can mean many different things. I was asking what the secular definition of love was if that was the definition we are using in this discussion. I will cling to the biblical definition and hope people correct me if I move from that.
In my opinion (which may change) non-faithful believers are not actually in a marriage as they have broken the marriage (in my understanding). There are better ways than abandoning the marriage vows though. I see this as a bit of a red herring but you are probably going somewhere I'm not aware of.
A man will always be a man. A woman will always be a woman. Changing the outwards appearance doesn't alter brain structure even though drugs can change hormone levels. There is a bit in God's word about people whose sex/gender is more fluid through no fault of their own.
Jesus defined marriage using well known bible verses. There is much written in the bible about marriage. I'm really not sure where you are going with this but I've answered the questions (I think?)
So which forms of 'marriage equality' do you consider equal Jacob? Why do you feel that way for some and not others? There is a movement in Germany at the moment that wants to emulate the success of the gay lobby. Are you aware of that?
My point about polygamy not working well was a generalisation as often we don't know all the details. It happened but God never instructed anyone to be polygamous. I am aware that people who favour homosexual acts as good can never accept Leviticus as it appears but must find an alternative definition to cling to. I'm guessing you are familiar with the regulative/normative debate?
Jan... I'm busy now but I'll check out your link later.
Jacob - I do affirm the biblical definition of love. For Christians 'This is love for the Lord... to....' you know the rest! When secular people use the word 'love' it can mean many different things. I was asking what the secular definition of love was if that was the definition we are using in this discussion. I will cling to the biblical definition and hope people correct me if I move from that.
In my opinion (which may change) non-faithful believers are not actually in a marriage as they have broken the marriage (in my understanding). There are better ways than abandoning the marriage vows though. I see this as a bit of a red herring but you are probably going somewhere I'm not aware of.
A man will always be a man. A woman will always be a woman. Changing the outwards appearance doesn't alter brain structure even though drugs can change hormone levels. There is a bit in God's word about people whose sex/gender is more fluid through no fault of their own.
Jesus defined marriage using well known bible verses. There is much written in the bible about marriage. I'm really not sure where you are going with this but I've answered the questions (I think?)
So which forms of 'marriage equality' do you consider equal Jacob? Why do you feel that way for some and not others? There is a movement in Germany at the moment that wants to emulate the success of the gay lobby. Are you aware of that?
My point about polygamy not working well was a generalisation as often we don't know all the details. It happened but God never instructed anyone to be polygamous. I am aware that people who favour homosexual acts as good can never accept Leviticus as it appears but must find an alternative definition to cling to. I'm guessing you are familiar with the regulative/normative debate?
Jan... I'm busy now but I'll check out your link later.
Don
Cameron Jan - Written word. Spoken word. Living 'Word'. Big topic but not a
difficult one. I appreciate the way you write. I'll watch the clip now.
Don
Cameron It wasn't a clip but a collection of articles... I've seen most of
them before but thanks for posting anyway.
There is a common theme to many liberals which is this - You can't really know what God is on about.
In a previous lengthy thread with Jacob, Joel and one or two others I kept presenting the arguments;
(1) God exists
(2) God is able to communicate clearly in a way we can understand
When people start saying 'Did God really say that?', it is an argument that has been around since the beginning of time and we know who started it. Brian McLaren and other similar writers seem to go down this track quite often. I think I started read a book of his around ten years ago but didn't finish it. I've read a few John Shelby-Spong books though and they are very similar.
A better question to ask is 'Am I sure I am getting this right or is my prejudice/bias getting in the way of what God is saying?'
I feel like I have to keep defending my comments so I am not misinterpreted as in the past (and possibly here) people like to put words in my mouth and claim I hold a position which I do not.
I am aware of God's Word telling us 'Woe to those who call evil, good and good, evil' and when we affirm things that are against biblical teaching we are in danger of doing just that. If homosexual sex is good (in some contexts) then woe to me for saying it is not and massive woe to me if I am proclaiming something invoking God's Name when God declares the opposite to my utterings. This is where I am very concerned for people who call themselves Christians but don't seem to follow the teachings of Christ when it comes his teachings on sexual immorality. To be sure, my life is far from perfect and people can hold the bible up to me and ask 'Are you loving God as you should?' or 'Are you loving your neighbour as yourself?' and I could claim that I am or acknowledge that I am not, confess and renounce my sin in repentance and start again. The issue about sexuality for me is that some Christians are open to reading what the bible has to say but passionately declare it is not true and hold to another teaching that is unbiblical while still claiming to be a Christian.
Over the past 15 years I have continually watched and listened to Christian people trying to tell me how they bible teaches homosexual acts can be good and godly. It would be much easier to accept this view and have many people welcome me with open arms for agreeing with them. If I am to be convinced though, it has to be with Scripture. I think God has spoken and He has communicated clearly. Feel free to hate me or judge me on my 'actions'.
There is a common theme to many liberals which is this - You can't really know what God is on about.
In a previous lengthy thread with Jacob, Joel and one or two others I kept presenting the arguments;
(1) God exists
(2) God is able to communicate clearly in a way we can understand
When people start saying 'Did God really say that?', it is an argument that has been around since the beginning of time and we know who started it. Brian McLaren and other similar writers seem to go down this track quite often. I think I started read a book of his around ten years ago but didn't finish it. I've read a few John Shelby-Spong books though and they are very similar.
A better question to ask is 'Am I sure I am getting this right or is my prejudice/bias getting in the way of what God is saying?'
I feel like I have to keep defending my comments so I am not misinterpreted as in the past (and possibly here) people like to put words in my mouth and claim I hold a position which I do not.
I am aware of God's Word telling us 'Woe to those who call evil, good and good, evil' and when we affirm things that are against biblical teaching we are in danger of doing just that. If homosexual sex is good (in some contexts) then woe to me for saying it is not and massive woe to me if I am proclaiming something invoking God's Name when God declares the opposite to my utterings. This is where I am very concerned for people who call themselves Christians but don't seem to follow the teachings of Christ when it comes his teachings on sexual immorality. To be sure, my life is far from perfect and people can hold the bible up to me and ask 'Are you loving God as you should?' or 'Are you loving your neighbour as yourself?' and I could claim that I am or acknowledge that I am not, confess and renounce my sin in repentance and start again. The issue about sexuality for me is that some Christians are open to reading what the bible has to say but passionately declare it is not true and hold to another teaching that is unbiblical while still claiming to be a Christian.
Over the past 15 years I have continually watched and listened to Christian people trying to tell me how they bible teaches homosexual acts can be good and godly. It would be much easier to accept this view and have many people welcome me with open arms for agreeing with them. If I am to be convinced though, it has to be with Scripture. I think God has spoken and He has communicated clearly. Feel free to hate me or judge me on my 'actions'.
Jacob
Bolton Personally I don't see these as definitions of marriage, I see them
as definition of one type of marriage, but certainly not the definition.
What's your understanding of marriage if nonchristian male/female marriage isn't valid to you?
Is marriage expressly something that can be had between Christians?
There are several discussions going on here in multiple categories, if I can outline them I will try, please add your own if I have missed some,
- what is love we are talking about as a nonbiblical definition
- what does the bible mention about love
- what is marriage nonbiblically (tho I personally don't believe marriage to be a particular biblical thing in its own right)
- who deserves the right to be married
- what is a civil union
I don't have an agenda here don, nor am i leading somewhere else, I'm actually just trying to receive a broader perspective
What's your understanding of marriage if nonchristian male/female marriage isn't valid to you?
Is marriage expressly something that can be had between Christians?
There are several discussions going on here in multiple categories, if I can outline them I will try, please add your own if I have missed some,
- what is love we are talking about as a nonbiblical definition
- what does the bible mention about love
- what is marriage nonbiblically (tho I personally don't believe marriage to be a particular biblical thing in its own right)
- who deserves the right to be married
- what is a civil union
I don't have an agenda here don, nor am i leading somewhere else, I'm actually just trying to receive a broader perspective
9
September at 12:08 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron Yes, it was getting a bit messy. Marriage is one man and one woman
for life excluding all others. This is a picture of the trinity and some
Christians get upset when the 'natural order' of things (in quotes, don't get
angry) is not recognised.
Non-Christian male/female marriage IS valid to me.
The non-biblical definition of love can be whatever want it to mean. I'm not saying these are good definitions. I listed the different kinds of relationships some people view as 'marriage' and use the word 'love' to define their version. I don't think it's enough just to put the word 'love' before something to somehow validate what it is. Germans killing Jews etc.
1Corinthians 13. I didn't make it to your wedding but I reckon it's a 50/50 chance you may have had that one read out there? Love is.....etc Husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and there are many other times different forms of love are mentioned in the bible.
(Red Herring - Was it Alanah Myles who sang 'Love is... what you want it to be. Love is.... heaven to the lonely... Love is... what you want it to do.... Love is what I've got for you' - I prefer the biblical definition).
One answer to your question on non-biblical marriage might be to say non-biblical marriage is however people want to define it. Paedophile marriage? Objectum marriage? Why can't we all just make up our own definition of marriage and do whatever we want? If we say yes to this then we need to let people define marriage in ways we may not agree with.
Who deserves the right to be married? In a theological sense, nobody. If we got what we deserved we'd all be in a lot of trouble.
As I understand it, a civil union is where two people agree to unify their assets legally. Similar to a marriage but the couple may not be in any physical relationship but just heading in the same direction in life and want their partner to get their stuff if they die etc.
Thanks for pointing out you weren't leading to something else. Your questions just appeared a bit random and it's good to know that it's genuine randomness so I'll take them at face value.
Pretty much all the stuff I've written about can be found easily online or in the bible (I think). Please point out if I'm wrong as I often am.
Non-Christian male/female marriage IS valid to me.
The non-biblical definition of love can be whatever want it to mean. I'm not saying these are good definitions. I listed the different kinds of relationships some people view as 'marriage' and use the word 'love' to define their version. I don't think it's enough just to put the word 'love' before something to somehow validate what it is. Germans killing Jews etc.
1Corinthians 13. I didn't make it to your wedding but I reckon it's a 50/50 chance you may have had that one read out there? Love is.....etc Husbands are told to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and there are many other times different forms of love are mentioned in the bible.
(Red Herring - Was it Alanah Myles who sang 'Love is... what you want it to be. Love is.... heaven to the lonely... Love is... what you want it to do.... Love is what I've got for you' - I prefer the biblical definition).
One answer to your question on non-biblical marriage might be to say non-biblical marriage is however people want to define it. Paedophile marriage? Objectum marriage? Why can't we all just make up our own definition of marriage and do whatever we want? If we say yes to this then we need to let people define marriage in ways we may not agree with.
Who deserves the right to be married? In a theological sense, nobody. If we got what we deserved we'd all be in a lot of trouble.
As I understand it, a civil union is where two people agree to unify their assets legally. Similar to a marriage but the couple may not be in any physical relationship but just heading in the same direction in life and want their partner to get their stuff if they die etc.
Thanks for pointing out you weren't leading to something else. Your questions just appeared a bit random and it's good to know that it's genuine randomness so I'll take them at face value.
Pretty much all the stuff I've written about can be found easily online or in the bible (I think). Please point out if I'm wrong as I often am.
Jacob
Bolton I have stopped trying to convince you don, it's clear to me that at
least at this impasse in our lives we are simply not going to agree on these
things.
But I do still appreciate your insights and desire to discuss things.
But I do still appreciate your insights and desire to discuss things.
9
September at 12:57 via mobile
· Like · 1
Les
Toth Both well said, nothing more to add.
J
William Smith marriage to me is a legal binding contract between two
parties.
Jacob
Bolton J William Smith
should your definition of marriage include ppl of a variet sexes or singular as
well, as agreeing to a consensual agreement?
9
September at 15:44 via mobile
· Like · 1
J
William Smith ummmmm.......
J
William Smith if not for love then for legal equality in the system, gay
marriage should be allowed , but thats my opinion and everyone is entitled to
their own
Don
Cameron Fair enough mate. Does your opinion stand for the other versions of
marriage as well?
Here are the forms of marriage I know about;
- monogamous marriage
- open marriage
- polygamous marriage
- homosexual marriage
- incestuous marriage
- paedophile marriage
- bestiality marriage (google stuff happening in Germany)
- objectum marriage (people who marry objects)
(Going around in circles but I'm guessing you haven't read everything here).
Here are the forms of marriage I know about;
- monogamous marriage
- open marriage
- polygamous marriage
- homosexual marriage
- incestuous marriage
- paedophile marriage
- bestiality marriage (google stuff happening in Germany)
- objectum marriage (people who marry objects)
(Going around in circles but I'm guessing you haven't read everything here).
J
William Smith well me personally open marriage is up to the individual ,
homosexual marriage should be legal , incestuous marriage died off in the dark
ages , pedophile marriage is wrong because you cant legally sign a contract
under the age of 18 , bestiality is also wrong because im pretty sure a dog
cant sign a contract either same with objectum marriage.... dont know much
about the rest.
Don
Cameron Good honest answers mate. Do you see the problems when everyone
defines marriage however they want?
There are still people around who want to marry their siblings. A few years ago a Father and his (adult) daughter were taken to court for having sex with each other and promised not to do it again so it 'does' happen today. Using your definition, you would have to be in favour of this as well as polygamous marriages wouldn't you?
I see your point about people having to sign a form for legal reasons. I understand these are your personal reasons (well stated) and you are definitely entitled to your views. Thanks for sharing them.
There are still people around who want to marry their siblings. A few years ago a Father and his (adult) daughter were taken to court for having sex with each other and promised not to do it again so it 'does' happen today. Using your definition, you would have to be in favour of this as well as polygamous marriages wouldn't you?
I see your point about people having to sign a form for legal reasons. I understand these are your personal reasons (well stated) and you are definitely entitled to your views. Thanks for sharing them.
J
William Smith no problems mate, its strange to talk about politics,
religion etc without an argument lol in the end im going to marry my awesome
girlfriend and have kids and live happily ever after , what everyone else does
is none of my business
Jacob
Bolton Don, whenever I have had a discussion about this you have always
wanted to define marriage equality as a broader definition, when its always
been clear the context in which its meant to everyone except seemingly you.
The marriage that is being talked about is the same marriage as being discussed presently within the media and interwebs, same sex consensual marriage. You are the only person I know whom seems to understand this differently, and by extension seem to want it to be specified in every conversation, why is this?
The marriage that is being talked about is the same marriage as being discussed presently within the media and interwebs, same sex consensual marriage. You are the only person I know whom seems to understand this differently, and by extension seem to want it to be specified in every conversation, why is this?
9
September at 16:32 via mobile
· Like · 1
John Adams you'd think
after this video they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Im curious as to how you will tackle this one Suzanne Ferreras,
https://www.youtube.com/watch...
Im curious as to how you will tackle this one Suzanne Ferreras,
https://www.youtube.com/watch...
Kevin Rudd rebukes a questioner on ABC Television's
Q&A program on the issue of whether he should have changed stance on
gay marriage.
Jan
Coates Don Cameron: the two website references were intended for Jessica
Morrison.
At the risk of sounding rude, your observation makes me wonder how closely you read the post.
At the risk of sounding rude, your observation makes me wonder how closely you read the post.
Don
Cameron Sorry about that Jan. The top of the post addressed me and I
thought the bottom was meant for everyone to look at. Jacob - I see things
happening around the world and they are starting to happen in Australia. How we
define marriage must be consistent with our values. People state what values
they have (justice, fairness, equality etc) but then don't use their values to
apply to all people, just the people they like and approve of.
This is prejudiced bigotry (in my opinion). When a person says 'I believe X because God says so' it's a bit of a closed door unless you can convince them their God/god did not say such things. At least you would expect a person who said this to be consistent in applying it in all circumstances. Some of the things I've been accused of is not being consistent and I've tried to address that.
Words have meanings. It appears that 'Equality' in the 'Marriage Equality' argument does not actually mean 'equality' at all. Muslims are opposed to homosexual sex. A few years back the President of Iran said there were no people having homosexual sex in the whole of Iran as it is a Western thing. I don't know if even he believes that is true but I say that to point out that at least some Muslims are hoping that if/when same-sex relationships are recognised as marriage then polygamous relationships will also be recognised as marriage.
I've found people who say 'I am for marriage equality' don't actually mean the want all forms of marriage to be considered equally at all. It sounds a bit silly when people use that term but redefine what the words mean to suit the argument. Perhaps a bit like when George W Bush was told by his advisors to stop saying 'global warming' and start using the term 'climate change' which has really taken off. Political correctness is applying different meanings to words to try and convince people of their argument.
I've read in many places where people ask for a definition of marriage equality (not just me saying this) and the wheels seem to fall off the wagon every single time. If same-sex relationships were deemed to be marriage as there is love involved, it is consensual and nobody is harmed in the process (as we're hearing), why not have polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage and other forms of marriage recognised for the same reason? Why do those values on count when considering same sex marriage and not other forms? The logic does not make sense to me. I understand people thinking 'we will just take it one step at a time' but where are we going with that?
I will continue bringing this up when the terms 'marriage equality', 'loving', 'consensual' and other such terms are used as this is not exclusive to same sex relationships in the real world and using this logic should apply to all situations.
I'll probably get abused for this but I am against prejudice and bigotry. If there is a good reason for something then it should be applied equally. If there are good reasons for marriage equality then it should be applied equally for all marriages. Otherwise there is something fundamentally wrong with the arguments used to support that position.
This sounds really harsh and I realise that real people are involved (and some tragically commit suicide when they feel they don't have other options) so I'm not trying to sound flippant, just addressing the question Jacob asked.
This is prejudiced bigotry (in my opinion). When a person says 'I believe X because God says so' it's a bit of a closed door unless you can convince them their God/god did not say such things. At least you would expect a person who said this to be consistent in applying it in all circumstances. Some of the things I've been accused of is not being consistent and I've tried to address that.
Words have meanings. It appears that 'Equality' in the 'Marriage Equality' argument does not actually mean 'equality' at all. Muslims are opposed to homosexual sex. A few years back the President of Iran said there were no people having homosexual sex in the whole of Iran as it is a Western thing. I don't know if even he believes that is true but I say that to point out that at least some Muslims are hoping that if/when same-sex relationships are recognised as marriage then polygamous relationships will also be recognised as marriage.
I've found people who say 'I am for marriage equality' don't actually mean the want all forms of marriage to be considered equally at all. It sounds a bit silly when people use that term but redefine what the words mean to suit the argument. Perhaps a bit like when George W Bush was told by his advisors to stop saying 'global warming' and start using the term 'climate change' which has really taken off. Political correctness is applying different meanings to words to try and convince people of their argument.
I've read in many places where people ask for a definition of marriage equality (not just me saying this) and the wheels seem to fall off the wagon every single time. If same-sex relationships were deemed to be marriage as there is love involved, it is consensual and nobody is harmed in the process (as we're hearing), why not have polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage and other forms of marriage recognised for the same reason? Why do those values on count when considering same sex marriage and not other forms? The logic does not make sense to me. I understand people thinking 'we will just take it one step at a time' but where are we going with that?
I will continue bringing this up when the terms 'marriage equality', 'loving', 'consensual' and other such terms are used as this is not exclusive to same sex relationships in the real world and using this logic should apply to all situations.
I'll probably get abused for this but I am against prejudice and bigotry. If there is a good reason for something then it should be applied equally. If there are good reasons for marriage equality then it should be applied equally for all marriages. Otherwise there is something fundamentally wrong with the arguments used to support that position.
This sounds really harsh and I realise that real people are involved (and some tragically commit suicide when they feel they don't have other options) so I'm not trying to sound flippant, just addressing the question Jacob asked.
Joel
Rothman Hi Don,
I understand why you're raising the issue of other potential forms of marriage equality. I agree with Smith on bestiality and objectum - no amount of lobbying is going to transform dogs and cars into persons capable of signing contracts.
But on a deeper level my answer is this:
In some ways I have jumped on the "marriage equality" bandwagon because it is the only one I can see going in roughly the right direction. But if me and some like-minded Christians were to build our own bandwagon from scratch it would have the more deeply biblical concept of "full inclusion" painted on the side.
I support full inclusion of all races, classes and sexes in the life of the church, including in leadership. With a few exceptions, these are unchosen and unchanging parts of who a person is.
I support the full inclusion of all sexual orientations because the scientific evidence points to sexual orientation being something that is unchosen and determined very early in life (long before puberty) and a generally unchangeable part of who a person is. On the other hand, I am not aware of any scientific evidence pointing to some people having a lifelong unchangeable orientation of being romantically/sexually attracted only to immediate family members.
I support "gay marriage equality" because I see it primarily as an issue of inclusion. It would be society saying, "we include you, we accept you, and we will support you". Actually, that is why I support a referendum on gay marriage, because the result truly would be the whole of Australian society making a statement one way or the other.
I understand why you're raising the issue of other potential forms of marriage equality. I agree with Smith on bestiality and objectum - no amount of lobbying is going to transform dogs and cars into persons capable of signing contracts.
But on a deeper level my answer is this:
In some ways I have jumped on the "marriage equality" bandwagon because it is the only one I can see going in roughly the right direction. But if me and some like-minded Christians were to build our own bandwagon from scratch it would have the more deeply biblical concept of "full inclusion" painted on the side.
I support full inclusion of all races, classes and sexes in the life of the church, including in leadership. With a few exceptions, these are unchosen and unchanging parts of who a person is.
I support the full inclusion of all sexual orientations because the scientific evidence points to sexual orientation being something that is unchosen and determined very early in life (long before puberty) and a generally unchangeable part of who a person is. On the other hand, I am not aware of any scientific evidence pointing to some people having a lifelong unchangeable orientation of being romantically/sexually attracted only to immediate family members.
I support "gay marriage equality" because I see it primarily as an issue of inclusion. It would be society saying, "we include you, we accept you, and we will support you". Actually, that is why I support a referendum on gay marriage, because the result truly would be the whole of Australian society making a statement one way or the other.
Jacob
Bolton ^ my feelings too Joel
10
September at 08:43 via mobile
· Like · 1
Don
Cameron I agree with almost all that you write Joel! Yes, the Church has
always has people with many different kinds of sexuality. I knew a Pastor of a
large Church who had Christians come to him and admit they had been jailed for
having sex with children but now they were Christians they had denied
themselves and picked up their cross to follow Jesus (confessed, renounced and
repented of their sin). The Pastor put down some strict guidelines to ensure
the person was least likely to be tempted to sin while being involved in Church
activities. Unfortunately some of these people could not keep away from hanging
out with the kids so the Pastor exercised Church discipline and they were no
longer allowed to attend (they failed to repent of their wrongdoing).
With this in mind, I support people with all kinds of sexual identity being part of the Church community as Christians if they are genuine Christians.
I think it's hypocritical to tell somebody they are bigoted on one level while the person being critical is bigoted on many other levels but blind to their prejudices while happily criticising others.
With this in mind, I support people with all kinds of sexual identity being part of the Church community as Christians if they are genuine Christians.
I think it's hypocritical to tell somebody they are bigoted on one level while the person being critical is bigoted on many other levels but blind to their prejudices while happily criticising others.
Don
Cameron If you genuinely hold the feelings that you express, why are you
not happy for polygamy, incest and other forms of relationships to be
recognised as marriage?
Being very pedantic, are you saying that people who are illiterate and can not sign contracts should not be recognised as being married? I don't think you are. The fella in Germany gives some compelling evidence that the animal 'wants' to have a sexual encounter with the person of it's choosing. He talks about the animal only presenting itself to it's owner for this and no other people. An exclusive loving relationship in his opinion. I disagree with this but once you set the rules they should be fair to everyone.
Most gay marriage advocates dp not want a referendum on it yet as old people would ensure it was defeated.
Being very pedantic, are you saying that people who are illiterate and can not sign contracts should not be recognised as being married? I don't think you are. The fella in Germany gives some compelling evidence that the animal 'wants' to have a sexual encounter with the person of it's choosing. He talks about the animal only presenting itself to it's owner for this and no other people. An exclusive loving relationship in his opinion. I disagree with this but once you set the rules they should be fair to everyone.
Most gay marriage advocates dp not want a referendum on it yet as old people would ensure it was defeated.
Joel
Rothman When I said "sign a contract", what I meant was
"hold legal contractual responsibilities".
10
September at 09:43 via mobile
· Like · 3
Joel
Rothman Sex with animals is one thing, marriage with animals quite another.
10
September at 09:44 via mobile
· Like · 3
Don
Cameron You'll have to argue that with the fella in Germany mate. Bizarre
but true. So where do you stand on incest and marriage or polygamy and
marriage?
Joel
Rothman The German guy made comments about sexual exclusivity. There is a
lot more to marriage than that.
Imagine the absurdities:
A women gets paid Parenting Payment Partnered because her new husband (Rover) is not employed.
A man gets the Carers Allowance because his wife (Volvo 240) needs constant maintenance.
Animals, objects and even human children are not capable of responsibly entering into a legal contractual arrangement. So there is no possibility of animals or objects marrying humans under Australian law. I did hear a story of an Indian woman marrying a tree in a traditional Hindu tree-marriage ceremony, but that is quite different from marriage under national law.
Imagine the absurdities:
A women gets paid Parenting Payment Partnered because her new husband (Rover) is not employed.
A man gets the Carers Allowance because his wife (Volvo 240) needs constant maintenance.
Animals, objects and even human children are not capable of responsibly entering into a legal contractual arrangement. So there is no possibility of animals or objects marrying humans under Australian law. I did hear a story of an Indian woman marrying a tree in a traditional Hindu tree-marriage ceremony, but that is quite different from marriage under national law.
10
September at 10:27 via mobile
· Like · 2
Joel
Rothman If by "incest" you mean e.g. a brother marrying a sister,
I don't think the principle of "full inclusion" requires that I
support that, because there is no scientific evidence that some people are only
attracted to immediate family members.
If by "incest" you mean e.g. a father marrying his under-age daughter, I don't support that for quite a range of reasons.
I am not absolutely opposed to polygamy. I think it is far from ideal in most situations, but not absolutely morally wrong. The Bible is fairly accepting of polygamy, but does raise some cautions about it. In certain situations is might have been the right thing to do, e.g. following a massive war that killed off half the young men. The principle of "full inclusion" might suggest that I support it in certain situations, e.g. when a Sudanese family consisting of one man, two women, and their six children apply to be accepted as refugees.
But full inclusion does not demand that I always support it, because it is not the case that the majority of men are only attracted to one woman, and the minority are only attracted to groups of women.
If by "incest" you mean e.g. a father marrying his under-age daughter, I don't support that for quite a range of reasons.
I am not absolutely opposed to polygamy. I think it is far from ideal in most situations, but not absolutely morally wrong. The Bible is fairly accepting of polygamy, but does raise some cautions about it. In certain situations is might have been the right thing to do, e.g. following a massive war that killed off half the young men. The principle of "full inclusion" might suggest that I support it in certain situations, e.g. when a Sudanese family consisting of one man, two women, and their six children apply to be accepted as refugees.
But full inclusion does not demand that I always support it, because it is not the case that the majority of men are only attracted to one woman, and the minority are only attracted to groups of women.
Don
Cameron "there is no scientific evidence that some people are only
attracted to immediate family members."
That's an interesting comment Joel. I know of a range of men who claim to be homosexual but have Fathered children with a woman or sometimes their wife at the time indicating that they not 'only' attracted to men. Can I assume you would not be in favour of allowing a bi-sexual person to marry? I'm probably opening up a can of worms but your foundational thinking seems to be more on the 'science of the day' rather than hard core evidence.
I'm sure you could understand some people labelling your comments about bestiality as prejudiced and bigoted. Particularly one fella in Germany. Join my club mate! See you at the Christmas dinner
Regarding bestiality, we could change other laws so spouses in this arrangement would not get full inclusion or just change the language to reflect our new understanding. Instead of 'who is your spouse?' government departments could start asking the more inclusive 'what is your spouse?'. Change with the times mate. Learn to be accepting of other forms of marriage even if you don't agree with it. Nobody will force you to marry an animal but just give others the freedom to have their love recognised (written with my tongue firmly in my cheek but you see the point).
I think we've discussed polygamy before and you make some good points, but neither of us seem to be in favour of recognising this as marriage.
That's an interesting comment Joel. I know of a range of men who claim to be homosexual but have Fathered children with a woman or sometimes their wife at the time indicating that they not 'only' attracted to men. Can I assume you would not be in favour of allowing a bi-sexual person to marry? I'm probably opening up a can of worms but your foundational thinking seems to be more on the 'science of the day' rather than hard core evidence.
I'm sure you could understand some people labelling your comments about bestiality as prejudiced and bigoted. Particularly one fella in Germany. Join my club mate! See you at the Christmas dinner
Regarding bestiality, we could change other laws so spouses in this arrangement would not get full inclusion or just change the language to reflect our new understanding. Instead of 'who is your spouse?' government departments could start asking the more inclusive 'what is your spouse?'. Change with the times mate. Learn to be accepting of other forms of marriage even if you don't agree with it. Nobody will force you to marry an animal but just give others the freedom to have their love recognised (written with my tongue firmly in my cheek but you see the point).
I think we've discussed polygamy before and you make some good points, but neither of us seem to be in favour of recognising this as marriage.
Jan
Coates Mr Cameron -
I too "know of a range of men ..(who) have fathered children ...sometimes with a wife". It's commonly known as 'living in the closet' and 'denial'. It's called 'being pressured into a "normal" relationship because bigoted, narrow-minded individuals can't keep their noses out of the affairs of others'.
It's not that long ago that professing homosexual feelings was illegal - and if you want to see the ugly side, just have a look at what is currently happening in Russia and several African countries - which is why so many men (in particular) hid their feelings.
By the way: polygamy isn't exclusively one male - many female. Some societies promote the one female-many male structure of 'family'.
I too "know of a range of men ..(who) have fathered children ...sometimes with a wife". It's commonly known as 'living in the closet' and 'denial'. It's called 'being pressured into a "normal" relationship because bigoted, narrow-minded individuals can't keep their noses out of the affairs of others'.
It's not that long ago that professing homosexual feelings was illegal - and if you want to see the ugly side, just have a look at what is currently happening in Russia and several African countries - which is why so many men (in particular) hid their feelings.
By the way: polygamy isn't exclusively one male - many female. Some societies promote the one female-many male structure of 'family'.
Don
Cameron Fair points Jan. I was addressing Joel's comments on this occasion.
If a man is able to Father a chid with a woman then I'm guessing he must have
been at least slightly attracted to the women or the activity he was
participating in. I know how the plumbing works (or fails to work if things
aren't right).
A question I may have asked before - Do you favour (all kinds of) polygamy to be accepted as marriage? I saw a show about a lady in Brittan who lived with her two husbands.
A question I may have asked before - Do you favour (all kinds of) polygamy to be accepted as marriage? I saw a show about a lady in Brittan who lived with her two husbands.
Jan
Coates There's also this thing called a 'turkey baster' Mr Cameron. I know
of at least one gay who has fathered 3 children for lesbian friends (oh, yes,
they do mix, and can love one another platonically!) through this method. I
also know of at least one child who is the result of a physical liaison between
a gay a lesbian.
If there is a requirement for 'at least slight' attraction - would you care to explain rape of aged pensioners? Being ageist, I don't see how a young man of 16-20 could be 'turned on' by a wrinkly old lady of 80. Or homosexual rape by an averred heterosexual as a punishment? Happens a lot during war. I guess that would put a lot of prostitutes out of business, too. Erections can be produced, Mr Cameron - not just because you are 'slightly attracted', but because there is a 'reason' to have one. I've seen many guys obtain an erection purely because sex is on offer - not because they have any interest other than basic male hormonal - in the female at all.
I have committed to a contract that involves one male. However, in many circles, I am considered a polygamist because I have have engaged in sexual intercourse with other males prior to my undertaking the state-defined marriage vows in which I chose to commit myself to my husband, and only to my husband, sexually. There was no minister of any religion or denomination was present at the ceremony, and there was no reference to "God" in the vows. Does that make my marriage invalid?
If there is a requirement for 'at least slight' attraction - would you care to explain rape of aged pensioners? Being ageist, I don't see how a young man of 16-20 could be 'turned on' by a wrinkly old lady of 80. Or homosexual rape by an averred heterosexual as a punishment? Happens a lot during war. I guess that would put a lot of prostitutes out of business, too. Erections can be produced, Mr Cameron - not just because you are 'slightly attracted', but because there is a 'reason' to have one. I've seen many guys obtain an erection purely because sex is on offer - not because they have any interest other than basic male hormonal - in the female at all.
I have committed to a contract that involves one male. However, in many circles, I am considered a polygamist because I have have engaged in sexual intercourse with other males prior to my undertaking the state-defined marriage vows in which I chose to commit myself to my husband, and only to my husband, sexually. There was no minister of any religion or denomination was present at the ceremony, and there was no reference to "God" in the vows. Does that make my marriage invalid?
10
September at 18:56 · Edited · Like · 1
Don
Cameron I was actually asking Joel about his position but I'm happy to
answer questions. I don't quite follow what you are talking about. I think a
wife would notice the difference between a turkey baster and part of her
husband. Perhaps you are a bit confused as to how it actually works from a
fellas perspective?
Rape is always horrible (I think we agree on that) but for some reason a man 'can' be turned on by any range of things. Perhaps many things that should not turn him on.
I've stated a few times that I fully accept marriage between non-Church people marriage. I'm not sure what the issue is there?
Rape is always horrible (I think we agree on that) but for some reason a man 'can' be turned on by any range of things. Perhaps many things that should not turn him on.
I've stated a few times that I fully accept marriage between non-Church people marriage. I'm not sure what the issue is there?
Jan
Coates Mr Cameron:
" If a man is able to Father a chid with a woman then I'm guessing he must have been at least slightly attracted to the women or the activity he was participating in"
"but for some reason a man 'can' be turned on by any range of things"
I might be a bit thick, but I sense a contradiction here.
If you wish to address your comments to a specific person, could you please identify that person in your opening line? That way, the rest of us will know to butt out.
" If a man is able to Father a chid with a woman then I'm guessing he must have been at least slightly attracted to the women or the activity he was participating in"
"but for some reason a man 'can' be turned on by any range of things"
I might be a bit thick, but I sense a contradiction here.
If you wish to address your comments to a specific person, could you please identify that person in your opening line? That way, the rest of us will know to butt out.
Joel
Rothman Don, you wrote "I know of a range of men who claim to be
homosexual but have Fathered children with a woman or sometimes their wife at
the time indicating that they not 'only' attracted to men... I'm probably
opening up a can of worms but your foundational thinking seems to be more on
the 'science of the day' rather than hard core evidence."
I found that a strange comment. The "science of the day" may not be absolutely proven beyond all doubt, but surely it is more solid than "someone told me a story about.........so I reckon that........."?
Science collects data in a systematic way and analyses it precisely, and gradually comes closer and closer to firmer conclusions - conclusions that are often quite different from what a lay person might guess at. And science is coming more and more to the conclusion that sexual orientation is largely determined long before puberty and is largely unchangeable once it is set. And science has shown that there are large numbers of men who are attracted to men the way I am attracted to women, and who are NOT attracted to women just as I am NOT attracted to men. I will accept the scientific evidence.
I found that a strange comment. The "science of the day" may not be absolutely proven beyond all doubt, but surely it is more solid than "someone told me a story about.........so I reckon that........."?
Science collects data in a systematic way and analyses it precisely, and gradually comes closer and closer to firmer conclusions - conclusions that are often quite different from what a lay person might guess at. And science is coming more and more to the conclusion that sexual orientation is largely determined long before puberty and is largely unchangeable once it is set. And science has shown that there are large numbers of men who are attracted to men the way I am attracted to women, and who are NOT attracted to women just as I am NOT attracted to men. I will accept the scientific evidence.
Don
Cameron Jan... Yes. A man can be attracted to a whole range of things.
Being 'homo' sexual means they are only attracted to men. Being 'Bi' sexual
means they can be attracted to either a man or a woman. etc. Sorry about any
ambiguity. A man who commits a crime by raping a very elderly woman must be at
least slightly attracted to that kind of situation.
Joel. I see your point. By saying 'I have heard' or 'I was told' etc I am asking to be proven wrong. What you claim science is pointing to is what I've been saying in the last few posts. If a man has sex with a woman can he then claim to be homosexual or at least partially bi-sexual?
I accept that a person's sexuality may develop or change in some cases but often, from what I've heard it can be rigid and unlikely to change. There is an argument in some circles (done it again) that people who desire to have sex with children are not criminal but sick and need to be cured. We've heard that argument before. What about people who desire to have sex with animals? I am not wired that way sexually myself but if I person happens to have that set up I am not one to hate them and they are still be welcome to my house to enjoy a meal with my family if they posed no danger to my children (or pets). This doesn't mean I have to approve of them practising their sexuality to make them feel good about themselves.
You still haven't answered my question that if a man is capable of having sex with a woman, based on what you said several posts back, would you accept that he should be able to 'marry' a man? I'm guessing you might like to reconsider or at least re-word that post?
On a side note, I know a lot of men who have been in prison for long periods of time (last time for this post Joel, I promise). Some have sexual experiences there with other men. Some who have been extremely sexually promiscuous outside prison find that they just can't bring themselves to engage in sex with a man no matter how great their desire for sex is. I reckon a true 'homo' sexual would feel a similar way about having sex with a woman?
Joel. I see your point. By saying 'I have heard' or 'I was told' etc I am asking to be proven wrong. What you claim science is pointing to is what I've been saying in the last few posts. If a man has sex with a woman can he then claim to be homosexual or at least partially bi-sexual?
I accept that a person's sexuality may develop or change in some cases but often, from what I've heard it can be rigid and unlikely to change. There is an argument in some circles (done it again) that people who desire to have sex with children are not criminal but sick and need to be cured. We've heard that argument before. What about people who desire to have sex with animals? I am not wired that way sexually myself but if I person happens to have that set up I am not one to hate them and they are still be welcome to my house to enjoy a meal with my family if they posed no danger to my children (or pets). This doesn't mean I have to approve of them practising their sexuality to make them feel good about themselves.
You still haven't answered my question that if a man is capable of having sex with a woman, based on what you said several posts back, would you accept that he should be able to 'marry' a man? I'm guessing you might like to reconsider or at least re-word that post?
On a side note, I know a lot of men who have been in prison for long periods of time (last time for this post Joel, I promise). Some have sexual experiences there with other men. Some who have been extremely sexually promiscuous outside prison find that they just can't bring themselves to engage in sex with a man no matter how great their desire for sex is. I reckon a true 'homo' sexual would feel a similar way about having sex with a woman?
Jacob
Bolton Definition of a "true" homosexual don?
I think that due to much of the bias around homosexuality especially in religious circles (not just society), cause many men and women to prevent themselves from discovering or soul searching their sexuality.
Many of my gay friends that have come out have also been married, one of them was married for 10 years and unfortunately he and his wife at the time had several miscarriages. So they were certainly having sex, tho I don't know the specifics of what he or they had to go through to have sex, I would imagine it would have been difficult for him and her.
But because he grew up in a conservative Pentecostal church his heart longed to be with Christ and while he felt great in his relationship to his wife, even tho he was more often aroused by other men.
By their 10th anniversary he felt awful and extremely confused.
It's hard to accurately portray his story without him telling it, essentially its clear he struggled with trying to be true to the woman he knew since he was a boy in the church they went too. Did he ever love her in an Eros sense? Maybe I don't know, but I know he felt he wasn't able to tell anyone who he was really or at least explore it due to his religious experiences of wanting to feel accepted as well as wanting to be honest.
Another friend whom has a similar story is my friend Ron Smith whom if he feels welcome could tell us a bit of his story too
I think that due to much of the bias around homosexuality especially in religious circles (not just society), cause many men and women to prevent themselves from discovering or soul searching their sexuality.
Many of my gay friends that have come out have also been married, one of them was married for 10 years and unfortunately he and his wife at the time had several miscarriages. So they were certainly having sex, tho I don't know the specifics of what he or they had to go through to have sex, I would imagine it would have been difficult for him and her.
But because he grew up in a conservative Pentecostal church his heart longed to be with Christ and while he felt great in his relationship to his wife, even tho he was more often aroused by other men.
By their 10th anniversary he felt awful and extremely confused.
It's hard to accurately portray his story without him telling it, essentially its clear he struggled with trying to be true to the woman he knew since he was a boy in the church they went too. Did he ever love her in an Eros sense? Maybe I don't know, but I know he felt he wasn't able to tell anyone who he was really or at least explore it due to his religious experiences of wanting to feel accepted as well as wanting to be honest.
Another friend whom has a similar story is my friend Ron Smith whom if he feels welcome could tell us a bit of his story too
10
September at 22:42 via mobile
· Like · 1
Joel
Rothman Hi Don,
I'm not against developing views based on "what I heard", I just think we should be very open to having those views corrected by "the science of the day".
"if a man is capable of having sex with a woman...would you accept that he should be able to 'marry' a man?"
Um, I guess I'd probably say yes because I don't believe that being thus capable proves he is hetero or even bi, as others have also suggested above.
I'm not against developing views based on "what I heard", I just think we should be very open to having those views corrected by "the science of the day".
"if a man is capable of having sex with a woman...would you accept that he should be able to 'marry' a man?"
Um, I guess I'd probably say yes because I don't believe that being thus capable proves he is hetero or even bi, as others have also suggested above.
Jacob
Bolton Not sure why that name link didn't work Ron Smith
10
September at 22:53 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron Jacob - Thanks for what you have shared. I have spoken to
practicing homosexual men who call themselves Christians and told me that God
lead them to divorce their wives and leave their children and family home
behind to be in a sexual relationship with a man.
I can understand them feeling like that as many heterosexual men also leave their wives and children behind to try something with 'another woman'. The part I don't understand is how finding out or declaring yourself to be 'same sex attracted' nullifies their marriage vows before the God they say they believe in and follow. I hear their stories but at the base level most of the fellas say something like "I just felt it was the right thing to do". A good mate of mine is a Pastor whose Father was also in a homosexual relationship. He loved his (now deceased) Father and wanted things to be better for him. He also felt pain for his Mother who was shunned and abused by some Church people after this all became public.
I believe a marriage is a covenant until death. A Christian life is one lived for Christ and for the benefit of others, especially your wife and children. I feel really sorry for my friend and also for the situation his whole family found themselves in. I wish I could turn back time and be a reassuring voice in his local Church at the time. Very sad.
At the moment I have a friend who is in a difficult married relationship and struggling. They have children. He has always struggled with same sex attraction and his wife knew this before they were married. He has not had a same sex relationship as he really desired to be a Dad and have children. Should we tell him to leave his wife and explore homosexual sex acts?
Joel - Thanks for explaining your comments. It sounded a bit different when you said it the first time around. I take your point about things we hear and see. To me "the science of the day" is not always reliable and is often hijacked by the person using the 'science'. Good to view it but very important to question it.
I recently read about the singer Ricky Martin saying in his youth he had many sexual encounters with women and then started having sex with men as well. Eventually he said he was gay. I know sexuality is more flexible than many statistics can account for. I would think he could call himself 'bisexual' just as easily as 'homosexual'? One of the ladies from the tv show 'sex in the city' says she is homosexual by choice. She said she knows the gay lobby want to promote the view that people are born that way but she has had sex with men and women and prefers having sex with women. How would you define her sexuality? Should we allow bisexual people to marry both a man and a women? If not, why not?
I can understand them feeling like that as many heterosexual men also leave their wives and children behind to try something with 'another woman'. The part I don't understand is how finding out or declaring yourself to be 'same sex attracted' nullifies their marriage vows before the God they say they believe in and follow. I hear their stories but at the base level most of the fellas say something like "I just felt it was the right thing to do". A good mate of mine is a Pastor whose Father was also in a homosexual relationship. He loved his (now deceased) Father and wanted things to be better for him. He also felt pain for his Mother who was shunned and abused by some Church people after this all became public.
I believe a marriage is a covenant until death. A Christian life is one lived for Christ and for the benefit of others, especially your wife and children. I feel really sorry for my friend and also for the situation his whole family found themselves in. I wish I could turn back time and be a reassuring voice in his local Church at the time. Very sad.
At the moment I have a friend who is in a difficult married relationship and struggling. They have children. He has always struggled with same sex attraction and his wife knew this before they were married. He has not had a same sex relationship as he really desired to be a Dad and have children. Should we tell him to leave his wife and explore homosexual sex acts?
Joel - Thanks for explaining your comments. It sounded a bit different when you said it the first time around. I take your point about things we hear and see. To me "the science of the day" is not always reliable and is often hijacked by the person using the 'science'. Good to view it but very important to question it.
I recently read about the singer Ricky Martin saying in his youth he had many sexual encounters with women and then started having sex with men as well. Eventually he said he was gay. I know sexuality is more flexible than many statistics can account for. I would think he could call himself 'bisexual' just as easily as 'homosexual'? One of the ladies from the tv show 'sex in the city' says she is homosexual by choice. She said she knows the gay lobby want to promote the view that people are born that way but she has had sex with men and women and prefers having sex with women. How would you define her sexuality? Should we allow bisexual people to marry both a man and a women? If not, why not?
Joel
Rothman "What about people who desire to have sex with animals? I am
not wired that way sexually myself but if I person happens to have that set up
I am not one to hate them and they are still be welcome to my house to enjoy a
meal with my family if they posed no danger to my children (or pets). This
doesn't mean I have to approve of them practising their sexuality to make them
feel good about themselves."
Don,
I do believe God expects the church to accept people for who they are, including their sexuality, and to be a community that helps people find the most life-giving ways to express their sexuality in relationship.
If someone is heterosexual then we can support them in expressing their sexuality in relationship (marriage) with the opposite sex.
If someone is homosexual then we can support them in expressing their sexuality in relationship (marriage) with the same sex.
If someone is bi-sexual we can support them in expressing their sexuality relationship (marriage) with either a man or a woman (personally I would encourage them to seek the opposite sex because I think it is an easier life, especially if they want children).
If someone is sexually attracted to both humans and animals, we can support them in expressing their sexuality in relationship (marriage) with a human, because animals are not capable of relating to humans at a fully human level.
If someone is attracted to both children and adults we can support them in expressing their sexuality in relationship with an adult because a sexual relationship is not life-giving for a child.
If someone is attracted only to children we can support them in finding the most life-giving path for their lives without being life-destroying for others, i.e. we can NOT support them in expressing their sexuality in relationship (marriage) with a child because (a) a sexual relationship is not life-giving for a child, and less importantly (b) at some stage the child will grow up, and if the person is only attracted to children, what then? Perhaps we might encourage such a person to join a monastery? Something like that would be the most life-giving option possible in that situation. But for a homosexual peson there are options (as above) that might be more life-giving without being life-destroying for another.
If someone is not sexually attracted to either men or women, we can support them in expressing their non-sexual humanity in relationship/community.
I am not personally aware of any other variations in human sexuality. But it's a big world - feel free to enlighten me.
I agree with your recent comments about marriage being a covenant, and if a gay man had a wife and kids, I would not necessarily support the idea of him leaving the marriage to be with a man, because it would be a breach of the covenant and possibly not the most life-giving option for all involved.
In response to your other question, I would guess that Cynthia Nixon (of Sex and the City fame) is probably about a 4 on the Kinsey scale, so "being homosexual" could well be a genuine choice in her case.
Don,
I do believe God expects the church to accept people for who they are, including their sexuality, and to be a community that helps people find the most life-giving ways to express their sexuality in relationship.
If someone is heterosexual then we can support them in expressing their sexuality in relationship (marriage) with the opposite sex.
If someone is homosexual then we can support them in expressing their sexuality in relationship (marriage) with the same sex.
If someone is bi-sexual we can support them in expressing their sexuality relationship (marriage) with either a man or a woman (personally I would encourage them to seek the opposite sex because I think it is an easier life, especially if they want children).
If someone is sexually attracted to both humans and animals, we can support them in expressing their sexuality in relationship (marriage) with a human, because animals are not capable of relating to humans at a fully human level.
If someone is attracted to both children and adults we can support them in expressing their sexuality in relationship with an adult because a sexual relationship is not life-giving for a child.
If someone is attracted only to children we can support them in finding the most life-giving path for their lives without being life-destroying for others, i.e. we can NOT support them in expressing their sexuality in relationship (marriage) with a child because (a) a sexual relationship is not life-giving for a child, and less importantly (b) at some stage the child will grow up, and if the person is only attracted to children, what then? Perhaps we might encourage such a person to join a monastery? Something like that would be the most life-giving option possible in that situation. But for a homosexual peson there are options (as above) that might be more life-giving without being life-destroying for another.
If someone is not sexually attracted to either men or women, we can support them in expressing their non-sexual humanity in relationship/community.
I am not personally aware of any other variations in human sexuality. But it's a big world - feel free to enlighten me.
I agree with your recent comments about marriage being a covenant, and if a gay man had a wife and kids, I would not necessarily support the idea of him leaving the marriage to be with a man, because it would be a breach of the covenant and possibly not the most life-giving option for all involved.
In response to your other question, I would guess that Cynthia Nixon (of Sex and the City fame) is probably about a 4 on the Kinsey scale, so "being homosexual" could well be a genuine choice in her case.
Jacob
Bolton I think you have added in some of your own conclusions there don,
there's a lot of things you have replied with that I didn't say, I'm guessing
these were more on your own conclusions.
I'm not saying his divorce wasn't messy but I'm also not saying that he believed God was calling him into a homosexual relationship! I don't know the details of his divorce nor do I need too, it may have been instigated by his wife after being told he knew that he was gay.
Any case, the fact that he had a divorce not what i was really on about. It was the fact that he was still able to have sex with his wife! Even tho he was not heterosexual.
Anything can trigger men! I speak very personally about this.
Infact I have a genetic disorder, it's not a common one, in any case to sum it up part of my disorder I go thru something of a "male period" once every 28 days (+/-). In this period I become extremely aroused, by much of anything.
While on this state there have been times when I have looked at men I knew and some I didn't and felt the desire to wanna have sex with them. Naturally, when I became a Christian (19) I kept this detail to myself - Fear of ridicule!
So I opted to keep it to myself, it wasn't till 2 years ago when I started going to a baptist church called imagine in Sydney, that believed in same sex marriage equality and same sex attraction to be sinless, and to rather associate such beliefs as homophobic in origin.
So with my wife's support we chose to see if there was anything more to it than just feelings I received every now and then. The church helped me thru my journey of self discovery, I considered this a very precious time in my life, as my wife and I grew much closer and I was able to self discover in a healthy way whether or not there was more to this than some sort of odd feelings I occasionally feel but am ultimately afraid of.
My wife and I decided, while going thru this journey, if I turned out to be gay, then we would talk about that then. If I turned out to be straight or bi then we would continue our marriage, and work thru the difficulties if I was bi.
It turned out I was Hetro-sexual, but it was healthy for me to discover and to be able to put my feelings of condemnation to rest, as for the first time I was able to question this stuff in a healthy, constructive and non-judgemental church, that focused much of its energies on helping ppl to reconnect and love God once more or heal the damage where ppl had done them hurt.
I highly recommend a similar experience for us all to try, in a healthy manner and be truthful to yourself
I'm not saying his divorce wasn't messy but I'm also not saying that he believed God was calling him into a homosexual relationship! I don't know the details of his divorce nor do I need too, it may have been instigated by his wife after being told he knew that he was gay.
Any case, the fact that he had a divorce not what i was really on about. It was the fact that he was still able to have sex with his wife! Even tho he was not heterosexual.
Anything can trigger men! I speak very personally about this.
Infact I have a genetic disorder, it's not a common one, in any case to sum it up part of my disorder I go thru something of a "male period" once every 28 days (+/-). In this period I become extremely aroused, by much of anything.
While on this state there have been times when I have looked at men I knew and some I didn't and felt the desire to wanna have sex with them. Naturally, when I became a Christian (19) I kept this detail to myself - Fear of ridicule!
So I opted to keep it to myself, it wasn't till 2 years ago when I started going to a baptist church called imagine in Sydney, that believed in same sex marriage equality and same sex attraction to be sinless, and to rather associate such beliefs as homophobic in origin.
So with my wife's support we chose to see if there was anything more to it than just feelings I received every now and then. The church helped me thru my journey of self discovery, I considered this a very precious time in my life, as my wife and I grew much closer and I was able to self discover in a healthy way whether or not there was more to this than some sort of odd feelings I occasionally feel but am ultimately afraid of.
My wife and I decided, while going thru this journey, if I turned out to be gay, then we would talk about that then. If I turned out to be straight or bi then we would continue our marriage, and work thru the difficulties if I was bi.
It turned out I was Hetro-sexual, but it was healthy for me to discover and to be able to put my feelings of condemnation to rest, as for the first time I was able to question this stuff in a healthy, constructive and non-judgemental church, that focused much of its energies on helping ppl to reconnect and love God once more or heal the damage where ppl had done them hurt.
I highly recommend a similar experience for us all to try, in a healthy manner and be truthful to yourself
11
September at 00:08 via mobile
· Like · 2
Don
Cameron Thanks for sharing that Jacob. I feel privileged that you shared it
with me and others. Apologies for adding my own conclusions (it would help me
if you pointed out where I did that so I could stop).
I feel that the lines have been blurred a bit between how a Church should follow the teachings of God (from the bible) and how we should act on feelings.
Joel - I liked your comments about how we can support people to live godly lives but I notice you list your own rules of how you would encourage people to behave. When it comes to paedophilia you say 'abstinence' but when it comes to 'homosexual sex' you say 'acceptance and encouragement'. I agree with your view on paedophilia but here's my issue;
As a Christian there are no bible verses that I can think of where the age of sexual consent is recorded. It seemed to go by the consent of the Father to marry off his daughter (not Son) to a man. There is a group in America that wants to lower the age of sexual consent in males so older men can have sex with them. They call it the 'North American Man Boy Love Association'. If this group was successful and lowered the age of consent to, say, 10 years old, would you be happy encouraging these homosexual men to 'love' a ten year old boy since the law allowed it? I'll leave that point and move to my next one.
Every time the bible mentions homosexual sex it is in a negative connotation describing the activity as sinful (if it comments at all). To be fair, there are homosexual rapes and all rape is wrong whatever the sexuality involved. Jesus defined marriage as between one man and one woman (we've been over this a fair bit) and we both believe that God has spoken and He is able to communicate clearly.
Why do you condemn paedophiles when the bible doesn't have anything directly to say about them (that I know of) but you affirm homosexual sex when the bible seems to condemn that many times over?
Can you see my point?
I stand with you in condemning sex with children as sinful.
I feel that the lines have been blurred a bit between how a Church should follow the teachings of God (from the bible) and how we should act on feelings.
Joel - I liked your comments about how we can support people to live godly lives but I notice you list your own rules of how you would encourage people to behave. When it comes to paedophilia you say 'abstinence' but when it comes to 'homosexual sex' you say 'acceptance and encouragement'. I agree with your view on paedophilia but here's my issue;
As a Christian there are no bible verses that I can think of where the age of sexual consent is recorded. It seemed to go by the consent of the Father to marry off his daughter (not Son) to a man. There is a group in America that wants to lower the age of sexual consent in males so older men can have sex with them. They call it the 'North American Man Boy Love Association'. If this group was successful and lowered the age of consent to, say, 10 years old, would you be happy encouraging these homosexual men to 'love' a ten year old boy since the law allowed it? I'll leave that point and move to my next one.
Every time the bible mentions homosexual sex it is in a negative connotation describing the activity as sinful (if it comments at all). To be fair, there are homosexual rapes and all rape is wrong whatever the sexuality involved. Jesus defined marriage as between one man and one woman (we've been over this a fair bit) and we both believe that God has spoken and He is able to communicate clearly.
Why do you condemn paedophiles when the bible doesn't have anything directly to say about them (that I know of) but you affirm homosexual sex when the bible seems to condemn that many times over?
Can you see my point?
I stand with you in condemning sex with children as sinful.
Jacob
Bolton Actually don I did point out an assumption you made
11
September at 09:40 via mobile
· Like
Jacob
Bolton I disagree that Jesus defines marriage too, I agree that he
"define a type of marriage" not "the way to get married"
11
September at 09:45 via mobile
· Like · 1
Joel
Rothman Hi Don,
Just to be clear on one point, I do take issue with the suggestion that the Bible speaks clearly in condemning homosexual sex many times over: the OT only condemns homosexual activity in the context of ritual purity regulations which Christians don't regard as prescriptive for Christian living today; the NT only condemns homosexual activity in three places, two of which are just words in a sin list, and there is genuine scholarly debate about what those Greek words actually referred to; so in the end it comes down to just one single passage in the whole Bible (Romans 1).
But perhaps more importantly there are issues with your refrain "God is able to communicate clearly".
Whether I agree with this depends on exactly what you mean.
I agree that studying the Bible brings us closer to understanding how to live in a way that is pleasing to God.
I don't agree that studying the Bible is easy, or that its meaning is always clear to a modern westerner reading selected passages in an English translation.
I don't agree that you have grasped the Biblical understandings of sex, marriage and procreation.
(I think you are wrong about polygamy in the OT, and I think you have over-interpreted Jesus' reference to Gen 1-2. People like me raise the issue of polygamy in the Bible for the same reason that you raise the issue of "polygamy equality" in contemporary Australia: it is a question of consistency, and inconsistencies can expose flawed reasoning.)
And I don't agree with the (inconsistently applied) conservative hermeneutic. Sometimes I call this the Word Search Hermeneutic. Basically the idea is that to understand the biblical position on an issue, you find every Bible verse that uses the word or refers to the issue. This hermeneutic is naive and deeply flawed. No, to come to a biblical understanding of an issue you don't read all of the Bible's references to the issue; to come to a biblical understanding of an issue you read all of the Bible. As just one example, Genesis 1 is just as relevent to the issue of slavery as is Lev 25.
As I say, I do notice that conservatives apply the Word Search Hermeneutic inconsistently. Abortion and paedophilia are almost always condemned, despite the lack of a Bible verse. My own position on those issues is actually quite similar to the conservative one, but I try to be more consistent in using a more holistic hermeneutic.
This brings me back to the point where I can answer your questions.
"Why do you condemn paedophiles when the bible doesn't have anything directly to say about them?"
Because a holistic reading of the Bible makes certain concepts clear. As I wrote in a previous post, if I were to construct my own bandwagon it would have the words "full inclusion" painted on the side. It would also have "life-giving" and "relationship". When I then consider the situation of a man have sex with a child, and the effect this has on the child, it is clear that it must be condemned because sexual intercourse is not life-giving for a child. The words of Jesus "let the little children come to me, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" is just as relevent to the issue of paedophilia (and abortion) as any potential Bible verse that might have addressed the issue directly.
"Why do you affirm homosexual sex?"
I affirm it in certain contexts for reasons that should already be clear. I affirm it when the biblical principles of "full inclusion", "life-giving" and "relationship" demand that I do so. For a child to have a sexual relationship with a man is life-destroying for the child. For a homosexual man to have a sexual relationship with a man tends to embody the principles of "life-giving" and "relationship" more than any of the other options available to a homosexual man.
It is embarrassing for me to admit that the Church I love got this issue so wrong for so long, and I risk facing suspicion, condemnation and dismissal from the majority of my spiritual family. But I affirm homosexual relationships because, as a follower of Jesus and a student of the Bible, I cannot do anything else.
Just to be clear on one point, I do take issue with the suggestion that the Bible speaks clearly in condemning homosexual sex many times over: the OT only condemns homosexual activity in the context of ritual purity regulations which Christians don't regard as prescriptive for Christian living today; the NT only condemns homosexual activity in three places, two of which are just words in a sin list, and there is genuine scholarly debate about what those Greek words actually referred to; so in the end it comes down to just one single passage in the whole Bible (Romans 1).
But perhaps more importantly there are issues with your refrain "God is able to communicate clearly".
Whether I agree with this depends on exactly what you mean.
I agree that studying the Bible brings us closer to understanding how to live in a way that is pleasing to God.
I don't agree that studying the Bible is easy, or that its meaning is always clear to a modern westerner reading selected passages in an English translation.
I don't agree that you have grasped the Biblical understandings of sex, marriage and procreation.
(I think you are wrong about polygamy in the OT, and I think you have over-interpreted Jesus' reference to Gen 1-2. People like me raise the issue of polygamy in the Bible for the same reason that you raise the issue of "polygamy equality" in contemporary Australia: it is a question of consistency, and inconsistencies can expose flawed reasoning.)
And I don't agree with the (inconsistently applied) conservative hermeneutic. Sometimes I call this the Word Search Hermeneutic. Basically the idea is that to understand the biblical position on an issue, you find every Bible verse that uses the word or refers to the issue. This hermeneutic is naive and deeply flawed. No, to come to a biblical understanding of an issue you don't read all of the Bible's references to the issue; to come to a biblical understanding of an issue you read all of the Bible. As just one example, Genesis 1 is just as relevent to the issue of slavery as is Lev 25.
As I say, I do notice that conservatives apply the Word Search Hermeneutic inconsistently. Abortion and paedophilia are almost always condemned, despite the lack of a Bible verse. My own position on those issues is actually quite similar to the conservative one, but I try to be more consistent in using a more holistic hermeneutic.
This brings me back to the point where I can answer your questions.
"Why do you condemn paedophiles when the bible doesn't have anything directly to say about them?"
Because a holistic reading of the Bible makes certain concepts clear. As I wrote in a previous post, if I were to construct my own bandwagon it would have the words "full inclusion" painted on the side. It would also have "life-giving" and "relationship". When I then consider the situation of a man have sex with a child, and the effect this has on the child, it is clear that it must be condemned because sexual intercourse is not life-giving for a child. The words of Jesus "let the little children come to me, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" is just as relevent to the issue of paedophilia (and abortion) as any potential Bible verse that might have addressed the issue directly.
"Why do you affirm homosexual sex?"
I affirm it in certain contexts for reasons that should already be clear. I affirm it when the biblical principles of "full inclusion", "life-giving" and "relationship" demand that I do so. For a child to have a sexual relationship with a man is life-destroying for the child. For a homosexual man to have a sexual relationship with a man tends to embody the principles of "life-giving" and "relationship" more than any of the other options available to a homosexual man.
It is embarrassing for me to admit that the Church I love got this issue so wrong for so long, and I risk facing suspicion, condemnation and dismissal from the majority of my spiritual family. But I affirm homosexual relationships because, as a follower of Jesus and a student of the Bible, I cannot do anything else.
Jacob
Bolton Joel puts it a lot more eloquently than I am able too, I think I
have told you guys my perspective of the bible and how I read it.
I try to treat scripture as "innocent until proven guilty" which I think is the opposite of Joel's outlined "conservative hermeneutic" where scripture certainly seems to be more "cherry picked" and collated to prove a point rather than actually placed into context in a broader theme of 2 main ingredients, A) what's happening in the story and the rest of the bible.
Too often I have seen this especially from the pulpit (which I feel is a fearful place to do/say such things and if you don't have that fear of god going up there I don't believe you should be there).
Essentially I feel people already funnel their own bias into scripture and then choose how they want to make it sound (tho I realise how that can work both ways, which is why I try to taste and sit with scripture, I also bounce it off people like my mentor and others).
I try to treat scripture as "innocent until proven guilty" which I think is the opposite of Joel's outlined "conservative hermeneutic" where scripture certainly seems to be more "cherry picked" and collated to prove a point rather than actually placed into context in a broader theme of 2 main ingredients, A) what's happening in the story and the rest of the bible.
Too often I have seen this especially from the pulpit (which I feel is a fearful place to do/say such things and if you don't have that fear of god going up there I don't believe you should be there).
Essentially I feel people already funnel their own bias into scripture and then choose how they want to make it sound (tho I realise how that can work both ways, which is why I try to taste and sit with scripture, I also bounce it off people like my mentor and others).
11
September at 11:29 via mobile
· Like
Jacob
Bolton *oh and prayer is another big part of interpreting scripture, lest I
leave that one out!
11
September at 11:32 via mobile
· Like · 1
Don
Cameron Thanks again for your comments.
Can I put some words into your mouth Joel? (I'm going to do it and wait for your response).
You seem to be saying something like "Did God really say He was not in favour of homosexual sex?"
We've had the (good natured) argument about polygamy before and neither of us have moved from our position unfortunately.
You define biblical principals in ways that you understand them (full inclusion) instead of using biblical terms like 'self denial'. Can you see how this can lead to different conclusions about an issue?
There was a politician in Scotland who argued that in Roman society an older man chose a younger apprentice to mentor and he had sex with the younger man/boy which was both loving and beneficial. This politician argued that this was 'life giving' (using different words) so I'm left wondering if it could be shown that sex with a minor was 'life giving', would your position on this issue change? I feel like I'm splitting hairs a bit because your words can be ambiguous. Perhaps it would be good to hear you answer questions in person and not in black and white over Facebook which has limitations.
I've read the bible cover to cover many times over and make a habit of it. I did this twice before I developed much of a theology. From cover to cover it appeared to me that God was only in favour of sex between a man and a woman when they were committed to each other for life (covenant) in marriage. You seem to think this is wrong but fail to give any real examples apart from saying things like 'perhaps David and Jonathan were in a life long, faithful, loving, homosexual relationship called marriage' even though they were married to other people. Can you see my confusion with your points?
Can I copy your conclusion with alterations and say;
I affirm heterosexual relationships alone as marriage because, as a follower of Jesus and a student of the Bible, I cannot do anything else.
Jacob - I agree with you when you say people funnel their own bias into Scripture and I certainly do that, mostly without my knowledge which is why I need others like yourself to challenge me. I think I can honestly say that I would prefer to believe the bible affirmed same-sex relationships as the same as marriage. That would be my bias. When I look at Scripture I can not hold that position and claim to be faithful to what the bible teaches. In all honesty, is it possible that your own bias leads you to the conclusions on homosexual relationships that I simply can not see in Scripture?
Can I put some words into your mouth Joel? (I'm going to do it and wait for your response).
You seem to be saying something like "Did God really say He was not in favour of homosexual sex?"
We've had the (good natured) argument about polygamy before and neither of us have moved from our position unfortunately.
You define biblical principals in ways that you understand them (full inclusion) instead of using biblical terms like 'self denial'. Can you see how this can lead to different conclusions about an issue?
There was a politician in Scotland who argued that in Roman society an older man chose a younger apprentice to mentor and he had sex with the younger man/boy which was both loving and beneficial. This politician argued that this was 'life giving' (using different words) so I'm left wondering if it could be shown that sex with a minor was 'life giving', would your position on this issue change? I feel like I'm splitting hairs a bit because your words can be ambiguous. Perhaps it would be good to hear you answer questions in person and not in black and white over Facebook which has limitations.
I've read the bible cover to cover many times over and make a habit of it. I did this twice before I developed much of a theology. From cover to cover it appeared to me that God was only in favour of sex between a man and a woman when they were committed to each other for life (covenant) in marriage. You seem to think this is wrong but fail to give any real examples apart from saying things like 'perhaps David and Jonathan were in a life long, faithful, loving, homosexual relationship called marriage' even though they were married to other people. Can you see my confusion with your points?
Can I copy your conclusion with alterations and say;
I affirm heterosexual relationships alone as marriage because, as a follower of Jesus and a student of the Bible, I cannot do anything else.
Jacob - I agree with you when you say people funnel their own bias into Scripture and I certainly do that, mostly without my knowledge which is why I need others like yourself to challenge me. I think I can honestly say that I would prefer to believe the bible affirmed same-sex relationships as the same as marriage. That would be my bias. When I look at Scripture I can not hold that position and claim to be faithful to what the bible teaches. In all honesty, is it possible that your own bias leads you to the conclusions on homosexual relationships that I simply can not see in Scripture?
Joel
Rothman Hi Don, I'll have more to say when I'm back on my computer. For now
I'll just correct you on the David and Jonathan thing. That was never my claim.
I think it might have been Alan Austin who said that in a previous debate.
11
September at 15:31 via mobile
· Like · 1
Don
Cameron Sorry mate. Good to hear you deny that. I'm looking forward to your
next response.
Ryan
Gray When Jesus said "Love your neighbor", he didn't say
"Ignore the Father". Jacob, what do you have to say about what the
Father says? Do you know what the Father says?
Jacob
Bolton I did mention that bias can go both ways, I wasn't trying to say
your wrong and I'm right or anything like that.
I can't take responsibility of your bias but I can take ownership of mine. And I would hope my bias is more along the lines of:
"I read with optimism and a desire to seek truth and a true understanding but don't want to draw a conclusion without considering other meanings/understandings". Or something along those lines maybe? But the key word for me there is optimism (tho its always the ism which seems to do the dirty deed )
In regards to your comment you quizzed Joel on about the politician I had been taught something similar, about it being used to break boys in and teach them honour and respect for their roles. It was all dependant on what role the apprentice/young person took on.
A commanding or senior officer would take in a child he saw strength in and he would emasculate the child to show him whom was the superior in their relationship, this wasn't about love it was about power (which is the common theme in emasculation and well as rape), this was done to break their spirit or to make them fall in line with military doctrine. But I would say its a similar situation to the scenario you mentioned once already. About the nazis being told to they were doing a loving thing to the Jews.
Love becomes twisted and distorted, it is a loving act to do this early on lest the soldiers independence display itself in battle and he breaks line and rank to charge his enemy down. Potentially putting his life at risk and the lives of his fellow soldiers as well.
In the same way that it was a loving act to do it to a superior officer that questioned his orders, strike one, strike two and your dead!
Soldiers were also often flogged to keep them in line, all these we're labelled as loving acts.
Intact roman military doctrine required all generals to declare an oath of charity to Caesar.
A charitable act was considered the highest form of love one could offer.
If the generals fame became more popular to that of Caesars, and Caesars power and popularity amongst the people started to be questioned, then an oath would often be requested.
This involved having a roman sword or knife ran up under their rib cage and piercing their heart, it was done at their own hands and done in the name of love towards the imperial creed.
I don't see your example as being valid here don as these are terms that are used in empires built of the backs of slaves at the cost of slavery and capital punishment.
I can give further examples, I used to be a big history buff towards this sort of stuff.
Dig you know the first bleach in rome for washing clothes was made of boiled animal urine and salt waters? And the most common wine was made of fermented fish guts?
I can't take responsibility of your bias but I can take ownership of mine. And I would hope my bias is more along the lines of:
"I read with optimism and a desire to seek truth and a true understanding but don't want to draw a conclusion without considering other meanings/understandings". Or something along those lines maybe? But the key word for me there is optimism (tho its always the ism which seems to do the dirty deed )
In regards to your comment you quizzed Joel on about the politician I had been taught something similar, about it being used to break boys in and teach them honour and respect for their roles. It was all dependant on what role the apprentice/young person took on.
A commanding or senior officer would take in a child he saw strength in and he would emasculate the child to show him whom was the superior in their relationship, this wasn't about love it was about power (which is the common theme in emasculation and well as rape), this was done to break their spirit or to make them fall in line with military doctrine. But I would say its a similar situation to the scenario you mentioned once already. About the nazis being told to they were doing a loving thing to the Jews.
Love becomes twisted and distorted, it is a loving act to do this early on lest the soldiers independence display itself in battle and he breaks line and rank to charge his enemy down. Potentially putting his life at risk and the lives of his fellow soldiers as well.
In the same way that it was a loving act to do it to a superior officer that questioned his orders, strike one, strike two and your dead!
Soldiers were also often flogged to keep them in line, all these we're labelled as loving acts.
Intact roman military doctrine required all generals to declare an oath of charity to Caesar.
A charitable act was considered the highest form of love one could offer.
If the generals fame became more popular to that of Caesars, and Caesars power and popularity amongst the people started to be questioned, then an oath would often be requested.
This involved having a roman sword or knife ran up under their rib cage and piercing their heart, it was done at their own hands and done in the name of love towards the imperial creed.
I don't see your example as being valid here don as these are terms that are used in empires built of the backs of slaves at the cost of slavery and capital punishment.
I can give further examples, I used to be a big history buff towards this sort of stuff.
Dig you know the first bleach in rome for washing clothes was made of boiled animal urine and salt waters? And the most common wine was made of fermented fish guts?
11
September at 16:25 via mobile
· Like
Jacob
Bolton Hi Ryan nice to hear from you again. How are you? The beard looks a
bit shorter!
Have you read app the other comments or have you just read the original post?
Have you read app the other comments or have you just read the original post?
11
September at 16:27 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron Jacob - You're interpretation of what happened in Roman society is
very different to the way the Scottish politician described it. He used the
words like 'faithful, loving and committed' but you use different terms.
Ultimately I don't see any of this in the bible. I keep looking but it keeps
being absent. Yes, God is love but as we have discussed, not all the things us
humans describe as 'love' is actual 'love'. In the words of the song 'I want to
know what love is', how do we know? Jesus tells us what love is and His word
tells us how to love one another. Men having sex with men (or women with women)
is absent from the picture. We can define things however we want but we can't
add in what is not there. We have to make it up and I don't want to do that.
Scripture seems clear to me. That verse about Molech is very helpful if you are looking for a way to discount what God has said, but you have to stretch a lot to get there.
I'm reading a book called 'Bible wines' at the moment and I haven't gotten to the bit about fish guts. I have a mate of mine who has a Doctorate in Roman history so I could ask him what he thought. He's a big fan of beer actually.
Scripture seems clear to me. That verse about Molech is very helpful if you are looking for a way to discount what God has said, but you have to stretch a lot to get there.
I'm reading a book called 'Bible wines' at the moment and I haven't gotten to the bit about fish guts. I have a mate of mine who has a Doctorate in Roman history so I could ask him what he thought. He's a big fan of beer actually.
Ron Smith After
reading most of the comments here, I was very concerned for other gays reading
them and the enormous damage some of them can cause. The whole medical
profession declassified homosexuality as an illness 40 years ago this year. I
worked as a Baptist Pastor, but am now retired. As an evangelical Christian, I
warmly support my gay friends and gay marriage.
To my gay friends, God loves you just as you are. Nothing needs to be cured or fixed. God doesn't make rubbish.
Two things.
If you are in a bad place after reading these posts, can I recommend you get professional help soon? I warmly recommend www.freedom2b.org where gays and sympathizers meet for mutual support. You can be anonymous and joining is free. We also hold monthly meetings in most capital cities. Details are shown on the website. We often discuss how to get into a place where fundamentalist anti-gay Christians can no longer harm you, physically and psychologically. This is so important.
But not all Christians are like that. I was most encouraged to watch the videos on this link, and I hope you are too.
http://notalllikethat.org/videos/
To my gay friends, God loves you just as you are. Nothing needs to be cured or fixed. God doesn't make rubbish.
Two things.
If you are in a bad place after reading these posts, can I recommend you get professional help soon? I warmly recommend www.freedom2b.org where gays and sympathizers meet for mutual support. You can be anonymous and joining is free. We also hold monthly meetings in most capital cities. Details are shown on the website. We often discuss how to get into a place where fundamentalist anti-gay Christians can no longer harm you, physically and psychologically. This is so important.
But not all Christians are like that. I was most encouraged to watch the videos on this link, and I hope you are too.
http://notalllikethat.org/videos/
Helping LGBTI people from Christian backgrounds on
their journey to reconcile their faith, sexuality and gender identity.
11
September at 21:21 · Edited · Like · 2
Don
Cameron ... and for those who want to follow Jesus, He loves us despite our
sins (whatever they may be) and calls us to deny ourselves, repent of our sin,
pick up our cross and follow Him. It's a very difficult journey that none of us
are worthy of going on and none of us can claim to master but with His help we
can be at war with our sin and at peace with God instead of the other way
around.
His promises are trustworthy and He warns us to watch out for those who would deceive us. Many people call good 'evil' and evil 'good'. Beware of those people. All eternity depends on this. May God bless you and all who struggle against sin and find peace with God.
His promises are trustworthy and He warns us to watch out for those who would deceive us. Many people call good 'evil' and evil 'good'. Beware of those people. All eternity depends on this. May God bless you and all who struggle against sin and find peace with God.
Ryan
Gray Jacob Bolton :
I am simply responding to your attempt to 'shame' LightFM for the reason of
their comments regarding homosexuality. Can you not answer my question?
Jacob
Bolton Can you not answer mine?
11
September at 21:26 via mobile
· Like
Ron Smith @ Don I
am asking you to leave all your views of gays to one side for a while, and
study VERY carefully what the Scriptures Actually say on Homosexuality. I am a
conservative, and this is a paper I wrote on the topic.
http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/13935.htm
Be a good Berean (Acts 17:11) They did not accept what Paul said before they had searched the Scriptures for themselves to see if what he was saying was true. When you check the Scriptures carefully, you find that much of what you have been told on this topic is NOT true. I am talking about when translators have inserted words that don't even exist in the Heb & Gk just to help people hold up their Bible and say "This is what the Bible clearly says". When you check it you find they are actually LYING to gay bash. Sorry that is just not acceptable.
http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/13935.htm
Be a good Berean (Acts 17:11) They did not accept what Paul said before they had searched the Scriptures for themselves to see if what he was saying was true. When you check the Scriptures carefully, you find that much of what you have been told on this topic is NOT true. I am talking about when translators have inserted words that don't even exist in the Heb & Gk just to help people hold up their Bible and say "This is what the Bible clearly says". When you check it you find they are actually LYING to gay bash. Sorry that is just not acceptable.
Ryan
Gray I did.
Jacob: Have you read app the other comments or have you just read the original post?
Ryan: I am simply responding to your attempt to 'shame' LightFM for the reason of their comments regarding homosexuality.
I have read many of the comments, however I am just trying to determine whom you serve.
Jacob: Have you read app the other comments or have you just read the original post?
Ryan: I am simply responding to your attempt to 'shame' LightFM for the reason of their comments regarding homosexuality.
I have read many of the comments, however I am just trying to determine whom you serve.
Jacob
Bolton I think his read that one before and remains unconvinced.
Don Cameron I wrote a large response but for some reason it didn't post (gods will maybe )
I will instead ask you, what translation do you read from?
Don Cameron I wrote a large response but for some reason it didn't post (gods will maybe )
I will instead ask you, what translation do you read from?
11
September at 21:32 via mobile
· Like
Jacob
Bolton No you haven't Ryan
Gray
11
September at 21:32 via mobile
· Like
Ryan
Gray What am I missing here?
Jacob
Bolton Ron
Smith welcome to the conversation I'm sorry for the bias of my friends, I
thought it was good to have you take part as the story of your life I have
found an inspirational one. I appreciate your input tho.
Ryan Gray, Q: how are you Ryan?
You will find my answer in the link that Ron posted above, also I share the opinions of Joel Rothman he writes them much more eloquently than I do, so you may enjoy his input more than mine
Also, I have fermented some apple wine if your interested? I live and work in the city now with Collins street baptist church. It would be great to catch up with you some time. In the least to collect my plough off you.
Ryan Gray, Q: how are you Ryan?
You will find my answer in the link that Ron posted above, also I share the opinions of Joel Rothman he writes them much more eloquently than I do, so you may enjoy his input more than mine
Also, I have fermented some apple wine if your interested? I live and work in the city now with Collins street baptist church. It would be great to catch up with you some time. In the least to collect my plough off you.
11
September at 21:47 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron I've just been reading over Ron Smith's link and yes it's quite
impressive. I'll post a brief response to his very long article. Ron.. I agree
with VERY much of what you write. I often take people to Church and yes, some
of them are gay. I feel really sad that gay people experience hatred from
Church people. I can assure you that I am not like that. I'm guessing you
haven't read over the rest of the post. I'm sure you are up for me picking at
your theology a bit. Thanks for putting your views out there.
Don
Cameron Jacob - I read from a TNIV, ESV, NKJV and sometimes a plain NIV
bible. I have a few of them and try to read the same passage in different
bibles. I did one unit of Greek and can fumble around Greek a bit with some
clues but I'm certainly no expert. I once read the KJV and learnt a heap of new
words like 'Hitherto'.
Jacob
Bolton What's hitherto? (Dare I ask)
I did a study on the 50 most sold bibles and counted in each of them which ones condemn homosexual sex in the cherry picked scriptures and which ones don't, I think I may have it somewhere still I will have to look for it.
But it was this personal study that lead me to first query the topic or not - and as it happened this was after a conversation I had had with you once several years ago at cornerstone
I was very surprised at how much they disagreed with each other. Which of course lead me to study further. I'm a bit blurry but I think on 17 of the 50 bibles I looked at directly condemned it in the versus that were most commonly used fore the arguments made against.
If I remember correctly too they all condemned it in the molech worship, I think the message even sandwiched it into a single paragraph.
Despite to say after bumping into rowland croucher (I'm not requesting he join as I feel you don't need more opponents - so to speak) and he placed me in a direction to further query more on the subject.
I did a study on the 50 most sold bibles and counted in each of them which ones condemn homosexual sex in the cherry picked scriptures and which ones don't, I think I may have it somewhere still I will have to look for it.
But it was this personal study that lead me to first query the topic or not - and as it happened this was after a conversation I had had with you once several years ago at cornerstone
I was very surprised at how much they disagreed with each other. Which of course lead me to study further. I'm a bit blurry but I think on 17 of the 50 bibles I looked at directly condemned it in the versus that were most commonly used fore the arguments made against.
If I remember correctly too they all condemned it in the molech worship, I think the message even sandwiched it into a single paragraph.
Despite to say after bumping into rowland croucher (I'm not requesting he join as I feel you don't need more opponents - so to speak) and he placed me in a direction to further query more on the subject.
11
September at 22:12 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron As a general observation, do you think that the men of Sodom and
Gomorrah would be even
remotely interested in the daughters of Lot if they were homosexual?
...
It would probably come as a surprise to most heterosexuals to learn that for most gay men,
it is a physical impossibility to have sexual relations with a woman, and that it has been
that way all their lives. It is the way they have been born. It is definitely not a matter of choice.
...
Paul only talks about those who have abandoned their heterosexuality and
decided to practice homosexuality. I have no problem with that at all.
This goes against what other people have been saying in this post. According to your definition (which I'm not disupting at the moment), Elton John, Ricky Martin, Freddy Mercury and many other people who call themselves 'gay men' are not as they all had sex with women at some stage. Same goes for men who married women and had families but later left their marriages and declared themselves 'gay'. I agree with you on this point, not because I am an expert but because I (as a heterosexual) would find it impossible to have sex with a man and I'm guessing a genuine homosexual man would find it impossible to have sex with a woman. I understand there is much middle ground though where people might be bisexual to one degree or another. I am not saying my definition is right, it's just how I understand things. I'm open to instruction on this point.
Therefore Christians are not bound by any parts of the Law, including Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
Dear Dr. Laura letter (classic letter with a simple response)
It is very important to clarify that I am not trying to use this argument to legitimise
homosexual practice. I am only insisting that you can’t use Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to
condemn homosexual practice, because it forms part of Old Testament law that Paul makes
very clear no longer applies. If you say it does, then ALL of the Law applies. God said so in Lev 19:37.
Not 'All' Ron. We covered that issue way back in this debate. Nobody is saved by observing the law as we are all saved by grace. That does not mean the law is not good. Lying, murder and adultery are stil sins even though we are no longer under 'the law'. When the non-Jewish believers asked the Church leadership which old testament laws they should take heed of, they were told to not drink blood, not eat animals sacrificed to idols, not to eat the meat of strangled animals and..... to avoid sexual immorality (as defined in the old testament laws).
We need to acknowledge that scripture is silent about those who were born homosexual
I don't think Scripture makes that distinction as you do. Personally, I don't think a newborn baby has any sexuality as that kicks in around puberty. Once again, that's just my opinion though. I've done a bit of reading on that subject but haven't found much concensus.
Paul said many times that the Old Testament law no longer applied, as we have already seen.
He even used the colourful language of calling them ‘dogs’ in Phil 3:2 when Jews tried to
insist that Gentile Christians must follow the OT law and be circumcised.
Re; Circumcism <- by="" circumcised="" did="" grace.="" have="" i="" it="" law="" nope.="" obey="" paul="" point.="" saved="" see="" span="" the="" timothy="" to="" was="" why="" your="">
Isn’t it absolutely tremendous that those born homosexual are included
in God’s family, when they accept the Lord Jesus as their Saviour?
YES YES YES YES YES!!!! Amen to that! I completely agree with you there mate.
I know homosexual people who are very genuine Christians who have denied themselves, picked up their cross and followed Jesus. Some are an inspiration to me as they see their friends getting married and other gay friends leaving the Church to indulge in sexual immorality while they stay faithful to the Word of God. The New Testament talks about people who have abandoned sexual immorality (like homosexual sex) and become part of the Church.
I note that you are also in this position (at the moment or forever?) saying you are a celibate gay man. Good on you mate! God bless you.
2 The scriptures are silent in respect of those persons who are born homosexual,
and decide either, to remain celibate, practice their homosexuality in a committed
long term loving relationship, or abandon their homosexual orientation to try to
practice heterosexuality. (Remember the warning about adding to the Word of God in Revelation 22:18).
I feel you are not heeding your own warning here Ron. You say Scripture is silent about homosexual sex as long as it is in a 'committed long term loving relationship'. You added that bit in yourself. As a Pastor, I thought you may have used the term 'lifetime' instead of 'long term' to mimic what marriage is supposed to be. Do you mean 'lifetime'?
5 It is also my firm belief that those who claim that the scriptures condemn
homosexuality and homosexuals (apart from those mentioned above) are in real danger
of distorting the Scriptures. This is also mentioned in 2 Corinthians 4:2
‘nor do we distort the word of God.’
Promiscuity is a sin whether we are gay or straight. What if I were to write something silly like "but the bible doesn't say it's wrong to murder somebody if you are wearing blue jeans and black shoes because under those conditions I think God allows it". You would rightfully howl me down. Putting the words 'loving, faithful and committed' around what the bible calls sinful does not give the activity a new defintion.
Yes, sex outside of marriage is a sin whether we are gay or straight. But we define that in different ways don't we.
Prayer - Lord, I want to treat heterosexual and homosexual sinners exactly the same.
Exactly the same as you do Lord. Exactly the same as you have treated me. I am a
sinner just the same as they are. I want to totally identify myself with what you
are doing in trying to reach gays with your offer of Salvation, and to grow them as
your disciples. Help me never to place pre-conditions on that, just the same as you
don’t. Please forgive me Lord if I have ever prevented a gay person from even
attending church, or failed to make them feel welcome when they have attended.
'Help me never to place pre-conditions on that'. We must repent. A person who does not repent still has hold of their sins and has no real hold on Jesus. We repent of our known sins and continue to repent as we become aware of more and more of our sinful behaviour.
To be very open, I have prayed a prayer similar to that when I realised how tormented some same-sex attracted people are. Without going into too much detail, some of my good Christian friends are same-sex attracted (as I've shared earlier in this discussion).
Sorry for such a long post. Like I said Ron, I agree with much of what you write and I am grieved that homosexual people are not welcomed into Church to hear and respond to the gospel message like many heterosexual sinners are.
I'll get to Jacob's comments next
remotely interested in the daughters of Lot if they were homosexual?
...
It would probably come as a surprise to most heterosexuals to learn that for most gay men,
it is a physical impossibility to have sexual relations with a woman, and that it has been
that way all their lives. It is the way they have been born. It is definitely not a matter of choice.
...
Paul only talks about those who have abandoned their heterosexuality and
decided to practice homosexuality. I have no problem with that at all.
This goes against what other people have been saying in this post. According to your definition (which I'm not disupting at the moment), Elton John, Ricky Martin, Freddy Mercury and many other people who call themselves 'gay men' are not as they all had sex with women at some stage. Same goes for men who married women and had families but later left their marriages and declared themselves 'gay'. I agree with you on this point, not because I am an expert but because I (as a heterosexual) would find it impossible to have sex with a man and I'm guessing a genuine homosexual man would find it impossible to have sex with a woman. I understand there is much middle ground though where people might be bisexual to one degree or another. I am not saying my definition is right, it's just how I understand things. I'm open to instruction on this point.
Therefore Christians are not bound by any parts of the Law, including Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
Dear Dr. Laura letter (classic letter with a simple response)
It is very important to clarify that I am not trying to use this argument to legitimise
homosexual practice. I am only insisting that you can’t use Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to
condemn homosexual practice, because it forms part of Old Testament law that Paul makes
very clear no longer applies. If you say it does, then ALL of the Law applies. God said so in Lev 19:37.
Not 'All' Ron. We covered that issue way back in this debate. Nobody is saved by observing the law as we are all saved by grace. That does not mean the law is not good. Lying, murder and adultery are stil sins even though we are no longer under 'the law'. When the non-Jewish believers asked the Church leadership which old testament laws they should take heed of, they were told to not drink blood, not eat animals sacrificed to idols, not to eat the meat of strangled animals and..... to avoid sexual immorality (as defined in the old testament laws).
We need to acknowledge that scripture is silent about those who were born homosexual
I don't think Scripture makes that distinction as you do. Personally, I don't think a newborn baby has any sexuality as that kicks in around puberty. Once again, that's just my opinion though. I've done a bit of reading on that subject but haven't found much concensus.
Paul said many times that the Old Testament law no longer applied, as we have already seen.
He even used the colourful language of calling them ‘dogs’ in Phil 3:2 when Jews tried to
insist that Gentile Christians must follow the OT law and be circumcised.
Re; Circumcism <- by="" circumcised="" did="" grace.="" have="" i="" it="" law="" nope.="" obey="" paul="" point.="" saved="" see="" span="" the="" timothy="" to="" was="" why="" your="">
Isn’t it absolutely tremendous that those born homosexual are included
in God’s family, when they accept the Lord Jesus as their Saviour?
YES YES YES YES YES!!!! Amen to that! I completely agree with you there mate.
I know homosexual people who are very genuine Christians who have denied themselves, picked up their cross and followed Jesus. Some are an inspiration to me as they see their friends getting married and other gay friends leaving the Church to indulge in sexual immorality while they stay faithful to the Word of God. The New Testament talks about people who have abandoned sexual immorality (like homosexual sex) and become part of the Church.
I note that you are also in this position (at the moment or forever?) saying you are a celibate gay man. Good on you mate! God bless you.
2 The scriptures are silent in respect of those persons who are born homosexual,
and decide either, to remain celibate, practice their homosexuality in a committed
long term loving relationship, or abandon their homosexual orientation to try to
practice heterosexuality. (Remember the warning about adding to the Word of God in Revelation 22:18).
I feel you are not heeding your own warning here Ron. You say Scripture is silent about homosexual sex as long as it is in a 'committed long term loving relationship'. You added that bit in yourself. As a Pastor, I thought you may have used the term 'lifetime' instead of 'long term' to mimic what marriage is supposed to be. Do you mean 'lifetime'?
5 It is also my firm belief that those who claim that the scriptures condemn
homosexuality and homosexuals (apart from those mentioned above) are in real danger
of distorting the Scriptures. This is also mentioned in 2 Corinthians 4:2
‘nor do we distort the word of God.’
Promiscuity is a sin whether we are gay or straight. What if I were to write something silly like "but the bible doesn't say it's wrong to murder somebody if you are wearing blue jeans and black shoes because under those conditions I think God allows it". You would rightfully howl me down. Putting the words 'loving, faithful and committed' around what the bible calls sinful does not give the activity a new defintion.
Yes, sex outside of marriage is a sin whether we are gay or straight. But we define that in different ways don't we.
Prayer - Lord, I want to treat heterosexual and homosexual sinners exactly the same.
Exactly the same as you do Lord. Exactly the same as you have treated me. I am a
sinner just the same as they are. I want to totally identify myself with what you
are doing in trying to reach gays with your offer of Salvation, and to grow them as
your disciples. Help me never to place pre-conditions on that, just the same as you
don’t. Please forgive me Lord if I have ever prevented a gay person from even
attending church, or failed to make them feel welcome when they have attended.
'Help me never to place pre-conditions on that'. We must repent. A person who does not repent still has hold of their sins and has no real hold on Jesus. We repent of our known sins and continue to repent as we become aware of more and more of our sinful behaviour.
To be very open, I have prayed a prayer similar to that when I realised how tormented some same-sex attracted people are. Without going into too much detail, some of my good Christian friends are same-sex attracted (as I've shared earlier in this discussion).
Sorry for such a long post. Like I said Ron, I agree with much of what you write and I am grieved that homosexual people are not welcomed into Church to hear and respond to the gospel message like many heterosexual sinners are.
I'll get to Jacob's comments next
Don
Cameron I asked many people what 'hitherto' meant as the sentence seemed to
read exactly the same if I left it out. I was told by Pastor Max Walker (now 76
years old) and Barb Siddall (similar vintage) that it means something like
'given that, then this'. I could possibly use it by saying;
It was a very sunny day and James and Mary decided to walk to the shops, hitherto, taking an umbrella to keep the sun off their faces.
I hear what you are saying about Rowland. A lovely man and I have read much of his stuff. Of all the people I've met, I wanted to jump to the same sex marriage side of the debate most because Rowland was on that side. Unfortunately even after reading lots of stuff and watching videos he has posted, I can not hold onto the teachings of Scripture and the idea that same sex marriage is God's idea. Even Rowland wrote (ages ago) that he would rather err on the side of love than the side of law (or something like that meaning he wasn't sure Scripture said one way or the other so he chose a side anyway).
For me and many reformers, marriage is a picture of the trinity expressed in real life. Same sex marriage can't do that. Marriage is a constant throughout the whole bible and Jesus spoke about it using Genesis to define marriage. You claim he was only defining one kind of marriage and was completely ok with other forms of marriage. I can not see that in Scripture. I guess we agree that the bible does teach heterosexual marriage? Now you have to convince me it teaches other forms of marriage.
Joel - Would you agree with Ron's definition of what homosexuality really is (impossible to have sex with a woman)? I'm not saying you have to, I'm just asking the question
It was a very sunny day and James and Mary decided to walk to the shops, hitherto, taking an umbrella to keep the sun off their faces.
I hear what you are saying about Rowland. A lovely man and I have read much of his stuff. Of all the people I've met, I wanted to jump to the same sex marriage side of the debate most because Rowland was on that side. Unfortunately even after reading lots of stuff and watching videos he has posted, I can not hold onto the teachings of Scripture and the idea that same sex marriage is God's idea. Even Rowland wrote (ages ago) that he would rather err on the side of love than the side of law (or something like that meaning he wasn't sure Scripture said one way or the other so he chose a side anyway).
For me and many reformers, marriage is a picture of the trinity expressed in real life. Same sex marriage can't do that. Marriage is a constant throughout the whole bible and Jesus spoke about it using Genesis to define marriage. You claim he was only defining one kind of marriage and was completely ok with other forms of marriage. I can not see that in Scripture. I guess we agree that the bible does teach heterosexual marriage? Now you have to convince me it teaches other forms of marriage.
Joel - Would you agree with Ron's definition of what homosexuality really is (impossible to have sex with a woman)? I'm not saying you have to, I'm just asking the question
Jacob
Bolton I don't have to convince you of anything don. My words were "I
believe"!
Tho I have sometimes discovered in circumstances of sometimes it what's not in scripture is what's more important than what is in scripture, a good example of this is one of my favourite scriptures that discuss massively what Jesus calls his disciples too, whom is in and whom is out, and what the cost of justice is if you follow Christ, found in mark 1:40-45
Tho I have sometimes discovered in circumstances of sometimes it what's not in scripture is what's more important than what is in scripture, a good example of this is one of my favourite scriptures that discuss massively what Jesus calls his disciples too, whom is in and whom is out, and what the cost of justice is if you follow Christ, found in mark 1:40-45
11
September at 22:31 via mobile
· Like
Jacob
Bolton Also don, this maybe a can of worms here too and I think I said it
to you at my bachelor party, I disagree with the trinity so a different example
for me, if you could, would be great
11
September at 22:34 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron I'd like to be convinced Jacob! I don't want to dishonour God and
if God is for same-sex marriage and I am not then I am dishonouring Him. I am
genuine when I ask people to convince me. I know you're not into that but I
still read what you write and value your opinion even if I don't share your
opinion.
Mark 1:40-45 -> The healing of the leper who Jesus then sent to the teachers of the law to judge as 'clean' according to the law of Moses. Did you mean this reference or another one?
What issues do you have with the trinity? A can of worms indeed but I reckon we can pretty much tackle anything here.
Mark 1:40-45 -> The healing of the leper who Jesus then sent to the teachers of the law to judge as 'clean' according to the law of Moses. Did you mean this reference or another one?
What issues do you have with the trinity? A can of worms indeed but I reckon we can pretty much tackle anything here.
Belinda J
Terry Oh my god this thread is still going.....
Belinda J
Terry You guys are certainly passionate
Don
Cameron ..... and we only sleep on Tuesdays Belinda!
Belinda J
Terry Maybe someone should change the subject! What are your thoughts on
paganism?
Belinda J
Terry lol
Don
Cameron Paganism... hmm... do they share the same views as me about same
sex marriage?
Belinda J
Terry umm no I don't believe they do..
Jacob
Bolton The basis of trinity as a term isn't scriptural enough to me to put
faith behind it.
I fully agree there is a father, son and Holy Spirit, and I fully agree they share a unique relationship, but I am open to there being much more of God than we limit ourselves too when we decide to call/claim it as trinity.
The issue being, IF we claim it as trinity then we are placing a limitation on God, and this putting him/her/them/it in a box.
I want to be open to the revelations of God. Rather than confine myself to restraints of such things.
The mark reference was the correct one but making the healing the leper isn't exactly the core of the story but certainly an important part of it. I'm happy to go thru it with you if you wish
Towards the marriage thing, I don't believe I can convince you on that which is why I'm inclined to not try. One thing I do find is there tends to be a bias by the writers of scripture especially when they break up Jesus sermon and stories.
The writers decide what is the essence of the story or its meaning, so they place a small blurb above often in bold or italic writing. As a result readers tend to decide what a section of the bible is about before attempting to even understand or draw more from the scripture that may be there.
I fully agree there is a father, son and Holy Spirit, and I fully agree they share a unique relationship, but I am open to there being much more of God than we limit ourselves too when we decide to call/claim it as trinity.
The issue being, IF we claim it as trinity then we are placing a limitation on God, and this putting him/her/them/it in a box.
I want to be open to the revelations of God. Rather than confine myself to restraints of such things.
The mark reference was the correct one but making the healing the leper isn't exactly the core of the story but certainly an important part of it. I'm happy to go thru it with you if you wish
Towards the marriage thing, I don't believe I can convince you on that which is why I'm inclined to not try. One thing I do find is there tends to be a bias by the writers of scripture especially when they break up Jesus sermon and stories.
The writers decide what is the essence of the story or its meaning, so they place a small blurb above often in bold or italic writing. As a result readers tend to decide what a section of the bible is about before attempting to even understand or draw more from the scripture that may be there.
12
September at 00:51 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron Re; Trinity - How would you define the relationship... or would you
deliberately leave it hanging and assume that nobody can ever define anything
with great detail on this topic? I've read a bit of stuff and watched some
clips (makes me an expert right? - joke) and I go by the Deuteronomy 29:29
verse which says something like 'the revealed things belong to us but the secret
things belong to the Lord'. Back to my old claim, God is very capable of
communicating with us and He does it really well. Thomas said to Jesus 'My Lord
and my God' and Jesus accepted worship as God and used the most Holy name of
God to refer to himself 'Before Abraham was born I AM' which almost got him
executed on the spot. If I'm missing something, please let me know. What part
of God is there that has not been spoken about in Scripture? Isaiah seems to
tell us there is only one God. I'll stop rambling on this topic.
I agree the paragraph headings in bible's aren't actually Scripture but an attempt by educated people to place things logically which I appreciate, but don't depend on.
I'd like you to explain your take on the healing of the leper.
I agree the paragraph headings in bible's aren't actually Scripture but an attempt by educated people to place things logically which I appreciate, but don't depend on.
I'd like you to explain your take on the healing of the leper.
Jacob
Bolton I think I'll get to the healing the leper later once we first flesh
out where we are with the other 2 things. There is a point I will come to in
this, or at least I'm hoping to arrive at.
So to MY knowledge there isn't anything in scripture to say that there is more to God, but I want to be open to there potentially be more to God, than the father, son, Holy Spirit.
The term trinity does not appear at all in scripture - anywhere. yet it's a terminology that we use in order to explain the mystery that is God.
Which if we take away the trinity understanding then we are simply left with the conundrum that is God, is it possible that this is enough?
When we look into the origin of the term trinity we understand where the terminology comes from and why they created it, but there are congregations today that still disagree in the triune God as it is commonly described.
My experience with God is God denies explanation. Upon Moses request of who are you, Gods response was "I AM that I AM" simple but to the point.
When I first learnt about this concept I struggled to understand it, but as time went on I eventually came to accept it and put faith to it. Until one day I started to feel uncomfortable in this acceptance. Despite that I had accepted it, I felt the understanding of trinity was flawed. When I was finally honest to myself I came to feel opposed to it.
So I derive at my conclusion on the basis that God just is, and will be, what God is I will never understand except that God simply is, the relationship that God may share with other "entities" that is God is very unique that I probably can not understand.
I normally filter it out when people say trinity but in your case you were defining marriage to a sort of trinity.
So to MY knowledge there isn't anything in scripture to say that there is more to God, but I want to be open to there potentially be more to God, than the father, son, Holy Spirit.
The term trinity does not appear at all in scripture - anywhere. yet it's a terminology that we use in order to explain the mystery that is God.
Which if we take away the trinity understanding then we are simply left with the conundrum that is God, is it possible that this is enough?
When we look into the origin of the term trinity we understand where the terminology comes from and why they created it, but there are congregations today that still disagree in the triune God as it is commonly described.
My experience with God is God denies explanation. Upon Moses request of who are you, Gods response was "I AM that I AM" simple but to the point.
When I first learnt about this concept I struggled to understand it, but as time went on I eventually came to accept it and put faith to it. Until one day I started to feel uncomfortable in this acceptance. Despite that I had accepted it, I felt the understanding of trinity was flawed. When I was finally honest to myself I came to feel opposed to it.
So I derive at my conclusion on the basis that God just is, and will be, what God is I will never understand except that God simply is, the relationship that God may share with other "entities" that is God is very unique that I probably can not understand.
I normally filter it out when people say trinity but in your case you were defining marriage to a sort of trinity.
12
September at 09:19 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron I hear what you are saying but..... you seem to be saying that the
Father is God, the Spirit is God and the Son is God. If you believe they are
equal but are three persons then you actually believe the same as I do
(orthodoxy) even if you struggle with the name 'trinity'.
The infinite recesses of God is beyond our complete understanding but the revealed things (that He has communicated) are completely open to understanding. So I agree with you... but contend with the way you say it? I believe the teachings of the reformers about he character and nature of God but I can understand you not wanting to use the word 'trinity' as you feel this term is extra-biblical. Does that make sense?
I'm not open to there being more of God than Father, Son and Spirit. There is no 'Nanny', 'Gardener' or other versions of God as persons existing outside Father, Son and Spirit. Would you agree with that?
A difficult topic to pin down but I think more intelligent people than us have tried and done a fair job.
There is a closeness in the trinity that is (sort of) mimicked in marriage between a man and a woman. The two shall become one flesh describes a physical closeness of two persons who compliment each other. Other cultures even acknowledge this in some way with things like the Yin and the Yan. I'm probably going off topic a bit here.
Tell me about the leper Jacob!
The infinite recesses of God is beyond our complete understanding but the revealed things (that He has communicated) are completely open to understanding. So I agree with you... but contend with the way you say it? I believe the teachings of the reformers about he character and nature of God but I can understand you not wanting to use the word 'trinity' as you feel this term is extra-biblical. Does that make sense?
I'm not open to there being more of God than Father, Son and Spirit. There is no 'Nanny', 'Gardener' or other versions of God as persons existing outside Father, Son and Spirit. Would you agree with that?
A difficult topic to pin down but I think more intelligent people than us have tried and done a fair job.
There is a closeness in the trinity that is (sort of) mimicked in marriage between a man and a woman. The two shall become one flesh describes a physical closeness of two persons who compliment each other. Other cultures even acknowledge this in some way with things like the Yin and the Yan. I'm probably going off topic a bit here.
Tell me about the leper Jacob!
Joel
Rothman On homosexuality, and in response to Don’s comments to me before
Ron joined the conversation:
“You seem to be saying something like "Did God really say He was not in favour of homosexual sex?"”
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
I would also ask,
did God really say that he made the world in six days, six thousand years ago?
did God really say that all Christians must submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome?
did God really say that the wine is actually Jesus’ blood?
did God really say that contraception is sinful?
I don’t have any problem with “did God really say”, besides the association with one particular instance where the question was misused.
I note you also ask the question, “did God really say?”
did God really say that a man can/should marry a second wife?
did God really say that a rapist and his victim should be married?
“I've read the bible cover to cover many times over and make a habit of it. I did this twice before I developed much of a theology. From cover to cover it appeared to me that God was only in favour of sex between a man and a woman when they were committed to each other for life (covenant) in marriage. You seem to think this is wrong”
Yes, you got that very wrong.
I also read the Bible thoroughly before developing much of a theology. In addition to my personal Bible reading, before I turned 21 I had already completed a Bachelor of Theology, with 6 units in New Testament, 4 units in Old Testament, and 6 units in biblical languages (and only 2 units in “theology” as such). I make it a practice to read the entire Bible each year, mostly in English though I also try to read a bit in the original language, and last year started including the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha in my reading as well.
You keep saying, “God is able to communicate clearly”. Well, as I read it, the Old Testament quite clearly supports polygamy. You have arguments to avoid this conclusion, but I find them quite unconvincing.
The idea of sex being between ‘one man, one woman, in marriage, for life’ is certainly not taught “cover to cover” in the Bible. Within the Bible there are significant counter-passages to every part of that except “one man”.
As I argued in a previous post, the conservative position on this issue is based on an inconsistently applied “Word Search Hermeneutic”. My position is based on a more holistic hermeneutic that is more consistently applied.
“You define biblical principals in ways that you understand them (full inclusion) instead of using biblical terms like 'self denial'.”
And I really don’t see how you can deny that “full inclusion” is a biblical concept. Or perhaps I should say it is a gospel concept. Either way, I really don’t see how you can deny it. Unless you accept the concept but not the non-biblical terminology: but in that case why do you accept the non-biblical term “trinity”? What do you suggest as more biblical language for “full inclusion”? Perhaps, “Let the little children and unclean and cripples and Samaritans and Gentiles come to me for I have come that they may have life to the full and find brothers and sisters and mothers in the Kingdom of God”? I find “full inclusion” a bit more concise.
I do not deny that “self denial” is also a biblical concept. Self denial, full inclusion, life-giving, and relationship are all important biblical concepts. When applied to the issue of sexual orientation, these concepts demand that I support heterosexuals in expressing their sexuality in relationship (marriage) with the opposite sex, and that I support homosexuals in expressing their sexuality in relationship (marriage) with the same sex.
“Jesus tells us what love is and His word tells us how to love one another. Men having sex with men (or women with women) is absent from the picture. We can define things however we want but we can't add in what is not there.”
The idea that we can only affirm what the Bible explicitly affirms is also quite strange. What if a teenager in my youth group had said she wanted to study to be a medical doctor and show God’s love that way? Should I have said, “I’m sorry, I can’t find a verse in scripture that says that Christians should study to become medical doctors”? Or should I preach against oral sex, because I cannot find a verse in scripture affirming that this can be a loving part of a godly sexual relationship?
Neither of us takes the simple approach of affirming what the Bible affirms and denouncing what the Bible does not explicitly affirm. But I feel that I am being more consistent and honest (with myself and others) with how I read the Bible.
“Perhaps it would be good to hear you answer questions in person and not in black and white over Facebook which has limitations.”
I would be open to that when I’m next in Melbourne.
“You seem to be saying something like "Did God really say He was not in favour of homosexual sex?"”
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
I would also ask,
did God really say that he made the world in six days, six thousand years ago?
did God really say that all Christians must submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome?
did God really say that the wine is actually Jesus’ blood?
did God really say that contraception is sinful?
I don’t have any problem with “did God really say”, besides the association with one particular instance where the question was misused.
I note you also ask the question, “did God really say?”
did God really say that a man can/should marry a second wife?
did God really say that a rapist and his victim should be married?
“I've read the bible cover to cover many times over and make a habit of it. I did this twice before I developed much of a theology. From cover to cover it appeared to me that God was only in favour of sex between a man and a woman when they were committed to each other for life (covenant) in marriage. You seem to think this is wrong”
Yes, you got that very wrong.
I also read the Bible thoroughly before developing much of a theology. In addition to my personal Bible reading, before I turned 21 I had already completed a Bachelor of Theology, with 6 units in New Testament, 4 units in Old Testament, and 6 units in biblical languages (and only 2 units in “theology” as such). I make it a practice to read the entire Bible each year, mostly in English though I also try to read a bit in the original language, and last year started including the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha in my reading as well.
You keep saying, “God is able to communicate clearly”. Well, as I read it, the Old Testament quite clearly supports polygamy. You have arguments to avoid this conclusion, but I find them quite unconvincing.
The idea of sex being between ‘one man, one woman, in marriage, for life’ is certainly not taught “cover to cover” in the Bible. Within the Bible there are significant counter-passages to every part of that except “one man”.
As I argued in a previous post, the conservative position on this issue is based on an inconsistently applied “Word Search Hermeneutic”. My position is based on a more holistic hermeneutic that is more consistently applied.
“You define biblical principals in ways that you understand them (full inclusion) instead of using biblical terms like 'self denial'.”
And I really don’t see how you can deny that “full inclusion” is a biblical concept. Or perhaps I should say it is a gospel concept. Either way, I really don’t see how you can deny it. Unless you accept the concept but not the non-biblical terminology: but in that case why do you accept the non-biblical term “trinity”? What do you suggest as more biblical language for “full inclusion”? Perhaps, “Let the little children and unclean and cripples and Samaritans and Gentiles come to me for I have come that they may have life to the full and find brothers and sisters and mothers in the Kingdom of God”? I find “full inclusion” a bit more concise.
I do not deny that “self denial” is also a biblical concept. Self denial, full inclusion, life-giving, and relationship are all important biblical concepts. When applied to the issue of sexual orientation, these concepts demand that I support heterosexuals in expressing their sexuality in relationship (marriage) with the opposite sex, and that I support homosexuals in expressing their sexuality in relationship (marriage) with the same sex.
“Jesus tells us what love is and His word tells us how to love one another. Men having sex with men (or women with women) is absent from the picture. We can define things however we want but we can't add in what is not there.”
The idea that we can only affirm what the Bible explicitly affirms is also quite strange. What if a teenager in my youth group had said she wanted to study to be a medical doctor and show God’s love that way? Should I have said, “I’m sorry, I can’t find a verse in scripture that says that Christians should study to become medical doctors”? Or should I preach against oral sex, because I cannot find a verse in scripture affirming that this can be a loving part of a godly sexual relationship?
Neither of us takes the simple approach of affirming what the Bible affirms and denouncing what the Bible does not explicitly affirm. But I feel that I am being more consistent and honest (with myself and others) with how I read the Bible.
“Perhaps it would be good to hear you answer questions in person and not in black and white over Facebook which has limitations.”
I would be open to that when I’m next in Melbourne.
Jacob
Bolton Don, what if there's another aspect of god that is whole and true
just as the others? Suddenly triune becomes obsolete. The point being why do we
use trinity?
12
September at 10:16 via mobile
· Like
Jacob
Bolton You both live on opposite ends of the city but I certainly think a
meeting could help
12
September at 10:30 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron Jacob: Regarding a Triune God (F, S & S). I don't think the
door is left open to include other persons as God. It's a bit like an argument
my Dad used to use 'If my Grandmother had testicles she would be my
Grandfather'. It limps a bit but the point is, this can not ever be true
because my Grandmother did not have testicles, my Grandfather did. Why bother
asking questions that already have an obvious answer? I understand the
conclusions might not be obvious to you though.
Joel
I would also ask,
did God really say that he made the world in six days, six thousand years ago?
Six days, yes. Mentioned it in the middle of the ten commandments as well. Are the ten commandments to be taken literally or are they open to interpretation?
did God really say that all Christians must submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome?
Nope.
did God really say that the wine is actually Jesus’ blood?
Nope
did God really say that contraception is sinful?
Joel
I would also ask,
did God really say that he made the world in six days, six thousand years ago?
Six days, yes. Mentioned it in the middle of the ten commandments as well. Are the ten commandments to be taken literally or are they open to interpretation?
did God really say that all Christians must submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome?
Nope.
did God really say that the wine is actually Jesus’ blood?
Nope
did God really say that contraception is sinful?
Don
Cameron Whoops. I hit enter too soon. No, contraception is not always
called sinful. You have to twist Onanism a bit to get that idea.
You sound like you have protestant theology mate. So do I.
The bible claims 'all' children belong to God. Not all Samaritans, Men, Women, children etc. I can understand taking Jesus at face value when it talks about Children but not when it comes to including sinful, unrepentant people who Jesus calls 'Children of the devil' but still commands that we repent and come to Him to be accepted into God's family like a child. I'll suggest that you are putting 'Full inclusion' into the text (as you do above).
I note you also ask the question, “did God really say?”
did God really say that a man can/should marry a second wife?
We can do a lot of things but God says marriage is between one man and one woman. Jesus defined this quoting from Genesis. When bad things happen (lies, murder, polygamy etc) these are not 'taught' in the bible but included as history.
did God really say that a rapist and his victim should be married?
Not at all. We've covered this before. If a young lady and a young man are alone together and sex takes place (no mention of her screaming because she was attacked) then the Father of the girl/woman is paid the bride price and he 'may' insist that the man marries his daughter. You have a bit of 'Alan' theology there Joel. It's not an accurate way of portraying things as we've discussed before.
Only affirming what the bible says (regulatory principal) is not the complete truth as we can still have mobile phones, microwave ovens and electric instruments used in worship on Sundays etc when the bible doesn't actually mention them. The normative principal says something like 'if God doesn't forbid it then it's ok to do' which is the other side of the same coin (perhaps).
You sound like you have protestant theology mate. So do I.
The bible claims 'all' children belong to God. Not all Samaritans, Men, Women, children etc. I can understand taking Jesus at face value when it talks about Children but not when it comes to including sinful, unrepentant people who Jesus calls 'Children of the devil' but still commands that we repent and come to Him to be accepted into God's family like a child. I'll suggest that you are putting 'Full inclusion' into the text (as you do above).
I note you also ask the question, “did God really say?”
did God really say that a man can/should marry a second wife?
We can do a lot of things but God says marriage is between one man and one woman. Jesus defined this quoting from Genesis. When bad things happen (lies, murder, polygamy etc) these are not 'taught' in the bible but included as history.
did God really say that a rapist and his victim should be married?
Not at all. We've covered this before. If a young lady and a young man are alone together and sex takes place (no mention of her screaming because she was attacked) then the Father of the girl/woman is paid the bride price and he 'may' insist that the man marries his daughter. You have a bit of 'Alan' theology there Joel. It's not an accurate way of portraying things as we've discussed before.
Only affirming what the bible says (regulatory principal) is not the complete truth as we can still have mobile phones, microwave ovens and electric instruments used in worship on Sundays etc when the bible doesn't actually mention them. The normative principal says something like 'if God doesn't forbid it then it's ok to do' which is the other side of the same coin (perhaps).
Jacob
Bolton I don't have an obvious answer.
I just asked what if there was a fourth aspect of God?
In revelations we are told there are creatures above Gods throne (i think most believe them to be cherubs) are they apart of God? We are aren't told in the bible yet it could be, couldn't it? Why/why not?
I just asked what if there was a fourth aspect of God?
In revelations we are told there are creatures above Gods throne (i think most believe them to be cherubs) are they apart of God? We are aren't told in the bible yet it could be, couldn't it? Why/why not?
12
September at 11:19 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron It's difficult getting brand new hard core theology from Revelation
though Jacob. These are things not yet revealed but God does not deceive us. We
can be certain that what He says is reliable.... or we should just walk away
and not read the bible as it is there to deceive us. A Muslim told me that if
Allah wants to deceive us then he can be the best deceiver in the universe and
he can do that if he wants to. God's word tells us it is impossible for God to
lie.
An extra person in the triune Godhead would go against the Scriptures that affirm FS+S alone as God. Why wouldn't we baptise people in the name of the Father, the Name of the Son, the Name of the Holy Spirit and the Most Holy Name of God Eternal (or something like that which could leave the door open to other persons of God)?
An extra person in the triune Godhead would go against the Scriptures that affirm FS+S alone as God. Why wouldn't we baptise people in the name of the Father, the Name of the Son, the Name of the Holy Spirit and the Most Holy Name of God Eternal (or something like that which could leave the door open to other persons of God)?
Don
Cameron I'm taking your point seriously mate. I just haven't thought in
these terms very long at all without dismissing them.
Jacob
Bolton What i guess I'm concluding too, is if your willing to accept what I
perceive to be the unbiblical principle of trinity, then in a similar fashion I
believe in what you perceive to be the unbiblical types of marriage.
Hence so that my conclusion of Jesus defining marriage is actually Jesus defining "a type" of marriage, not "the type" of marriage.
Hence so that my conclusion of Jesus defining marriage is actually Jesus defining "a type" of marriage, not "the type" of marriage.
12
September at 11:26 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron Ok.... so if that is true, you are arguing from the silence of
Scripture? My claim is that unlike spiritual gifts (mentioned in a few places
and the list of gifts are different), Jesus defined marriage 'once' in
accordance with the teachings of the old testament. He also affirmed that is
really was 'in the beginning'. You are saying there are other forms of marriage
that we are not told about so we can (sort of) read between the lines or make
it up as we go along? That might sound harsh but do you see where I'm going? In
a way this 'sounds' consistent with how you view the three (known) persons of
God that I refer to as Trinity. You seem to accept that God is defined as
tri-une but you are open to more than that? Is that a fair representation of
your views?
Thanks for continuing with this.
Thanks for continuing with this.
Jacob
Bolton I feel like I keep going over the same points here don. Apologies
but its making me weary...
I said "I believe". I'm not trying to convince you of anything, this is MY position on this.
I do not prescribe to a tri-une god I was using words that you are familiar with in a hope you will understand more easily.
But my feelings and understandings are, there could be and most likely is more to the picture than we completely understand or comprehend.
I'm not about to tell what God is to someone if this means God could be boxed or compartmentalised in anyway. My consideration is allowing for a much bigger picture of whom/what God is/could be.
For example: Many ppl whom I know define God as being a women/female. I haven't queried this fully but I have come to believe it is reliant on personal experiences in their lives.
In either case, despite what the bible says about God being a father/him, it doesn't matter to me, as it still connects them to God in the end doesn't it?
I said "I believe". I'm not trying to convince you of anything, this is MY position on this.
I do not prescribe to a tri-une god I was using words that you are familiar with in a hope you will understand more easily.
But my feelings and understandings are, there could be and most likely is more to the picture than we completely understand or comprehend.
I'm not about to tell what God is to someone if this means God could be boxed or compartmentalised in anyway. My consideration is allowing for a much bigger picture of whom/what God is/could be.
For example: Many ppl whom I know define God as being a women/female. I haven't queried this fully but I have come to believe it is reliant on personal experiences in their lives.
In either case, despite what the bible says about God being a father/him, it doesn't matter to me, as it still connects them to God in the end doesn't it?
12
September at 12:02 via mobile
· Like
Joel
Rothman *sigh*
Don, some of my points you're really just not getting. The prime example being the "full inclusion" thing - your response completely missed the point. I'll consider whether to keep responding to that one, or wait to see if it can be resolved in person one of these days.
Did you get the point I was making in asking all those questions? Sorry, I wasn't actually expecting you to respond to them all - they were there to make a rhetorical point. My point is that it is not always wrong to say "did God really say", despite you implying that I am playing the role of the snake in Eden. If you are a Protestant you can't really object to the practice of asking "did God really say?"
My point with the latter questions was similar. I was pointing out that while from your perspective you could suggest that I am playing the role of the snake for not going with the "obvious" meaning of certain passages, from my perspective I could suggest that you are playing the role of the snake for not going with the "obvious" meaning of certain passages. I'm not going to slither away from the argument in embarrassment just because the snake in Eden also asked "did God really say".
"When bad things happen (lies, murder, polygamy etc) these are not 'taught' in the bible but included as history."
Sorry, Don, but I really object to that. That is just a politically correct, or perhaps I should say "Evangelically correct", tired old pat answer to help evangelicals avoid the meaning of certain inconvenient passages. I have explained before why I'm not convinced. I also explained in our last debate why I'm not convinced by your over-interpretation of Jesus quoting Genesis.
"You have a bit of 'Alan' theology there Joel. It's not an accurate way of portraying things as we've discussed before."
In our debate about the rapist marrying the victim I started off about 99% sure that I was correct. As I said at the time, your arguments reduced my certainty to about 80%. But I also showed by detailed argument and thorough research, and by citing a variety of modern exegetes, that my exegesis of that passage is more likely than yours.
I try to take the Bible seriously.
My exegesis is about finding out what a passage meant in its original context, regardless any discomfort that might cause me as a Christian today.
My hermeneutics is about taking the Bible seriously, starting with a proper exegesis of the individual passages but going on to read the Bible holistically to understand what it is saying to us today.
That is why I take the positions I do on both passages and principles, and why I am not convinced by the conservative positions on either.
Don, some of my points you're really just not getting. The prime example being the "full inclusion" thing - your response completely missed the point. I'll consider whether to keep responding to that one, or wait to see if it can be resolved in person one of these days.
Did you get the point I was making in asking all those questions? Sorry, I wasn't actually expecting you to respond to them all - they were there to make a rhetorical point. My point is that it is not always wrong to say "did God really say", despite you implying that I am playing the role of the snake in Eden. If you are a Protestant you can't really object to the practice of asking "did God really say?"
My point with the latter questions was similar. I was pointing out that while from your perspective you could suggest that I am playing the role of the snake for not going with the "obvious" meaning of certain passages, from my perspective I could suggest that you are playing the role of the snake for not going with the "obvious" meaning of certain passages. I'm not going to slither away from the argument in embarrassment just because the snake in Eden also asked "did God really say".
"When bad things happen (lies, murder, polygamy etc) these are not 'taught' in the bible but included as history."
Sorry, Don, but I really object to that. That is just a politically correct, or perhaps I should say "Evangelically correct", tired old pat answer to help evangelicals avoid the meaning of certain inconvenient passages. I have explained before why I'm not convinced. I also explained in our last debate why I'm not convinced by your over-interpretation of Jesus quoting Genesis.
"You have a bit of 'Alan' theology there Joel. It's not an accurate way of portraying things as we've discussed before."
In our debate about the rapist marrying the victim I started off about 99% sure that I was correct. As I said at the time, your arguments reduced my certainty to about 80%. But I also showed by detailed argument and thorough research, and by citing a variety of modern exegetes, that my exegesis of that passage is more likely than yours.
I try to take the Bible seriously.
My exegesis is about finding out what a passage meant in its original context, regardless any discomfort that might cause me as a Christian today.
My hermeneutics is about taking the Bible seriously, starting with a proper exegesis of the individual passages but going on to read the Bible holistically to understand what it is saying to us today.
That is why I take the positions I do on both passages and principles, and why I am not convinced by the conservative positions on either.
Joel
Rothman Hi Jude Ray Rus, I
avoided having this conversation with you on my FB wall at the moment, but if
you are interested and have oodles of spare time, this is what I've been
writing about the issue lately.
Don
Cameron Joel - Sorry mate, I now get the point. Yes, when it comes to
questioning culture that Christian people 'assume' God is for, it is good to
ask 'did God really say that?'. Especially around election time when my
Christian friends all tell me which party God would have us vote for.
I have to pick up kids from school. I'll get to the rest later.
I have to pick up kids from school. I'll get to the rest later.
Don
Cameron Jacob - Is your position true? Is the orthodox position false?
These are important questions and your answers show your thinking on this
matter.
Joel - I didn't think I was interpreting what Jesus was saying when he defined marriage using Genesis 1&2. I may have been a bit but it was unintentional (and perhaps showing my bias so that's a fair comment). Jesus was quoting Genesis 1 and 2 talking about a relationship between two people that is mentioned many times in the bible. What is the name of the relationship he was talking about?
Joel - I didn't think I was interpreting what Jesus was saying when he defined marriage using Genesis 1&2. I may have been a bit but it was unintentional (and perhaps showing my bias so that's a fair comment). Jesus was quoting Genesis 1 and 2 talking about a relationship between two people that is mentioned many times in the bible. What is the name of the relationship he was talking about?
Ryan
Gray The God of Isreal used Pharaoh for his own purposes. Pharaoh was a
humman just like you and me. God hardened his heart until his destruction.
I don't know what God Ron Follows but this is the words of Ron: "...To my gay friends, God loves you just as you are"
So if this were true, why have so many been punished by this God? It's not true that's why. Learn what sin is and turn from it!
This is the words of the God of Israel: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable". Lev 18:22
If anyone here has concern and love for mankind for the sake of the kingdom of heaven do not be fooled.
If you want to love your neighbour do not withold or twist the truth from them to exhalt yourself.
The apostle Paul writes in Romans 1. (NIV)
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
In summary if you think the God of Isreal loves what you are you are mistaken. Paul makes it clear:
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another".
If you care for the kingdom of heaven - Repent! Just as Yeshua (Jesus) warned.
I don't know what God Ron Follows but this is the words of Ron: "...To my gay friends, God loves you just as you are"
So if this were true, why have so many been punished by this God? It's not true that's why. Learn what sin is and turn from it!
This is the words of the God of Israel: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable". Lev 18:22
If anyone here has concern and love for mankind for the sake of the kingdom of heaven do not be fooled.
If you want to love your neighbour do not withold or twist the truth from them to exhalt yourself.
The apostle Paul writes in Romans 1. (NIV)
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
In summary if you think the God of Isreal loves what you are you are mistaken. Paul makes it clear:
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another".
If you care for the kingdom of heaven - Repent! Just as Yeshua (Jesus) warned.
Jacob
Bolton Ryan Gray it
seems you had decided your answer already, without the desire to engage with
us.
Makes me sad
Makes me sad
12
September at 19:44 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron This is the words of the God of Israel: "Do not have sexual
relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable". Lev
18:22
Ryan... they re-interpret this verse to say it doesn't mean that at all. Any attempt to point out that homosexual sex was called sin in the bible is reinterpreted or defined to be 'not part of a loving, faithful, committed homosexual sexual relationship' and because it doesn't have those words before the Scripture, they feel the Scriptures can be ignored in todays society concerning 'gay marriage'.
I have mostly given up trying to point out bible verses (as they will never be accepted) and have tried to point out where God talks about marriage being between a man and a woman as Jesus said. Even this is not accepted as the bible includes things like murder, rape, liars, polygamous relationships and other forms of sin and on the occasions that was not addressed by God, some assume that God is 'in favour' of those things happening (with regard to polygamy). I'm still trying to find a verse where God tells somebody 'I want you to take two wives'. It may exist but my bias prevents me from seeing it?
I also had an issue with the way Ron described coming to faith in Jesus (no repentance from sinful behaviour mentioned) but I 'hope' that was just an oversight? God's love is incredible and the most loving thing He did was bear our vile sin on the cross to do away with it. Let's talk about God's love more and more and use Jesus words on how to live in this love... repentance. It's not a popular word but it's vital and considering where it leads us, it can be a beautiful word.
Ryan... they re-interpret this verse to say it doesn't mean that at all. Any attempt to point out that homosexual sex was called sin in the bible is reinterpreted or defined to be 'not part of a loving, faithful, committed homosexual sexual relationship' and because it doesn't have those words before the Scripture, they feel the Scriptures can be ignored in todays society concerning 'gay marriage'.
I have mostly given up trying to point out bible verses (as they will never be accepted) and have tried to point out where God talks about marriage being between a man and a woman as Jesus said. Even this is not accepted as the bible includes things like murder, rape, liars, polygamous relationships and other forms of sin and on the occasions that was not addressed by God, some assume that God is 'in favour' of those things happening (with regard to polygamy). I'm still trying to find a verse where God tells somebody 'I want you to take two wives'. It may exist but my bias prevents me from seeing it?
I also had an issue with the way Ron described coming to faith in Jesus (no repentance from sinful behaviour mentioned) but I 'hope' that was just an oversight? God's love is incredible and the most loving thing He did was bear our vile sin on the cross to do away with it. Let's talk about God's love more and more and use Jesus words on how to live in this love... repentance. It's not a popular word but it's vital and considering where it leads us, it can be a beautiful word.
Don
Cameron To be fair Jacob, I think Ryan has read the comments (at least the
most recent ones) and is speaking his opinion on them. Perhaps you and Joel can
convince him his views are wrong? If he keeps reading your response at least he
has a chance to hear why you hold your views? I encourage you to address what
he says, realising it may not make a difference.... but it might! Whatever the
case, at least he'll know where you are coming from even if he doesn't agree?
Don
Cameron Also... I'll add that I read the bible before becoming a Christian
and again in the first year of me becoming a Christian and roughly once a year
since then. At first I didn't understand that it wasn't in chronological order
and struggled with a few of the ways it was put together but I certainly got a
strong grasp of how well it hung together. Almost ten years later I started
attending bible college classes and heard all kinds of wonderful and not so
wonderful interpretations. I was able to ask "if that is true, why doesn't
that interpretation match with other parts of the bible such as...". I
read Shelby-Spong books and many others that friends gave me to help me realise
the error of my ways but here I am over twenty years later employed as a Pastor
involved with ministry to people on the margins (where I first met Jacob).
My most recent bible college experiences were around ten years ago as the internet was really starting to take off with Christian stuff online. I was a bit shocked by what was taught to young Christians at the local bible college I attended. Not only that, the young Christians didn't seem to explore alternatives very well.
Anyway, that's my background and I thought I'd share it. I'm still wrong on lots of things and I hope I'm still open enough to admit where I'm wrong (but you would be better judges of that than I am).
My most recent bible college experiences were around ten years ago as the internet was really starting to take off with Christian stuff online. I was a bit shocked by what was taught to young Christians at the local bible college I attended. Not only that, the young Christians didn't seem to explore alternatives very well.
Anyway, that's my background and I thought I'd share it. I'm still wrong on lots of things and I hope I'm still open enough to admit where I'm wrong (but you would be better judges of that than I am).
Jacob
Bolton Sadly I'm convinced comments will fall on deaf ears between is
12
September at 19:52 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron Huh? What? I can't hear you? (jokes)
Ryan
Gray I don't need to make an answer Jacob, this matter has already been
outlined in scripture, and re-iterated by the apostle Paul. Do you also put
Paul to 'Shame' for telling it how it is:? If you're belief is towards the God
of Israel, why do you reject whom he has set in place?
Ryan
Gray The 'Jesus' you are trying to portray is one of popular culture and
not something that can be backed up by scripture.
Yeshua (Jesus) himself said these words: Mat 5:17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
He states clearly that he is NOT doing away with the Law. He came to live by the heart of them.
Yeshua (Jesus) himself said these words: Mat 5:17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
He states clearly that he is NOT doing away with the Law. He came to live by the heart of them.
Jacob
Bolton *us
12
September at 21:10 via mobile
· Like
Ryan
Gray I am 'engaging' with scripture Jacob, nothing else. If you are going
to present an argument, back it up with scripture. If you can't then perhaps
your fooling yourself.
Feel free to have your views on homosexuality, it IS normal to some, but NOT to the the Almighty God of Israel.
Feel free to have your views on homosexuality, it IS normal to some, but NOT to the the Almighty God of Israel.
Jacob
Bolton Ryan Gray thank
you for your input.
I know where you stand on this, you know where I stand. Thanks for your input I guess we will find out at the end
Bless you my friend
I know where you stand on this, you know where I stand. Thanks for your input I guess we will find out at the end
Bless you my friend
12
September at 21:15 via mobile
· Like
Ryan
Gray I don't need to guess. It is clearly written. Do you base your' faith
on what people now say, or what has already been said, by the Father and his
messengers?
Don
Cameron I'm reading what Ryan is saying and while I would say it
differently I feel the issue is more black and white than this discussion makes
it out to be and I think I stand in a similar position to Ryan.
What I have learnt along the way (from previous discussions and this one) is that it's possible in ancient Israel somebody who had sex with a woman who was not promised to another (possibly even a rape) 'may' have been forced to marry the lady if the Father of the woman insisted this happened and did not say she was promised to another as this would result in the death penalty to the man for rape. I still favour the 'shot gun wedding' argument but we've covered that ground
The best evidence I see supporting Joel's view is that King David's daughter was definitely raped by her half brother and tried to insist that the attacker marry her afterwards, perhaps in line with the culture of the day or in line with Scripture as she understood it.
I've learnt that Jacob does not acknowledge any link between human sexuality in marriage being a picture of the trinity of God as he does not believe the trinity. I don't doubt that he mentioned it in a conversation in 2010 but I can't remember that conversation and this info helps me see we are arguing from a different foundation.
I've learnt that Ron (who came into the debate briefly and posted a decent link explaining his position) had a very different position to Joel and a lady who commented for a while about 'exclusive' homosexuality but still favoured homosexual relationships to be recognised as marriage (in a very small number of cases?)
I've learnt that Ryan reads his bible, is not afraid to quote Scripture and possibly finds this debate similar to people debating what colour the emperor's invisible clothes were that people were pretending to see?
What I have learnt along the way (from previous discussions and this one) is that it's possible in ancient Israel somebody who had sex with a woman who was not promised to another (possibly even a rape) 'may' have been forced to marry the lady if the Father of the woman insisted this happened and did not say she was promised to another as this would result in the death penalty to the man for rape. I still favour the 'shot gun wedding' argument but we've covered that ground
The best evidence I see supporting Joel's view is that King David's daughter was definitely raped by her half brother and tried to insist that the attacker marry her afterwards, perhaps in line with the culture of the day or in line with Scripture as she understood it.
I've learnt that Jacob does not acknowledge any link between human sexuality in marriage being a picture of the trinity of God as he does not believe the trinity. I don't doubt that he mentioned it in a conversation in 2010 but I can't remember that conversation and this info helps me see we are arguing from a different foundation.
I've learnt that Ron (who came into the debate briefly and posted a decent link explaining his position) had a very different position to Joel and a lady who commented for a while about 'exclusive' homosexuality but still favoured homosexual relationships to be recognised as marriage (in a very small number of cases?)
I've learnt that Ryan reads his bible, is not afraid to quote Scripture and possibly finds this debate similar to people debating what colour the emperor's invisible clothes were that people were pretending to see?
Ryan
Gray Don,your questions are simply outlined in scripture. YHWH (God) made
laws regarding marriage. Many of them are hard to comprehend with today's
culture however there is nothing poor about them.
Don
Cameron When I went looking for biblical passages that show God has spoken
about homosexual sex being the same as marriage, I was looking for something
like Song of Songs where love and sex are celebrated in marriage. The bible
says a lot about love but not as much about sexual intimacy with most of the
stuff on this topic being about avoiding the sinful reality of sexual sin. I
can't find anything supporting what Joel and Jacob are saying God is for. On
the contrary, I see things mentioned that say God is not for homosexual sex and
that this is sin... but please show me where I'm wrong
On a side note, it's true that in heaven there will be no heterosexual, bisexuals or homosexuals as in heaven we will be like the angels who are neither married nor given in marriage according to what Jesus said.
On a side note, it's true that in heaven there will be no heterosexual, bisexuals or homosexuals as in heaven we will be like the angels who are neither married nor given in marriage according to what Jesus said.
Jacob
Bolton Somehow this conversation was lead towards homosexuality being up
for debate, I'm sorry I got baited into this, and I'm concerned the outcome is
not going to empower of build up either of any party taking part.
This discussion was meant for same sex marriage equality and the just treatment of asylum seekers.
I am open to discussing these things but I'm opting not to continue this debate about homosexuality.
I have made my position clear, so has everyone else whom has expressed their view.
So thanks to Belinda J Terry, Joel Rothman, Suzanne Ferreras, Don Cameron, Ron Smith, Ryan Gray, and any one i overlooked, all for taking part I honestly feel we have come to place where it is pointless to continue to whip the dead horse so to speak
This discussion was meant for same sex marriage equality and the just treatment of asylum seekers.
I am open to discussing these things but I'm opting not to continue this debate about homosexuality.
I have made my position clear, so has everyone else whom has expressed their view.
So thanks to Belinda J Terry, Joel Rothman, Suzanne Ferreras, Don Cameron, Ron Smith, Ryan Gray, and any one i overlooked, all for taking part I honestly feel we have come to place where it is pointless to continue to whip the dead horse so to speak
12
September at 22:11 via mobile
· Like
Joel
Rothman Don, your last post provides more examples of what I've been
talking about. You tell your story about reading the Bible before developing a theology,
and yet time after time you demonstrate that you are reading the Bible through
a conservative evangelical lens.
" I was looking for something like Song of Songs where love and sex are celebrated in marriage".
Don, the lovers in Song of Songs were not married. That is your conservative lens adding "in marriage" to the end.
"in heaven there will be no heterosexual, bisexuals or homosexuals as in heaven we will be like the angels"
In the passage you refer to Jesus was not talking about heaven. That is your conservative lens again.
If we read the Bible without the conservative lens, and try to understand what each passage was trying to say in its original context, we come to a very different picture of how the parts of the Bible understand sex, marriage and procreation, and we therefor develop our whole understanding of Biblical sexuality differently. But I have explained how that works before.
I repeat what I wrote a few posts back:
I try to take the Bible seriously.
My exegesis is about finding out what a passage meant in its original context, regardless of any discomfort that might cause me as a Christian today.
My hermeneutics is about taking the Bible seriously, starting with a proper exegesis of the individual passages but going on to read the Bible holistically to understand what it is saying to us today.
That is why I take the positions I do on both passages and principles, and why I am not convinced by the conservative positions on either.
I think I'm going to take Jacob's point and leave it there. Most of what I need to say I already said above or in the similar debate we had on Jacob's wall earlier this year. But if there is some particular question that Don or Ryan want to put to me I'll probably answer it.
" I was looking for something like Song of Songs where love and sex are celebrated in marriage".
Don, the lovers in Song of Songs were not married. That is your conservative lens adding "in marriage" to the end.
"in heaven there will be no heterosexual, bisexuals or homosexuals as in heaven we will be like the angels"
In the passage you refer to Jesus was not talking about heaven. That is your conservative lens again.
If we read the Bible without the conservative lens, and try to understand what each passage was trying to say in its original context, we come to a very different picture of how the parts of the Bible understand sex, marriage and procreation, and we therefor develop our whole understanding of Biblical sexuality differently. But I have explained how that works before.
I repeat what I wrote a few posts back:
I try to take the Bible seriously.
My exegesis is about finding out what a passage meant in its original context, regardless of any discomfort that might cause me as a Christian today.
My hermeneutics is about taking the Bible seriously, starting with a proper exegesis of the individual passages but going on to read the Bible holistically to understand what it is saying to us today.
That is why I take the positions I do on both passages and principles, and why I am not convinced by the conservative positions on either.
I think I'm going to take Jacob's point and leave it there. Most of what I need to say I already said above or in the similar debate we had on Jacob's wall earlier this year. But if there is some particular question that Don or Ryan want to put to me I'll probably answer it.
Ryan
Gray Joel, can you use anything actually FROM the bible to backup what you
say?
Belinda J
Terry We all have our own opinions and perpectives, thats what makes us
unique. I, like all of you will continue to learn and ponder so many aspects of
this life. But at the end of the day none of us really knows difinitively what happens
at the end of this life. Ill continue to accept all people & their
lifestyles provided they are harming none... there is no harm in that. Thanks
Jacob
12
September at 22:53 via mobile
· Like · 1
Joel
Rothman Ryan, which of my claims in particular are you thinking of?
12
September at 22:58 via mobile
· Like
Ryan
Gray @Belinda, the Cristian Faith teaches what will happen. As a Christian
who follows the God of the bible, who created this world, I don't believe we
should make our own rules. It only takes a short look around the world to see
how mixed up it can be when leaders and rulers bring turmoil to their people because
they create regimes that are far from food . As we get older we become teachers
to the younger generations, we have a responsibility to do and teach what is
good.
Belinda J
Terry You have made your own rules Ryan you have chosen to follow the
christian faith. Many people choose a different path and are good leaders and
teachers too. Looking through this thread is an example to me of how bible
references can be perceived a million ways in many different directions. It
depends on the readers perspective. In my life, I make my rules... because no
one else can! And my life is a happy one If a person is living their life and
harming no one in their choices then I embrace their lifestyle with open arms.
12
September at 23:26 via mobile
· Like · 1
Ryan
Gray If you can assume the lover's in Song of Songs we not married or
didn't became married, why is that so? What evidence proves one way or another.
I am trying to understand why you would suggest this content would be about a
couple (if it is about 2 lovers) who didn't become married. What is the purpose
of making that suggestion?
Ryan
Gray Belinda, how have I made my 'own' rules? I didn't make anything. We
both have a choice and I chose to follow the way of the Yeshua (Jesus).
People will perceive passages differently when they are not educated. When you only read and learn parts it is difficult to understand the teachings of the books of the bible. Also when people refuse to believe something that is right in front of them they try to twist words to their liking.
Whilst there may be 'Many' good leaders, there are also many more poor ones. If we teach others it is good to live by our own standards then we deny God.
This topic is about homosexuality, and whilst you may not think there is anything wrong with this and no harm is done, the bible warns harshly against it. As a believer I stand up for this message because I care for people beyond what we have with our flesh and blood.
I could live my life carefree however I know that there is a God who made the world as we know it and that God has revealed himself to mankind. I choose to learn and serve the God of Israel because His ways are good for us, and He deserves our praise because He gave us life! When I learned more about this God He taught me a peace and joy that I never knew before, something far greater than the carefree life I had before!
People will perceive passages differently when they are not educated. When you only read and learn parts it is difficult to understand the teachings of the books of the bible. Also when people refuse to believe something that is right in front of them they try to twist words to their liking.
Whilst there may be 'Many' good leaders, there are also many more poor ones. If we teach others it is good to live by our own standards then we deny God.
This topic is about homosexuality, and whilst you may not think there is anything wrong with this and no harm is done, the bible warns harshly against it. As a believer I stand up for this message because I care for people beyond what we have with our flesh and blood.
I could live my life carefree however I know that there is a God who made the world as we know it and that God has revealed himself to mankind. I choose to learn and serve the God of Israel because His ways are good for us, and He deserves our praise because He gave us life! When I learned more about this God He taught me a peace and joy that I never knew before, something far greater than the carefree life I had before!
Joel
Rothman My purpose was to point out that Don was reading scripture through
a 'lens' or bias. Throughout our conversations he has kept claiming that from
cover to cover the Bible speaks clearly and consistently of "one man, one
woman, in marriage, for life". I was pointing out to him that this
perception comes from the way he reads the Bible, and not from solid exegesis.
My own understanding of biblical sexuality begins with accepting the Bible as
it is given to us, and not pretending that every part of it fits neatly into
our human-constructed theology.
We know that the lovers in Songs were not married for a few reasons, including the suggestions throughout Songs that their love was not socially accepted and that it was not socially acceptable for them to be alone together.
We know that the lovers in Songs were not married for a few reasons, including the suggestions throughout Songs that their love was not socially accepted and that it was not socially acceptable for them to be alone together.
13
September at 00:06 via mobile
· Like · 1
Belinda J
Terry You have your own brain Ryan your choices your perceptions and your
actions. I just hope your opinions dont make you cruel pushy bossy or a bully
towards gay people you encounter because they have feelings and like everyone
can be pushed to the limit. It would be such a shame if in all your goodness for
something tragic to happen. It certainly wouldnt be the first time a christian
follower was out of line like that. I believe above all that you should not
harm others. This is the message I want to get across in this thread.
13
September at 08:07 via mobile
· Like · 1
Don
Cameron Re; Song of Songs - Do not awaken love until it so desires... the
couple's courtship and marriage are in the book. Joel can labelling me
conservative or say that I seem to be reading it as the text appears. I will
say something that might sound mean but I hope it will add to the debate. Joel
- You are believing what your liberal bible college teachers are telling you to
believe rather than letting Scripture speak for itself. I had my own views and
as I moved interstate I have been to four bible colleges and been challenged by
what they all said. They all said different things though! I had to weigh it
all up and see if it conformed to Scripture (Berean-ish?) I still think this is
a good position to be in.
Matthew 22:30 ESV
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."
Jesus said this. Maybe he was a conservative too?
Belinda - you write well and get your message across. When we say 'we can never really know for sure' we become pseudo agnostics. Part of my claim is that God does speak and He communicates clearly. I think that might be what Ryan agrees with as well? Saying that God can not communicate clearly leaves the door open for all kinds of unusual statements about God and a discrediting of His word (in my opinion).
I hear Ryan being cautioned (threatened?) that he will be responsible for the deaths of gay people. That is at least part-true as we can all contribute to the harm of others by our words and actions. I encourage Ryan to continue to 'speak the truth in love'. If you are speaking in a loving way but not speaking the truth, people are worse after listening to you and ultimately that is not loving. Ryan is a bit roar but I think I can see his intentions and they appear to be honest to Scripture.
Jacob - I'm guessing your view of God 'may' be similar to somebody doing the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous when they say 'the God of my own understanding'. In your words God may be female. He is compared to a woman nursing a child at her breast or a mother hen gathering chickens under her wings etc but in Scripture God is never referred to as female which is good enough for me. Hey, God might be 'the great spaghetti monster' for some people and while some might leave that possibility open, I don't think Scripture does. This is called idolatry. When Rehoboam made an image of God and told the Israelites a truthful testimony about how God brought them out of Egypt and they were to worship Him in the form of a golden calf (or calves?) Scripture calls this evil. Can I respectfully encourage you to look at the bible again and consider what God/god you worship? And continue to challenge me when my version of God is off track?
Matthew 22:30 ESV
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."
Jesus said this. Maybe he was a conservative too?
Belinda - you write well and get your message across. When we say 'we can never really know for sure' we become pseudo agnostics. Part of my claim is that God does speak and He communicates clearly. I think that might be what Ryan agrees with as well? Saying that God can not communicate clearly leaves the door open for all kinds of unusual statements about God and a discrediting of His word (in my opinion).
I hear Ryan being cautioned (threatened?) that he will be responsible for the deaths of gay people. That is at least part-true as we can all contribute to the harm of others by our words and actions. I encourage Ryan to continue to 'speak the truth in love'. If you are speaking in a loving way but not speaking the truth, people are worse after listening to you and ultimately that is not loving. Ryan is a bit roar but I think I can see his intentions and they appear to be honest to Scripture.
Jacob - I'm guessing your view of God 'may' be similar to somebody doing the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous when they say 'the God of my own understanding'. In your words God may be female. He is compared to a woman nursing a child at her breast or a mother hen gathering chickens under her wings etc but in Scripture God is never referred to as female which is good enough for me. Hey, God might be 'the great spaghetti monster' for some people and while some might leave that possibility open, I don't think Scripture does. This is called idolatry. When Rehoboam made an image of God and told the Israelites a truthful testimony about how God brought them out of Egypt and they were to worship Him in the form of a golden calf (or calves?) Scripture calls this evil. Can I respectfully encourage you to look at the bible again and consider what God/god you worship? And continue to challenge me when my version of God is off track?
Belinda J
Terry No threats here just going back to my initial posts which got me on
this thread... Someone I know is hurting because their brother ended his life.
And that is a tragedy. Our words are powerful and can harm. We ALL must be
careful with our words to one another. I dont know Ryan and wasnt directing my
comments to him alone but to anyone against homosexuality or anything that
doesnt fit their profile of acceptable. There is a risk of harming others and I
dont know if people on here could live with a clear conscious if their words
had that effect on another person.. Just think about it.
13
September at 09:37 via mobile
· Like · 2
Joel
Rothman “I will say something that might sound mean but I hope it will add
to the debate. Joel - You are believing what your liberal bible college teachers
are telling you to believe rather than letting Scripture speak for itself.”
A bit personal and insulting, but probably no more so than some of the things I’ve said to you, Don. I understand the need for those kinds of comments. But at the risk of adding further insult, I have to say my response to that was somewhere between a groan of despair and a sigh of exasperation. That is hardly the first time someone has said something like that to me: I’ve been hearing it from other people for over a decade. I’ve also been hearing it from a teenage kid called Joel Rothman who was raised fundamentalist and still rents out a room in the back of my head. But I share his passion for knowing God, following Jesus and studying scripture, and I am able to answer his questions. I explain to him how my current positions are the result of those very passions.
I am genuinely impressed, Don, that you have studied at four bible colleges in two states. I have only studied at two bible colleges in one state. How many of those four bible colleges were liberal? How many units in New Testament have you done at a liberal bible college? How many units in Old Testament have you done at a liberal bible college? I ask because you have made comments about studying the Bible at a liberal Bible college and I'm interested to know what knowledge you have of them.
I was a bit bemused/exasperated by your comment “believing what your liberal bible college teachers are telling you to believe rather than letting Scripture speak for itself”, because if you understand how liberal bible colleges work then you’ll understand that you cannot pass at a liberal bible college by repeating back what the teacher told you. Actually, to be more precise, you might just scrape in a pass, but you certainly won’t get a good mark or qualify for post-graduate study. My teachers demanded that I justify every single thing I said, whether it agreed with them or not. That is how liberal bible colleges work: no assumption is exempt from questioning, and every assertion must be justified, even the ones you once thought were beyond dispute. More than anything, it is not so much the “answers” that I learnt in bible college, but the practice of uncovering assumptions in myself and others. And just for the record, even though I did many units of biblical studies, I don’t recall any of my teachers ever mentioning the Song of Songs, so I’m hardly just believing what they said. Rather, I came to my view of Songs by putting into practice what I learnt about reading the books of the Bible again and shearing away my previous assumptions.
Let me demonstrate how you have failed to do this.
Earlier in our conversation you wrote:
"in heaven there will be no heterosexual, bisexuals or homosexuals as in heaven we will be like the angels"
I responded:
“In the passage you refer to Jesus was not talking about heaven. That is your conservative lens again.”
And now you have responded:
“Matthew 22:30 ESV "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Jesus said this. Maybe he was a conservative too? ;)”
Look at that conversation. Do you really not see what is wrong with your response? As justification for your assertion that Jesus was talking about heaven, you quoted a verse that DOES NOT MENTION GOING TO HEAVEN but instead EXPLICITLY SPEAKS OF THE RESURRECTION. It is almost as if you have a kind of dyslexia, but instead of your brain scrambling the letters in words, it has blanked out the entire word “resurrection” and put “heaven” in its place.
And while I’ve got you on this I’m going to stick the boot in one more time:
The distinction between “the resurrection” and “heaven” is a pretty basic one for a student of the Bible. If an apprentice cook didn’t understand the difference between “pavlova” and “spatula” I would be concerned. The distinction between “the resurrection” and “heaven” is on about the same level, and if you’ve missed that one then I wonder what you learnt from your four bible colleges.
A bit personal and insulting, but probably no more so than some of the things I’ve said to you, Don. I understand the need for those kinds of comments. But at the risk of adding further insult, I have to say my response to that was somewhere between a groan of despair and a sigh of exasperation. That is hardly the first time someone has said something like that to me: I’ve been hearing it from other people for over a decade. I’ve also been hearing it from a teenage kid called Joel Rothman who was raised fundamentalist and still rents out a room in the back of my head. But I share his passion for knowing God, following Jesus and studying scripture, and I am able to answer his questions. I explain to him how my current positions are the result of those very passions.
I am genuinely impressed, Don, that you have studied at four bible colleges in two states. I have only studied at two bible colleges in one state. How many of those four bible colleges were liberal? How many units in New Testament have you done at a liberal bible college? How many units in Old Testament have you done at a liberal bible college? I ask because you have made comments about studying the Bible at a liberal Bible college and I'm interested to know what knowledge you have of them.
I was a bit bemused/exasperated by your comment “believing what your liberal bible college teachers are telling you to believe rather than letting Scripture speak for itself”, because if you understand how liberal bible colleges work then you’ll understand that you cannot pass at a liberal bible college by repeating back what the teacher told you. Actually, to be more precise, you might just scrape in a pass, but you certainly won’t get a good mark or qualify for post-graduate study. My teachers demanded that I justify every single thing I said, whether it agreed with them or not. That is how liberal bible colleges work: no assumption is exempt from questioning, and every assertion must be justified, even the ones you once thought were beyond dispute. More than anything, it is not so much the “answers” that I learnt in bible college, but the practice of uncovering assumptions in myself and others. And just for the record, even though I did many units of biblical studies, I don’t recall any of my teachers ever mentioning the Song of Songs, so I’m hardly just believing what they said. Rather, I came to my view of Songs by putting into practice what I learnt about reading the books of the Bible again and shearing away my previous assumptions.
Let me demonstrate how you have failed to do this.
Earlier in our conversation you wrote:
"in heaven there will be no heterosexual, bisexuals or homosexuals as in heaven we will be like the angels"
I responded:
“In the passage you refer to Jesus was not talking about heaven. That is your conservative lens again.”
And now you have responded:
“Matthew 22:30 ESV "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." Jesus said this. Maybe he was a conservative too? ;)”
Look at that conversation. Do you really not see what is wrong with your response? As justification for your assertion that Jesus was talking about heaven, you quoted a verse that DOES NOT MENTION GOING TO HEAVEN but instead EXPLICITLY SPEAKS OF THE RESURRECTION. It is almost as if you have a kind of dyslexia, but instead of your brain scrambling the letters in words, it has blanked out the entire word “resurrection” and put “heaven” in its place.
And while I’ve got you on this I’m going to stick the boot in one more time:
The distinction between “the resurrection” and “heaven” is a pretty basic one for a student of the Bible. If an apprentice cook didn’t understand the difference between “pavlova” and “spatula” I would be concerned. The distinction between “the resurrection” and “heaven” is on about the same level, and if you’ve missed that one then I wonder what you learnt from your four bible colleges.
13
September at 12:49 · Edited · Like · 1
Don
Cameron G'day Joel. Thanks again for your response. Did you really want the
answers about the bible college subjects I studied or were you just making a
point? I'll consider your point made and yes, I did pass my subjects at bible
college mostly by quoting from many sources that I thought the lecturer's would
like and perhaps posing more questions than answers to the questions put to me.
Regarding heaven and the resurrection, I am aware of what people like NT Wright and others say on this issue and yes, some make a big point about this.
Are you saying that people in heaven 'will' still be married/engage in marriage or do you think they will be like the angels in heaven neither marrying nor being given in marriage?
Can you clarify your position a bit? Apologies if I've missed something there.
While I am apologising, in hindsight I realise I have put words in Jacob's mouth that he mentioned as an example but did not claim to believe himself. This was my mistake and I apologise to Jacob for doing this. I'll probably do it again if I don't read over things carefully enough so please keep me accountable if I do. I'll try to be more thorough.
Personally (in a nutshell) I read it like this (with a few exceptions); We live. We die. After death we face judgement either for our sins (non-believers) or for our deeds (Christians). Christians get a resurrected body like Jesus has and enter into heaven. The unredeemed go to hell for all of eternity.
Also... I haven't actually met you face to face but I feel I know you well enough for you to stick the boots into me in the pleasant manner that you do. I won't get offended and I feel blessed to have you respond to my comments. Thanks!
Regarding heaven and the resurrection, I am aware of what people like NT Wright and others say on this issue and yes, some make a big point about this.
Are you saying that people in heaven 'will' still be married/engage in marriage or do you think they will be like the angels in heaven neither marrying nor being given in marriage?
Can you clarify your position a bit? Apologies if I've missed something there.
While I am apologising, in hindsight I realise I have put words in Jacob's mouth that he mentioned as an example but did not claim to believe himself. This was my mistake and I apologise to Jacob for doing this. I'll probably do it again if I don't read over things carefully enough so please keep me accountable if I do. I'll try to be more thorough.
Personally (in a nutshell) I read it like this (with a few exceptions); We live. We die. After death we face judgement either for our sins (non-believers) or for our deeds (Christians). Christians get a resurrected body like Jesus has and enter into heaven. The unredeemed go to hell for all of eternity.
Also... I haven't actually met you face to face but I feel I know you well enough for you to stick the boots into me in the pleasant manner that you do. I won't get offended and I feel blessed to have you respond to my comments. Thanks!
Jacob
Bolton This may be a semantic, but do you believe we are judged for our
deeds? Is that what you meant or was that a mistake?
13
September at 18:45 via mobile
· Like · 1
Don
Cameron Sorry mate, we are saved by grace and grace alone. There are parts
of Scripture that say in eternity we will shine with differing brightness as we
receive stuff in heaven based on our faithfulness on earth. I will be happy to
get there but hope I bring much glory to God along the way. I'll look for a
bible verse later. Apologies for any ambiguity.
Jacob
Bolton Nah that's fine mate, was curious because I thought you had a firmer
understanding than that...
Actually I had 2 mormans that would come visit me when I lived in doveton, they were on their mission and initially they tried to get me to to become a morman. They even tried getting me thru a singles connection they were holding to try and get single mormans to meet other singles. But I opted not to as the premise seemed wrong to me.
Anyways they told me that the only part of heaven that I could get to was the celestial stairs or something like that?! But if I became a morman and followed Joseph smiths teaching then I would get into the celestial kingdom and be in the presents of The Lord. For weeks they tried to convince me (god bless em), I even went to 3 church services, but after weeks I said to them, heck I'm just happy to get in to heaven, what more could I ask for, if more is offered then that's great, but where I am in heaven doesn't matter to me!
After that they kept coming round but instead started to just hang out, have dinner with us, and we watched the NRL grand final together (even tho I don't like rugby) on a large screen tv I happened to dumpster dive at the back of a fitness centre one night about a week before.
We had a great time, and I felt we experienced a piece of heaven right there.
Anyways that story was just a tangent
Actually I had 2 mormans that would come visit me when I lived in doveton, they were on their mission and initially they tried to get me to to become a morman. They even tried getting me thru a singles connection they were holding to try and get single mormans to meet other singles. But I opted not to as the premise seemed wrong to me.
Anyways they told me that the only part of heaven that I could get to was the celestial stairs or something like that?! But if I became a morman and followed Joseph smiths teaching then I would get into the celestial kingdom and be in the presents of The Lord. For weeks they tried to convince me (god bless em), I even went to 3 church services, but after weeks I said to them, heck I'm just happy to get in to heaven, what more could I ask for, if more is offered then that's great, but where I am in heaven doesn't matter to me!
After that they kept coming round but instead started to just hang out, have dinner with us, and we watched the NRL grand final together (even tho I don't like rugby) on a large screen tv I happened to dumpster dive at the back of a fitness centre one night about a week before.
We had a great time, and I felt we experienced a piece of heaven right there.
Anyways that story was just a tangent
13
September at 20:06 via mobile
· Like
Jacob
Bolton *presence
13
September at 20:21 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron You watched the NFL Grand Final with them! Must have been a good
friendship as that game bores me as well.
Joel
Rothman Hi Don,
I hope you didn't take my questions about what units you've studied as my way of disparaging your theological education. It was my way of attacking the idea that I'm just believing what my liberal teachers say about the Bible. I wondered if you actually know what goes on in a biblical studies unit at a liberal bible college. But I am genuinely impressed that you've studied at four different bible colleges and I wish I could say the same. On the other hand I do get the impression from reading your posts that you have a tendency to read Bible passages through a traditional theological framework rather than through the eyes of the original reader/hearer.
"Are you saying that people in heaven 'will' still be married/engage in marriage or do you think they will be like the angels in heaven neither marrying nor being given in marriage?"
I was really just trying to catch you out on something to score a few quick points. Actually it did have a bit of a purpose: I'm trying to convince you that you've been reading the Bible through the lens of traditional theology, and that was just an example that was right at hand. Traditional theology teaches life after death for individual Christians in heaven, and fails to account for the core biblical concept of end-time cosmic/corporate resurrection, so when you read a verse about the resurrection and assumed it was about going to heaven it seemed a good example - the verse does not address the issue of what happens in heaven. I was hoping I could make a point that would make you more open to what I'm saying about some Old Testament passages.
But to answer your question, I don't believe Christians will be married in heaven after death, mostly because I don't believe Christians go to heaven after death (as a general rule). There are two or three passages in the NT that could be taken that way, but overall the biblical evidence points in another direction. I accept Jesus' teaching that we will not be married in the resurrection of the dead. Speaking of which, where does THE resurrection fit into your nutshell? Maybe a bit of a tangent but you've got me interested.
I hope you didn't take my questions about what units you've studied as my way of disparaging your theological education. It was my way of attacking the idea that I'm just believing what my liberal teachers say about the Bible. I wondered if you actually know what goes on in a biblical studies unit at a liberal bible college. But I am genuinely impressed that you've studied at four different bible colleges and I wish I could say the same. On the other hand I do get the impression from reading your posts that you have a tendency to read Bible passages through a traditional theological framework rather than through the eyes of the original reader/hearer.
"Are you saying that people in heaven 'will' still be married/engage in marriage or do you think they will be like the angels in heaven neither marrying nor being given in marriage?"
I was really just trying to catch you out on something to score a few quick points. Actually it did have a bit of a purpose: I'm trying to convince you that you've been reading the Bible through the lens of traditional theology, and that was just an example that was right at hand. Traditional theology teaches life after death for individual Christians in heaven, and fails to account for the core biblical concept of end-time cosmic/corporate resurrection, so when you read a verse about the resurrection and assumed it was about going to heaven it seemed a good example - the verse does not address the issue of what happens in heaven. I was hoping I could make a point that would make you more open to what I'm saying about some Old Testament passages.
But to answer your question, I don't believe Christians will be married in heaven after death, mostly because I don't believe Christians go to heaven after death (as a general rule). There are two or three passages in the NT that could be taken that way, but overall the biblical evidence points in another direction. I accept Jesus' teaching that we will not be married in the resurrection of the dead. Speaking of which, where does THE resurrection fit into your nutshell? Maybe a bit of a tangent but you've got me interested.
Jacob
Bolton You have got me interested too Joel? But more on what you just said
then!
13
September at 23:25 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron No offence taken at all mate.
When does the resurrection happen..... Good question and I'll try not to fluff around.
I know that it 'does' happen and Jesus told the thief on the cross 'today you will be with me in paradise' (Eden/heaven/afterlife). It's 1.30am now and I have no idea where my Greek bible is so I'll try and remember to google it when the sun is up. What does 'today' mean? I'm guessing that was a verse you mentioned that suggested 'straight to heaven'
The short answer is I am not sure.
Some Scripture seems to suggest 'soul sleep' and the NT refers to believers who died as people who have 'fallen asleep'. This would suggest 'take a nap and wait until everyone goes to heaven together'.
When I first started reading the bible I didn't think much of it was factual but assumed some people had put it together as a work of fiction and fiddled around with it to make all the odds and ends meet up. The more I read it the more convinced I became that there was probably a God and He probably put it together using people. By the end of Revelation I was convinced of this and shortly afterwards I became a Christian. I try to read books by people like John Shelby-Spong and listen to heaps of sermons by Dallas Willard and watch dvd's by Rob Bell and read a bit of his stuff. I read 'The Shack'. 'Blue Like Jazz' and other books by 'liberal' authors and tried to think critically where they are in line with the bible and where they are not and spoke about them with friends who had varying opinions. Yes, I am aware that pretty much anyone who believes the bible teaches six day creation is by definition a conservative but I work among a lot of marginalised people so some people assume I am left wing. I've been labelled at both ends of the spectrum and I hope that I am aware of my shortcomings (and value people pointing them out to me.... after I have calmed down a bit).
So back to the question. The resurrection (for disciples of Jesus) comes after death. How long after death?.... dunno.
When does the resurrection happen..... Good question and I'll try not to fluff around.
I know that it 'does' happen and Jesus told the thief on the cross 'today you will be with me in paradise' (Eden/heaven/afterlife). It's 1.30am now and I have no idea where my Greek bible is so I'll try and remember to google it when the sun is up. What does 'today' mean? I'm guessing that was a verse you mentioned that suggested 'straight to heaven'
The short answer is I am not sure.
Some Scripture seems to suggest 'soul sleep' and the NT refers to believers who died as people who have 'fallen asleep'. This would suggest 'take a nap and wait until everyone goes to heaven together'.
When I first started reading the bible I didn't think much of it was factual but assumed some people had put it together as a work of fiction and fiddled around with it to make all the odds and ends meet up. The more I read it the more convinced I became that there was probably a God and He probably put it together using people. By the end of Revelation I was convinced of this and shortly afterwards I became a Christian. I try to read books by people like John Shelby-Spong and listen to heaps of sermons by Dallas Willard and watch dvd's by Rob Bell and read a bit of his stuff. I read 'The Shack'. 'Blue Like Jazz' and other books by 'liberal' authors and tried to think critically where they are in line with the bible and where they are not and spoke about them with friends who had varying opinions. Yes, I am aware that pretty much anyone who believes the bible teaches six day creation is by definition a conservative but I work among a lot of marginalised people so some people assume I am left wing. I've been labelled at both ends of the spectrum and I hope that I am aware of my shortcomings (and value people pointing them out to me.... after I have calmed down a bit).
So back to the question. The resurrection (for disciples of Jesus) comes after death. How long after death?.... dunno.
Joel
Rothman You really are a six-day creationist? How embarrassing for you!
Surely you can get an ointment for that?
14
September at 08:56 via mobile
· Like · 1
Grundy
McFlops So many comments, way too long to read. But I hope they're all
about the fact that Jacob ditched a radio station just because of one incident,
cause the rest of his post should just have a bunch of Likes.
14
September at 09:19 via mobile
· Like · 1
Don
Cameron I was once an argent evolutionist who ridiculed people who held a
young earth position but now, like an ex-smoker, I am for the young earth
position and rant about it.
Joel - A loaded question I asked a while back and didn't get an answer to;
Are the ten commandments to be taken literally or not? (Were the Israelites meant to take them at face value?)
Joel - A loaded question I asked a while back and didn't get an answer to;
Are the ten commandments to be taken literally or not? (Were the Israelites meant to take them at face value?)
Jacob
Bolton Isn't the purpose of a loaded question to know when to answer them?
Also there's no such thing as the 10 commandments don
Also there's no such thing as the 10 commandments don
14
September at 13:53 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron The purpose of a loaded question is that in the answer, you expose
what your true beliefs are. There are disingenuous/unfair questions such as
'have you stopped beating your wife?' which infers something no matter which
way you answer. My loaded question was to see how Joel interprets the ten
commandments (found in Exodus 20). How would you answer the question I posed
Jacob? Dodging it by denying it's existence? Have a shot mate.
In a sense there was not twelve tribes of Israel as they marched in thirteen tribal groups but I'm happy to recognise them as twelve tribes.
In a sense there was not twelve tribes of Israel as they marched in thirteen tribal groups but I'm happy to recognise them as twelve tribes.
Jacob
Bolton Actually they are called the commandments don, its the sub heading
above, put there by the writers, that title them "the 10 commandments.
The real commandments don't stop at ten.
Also, being married for almost 3 years. Knowing when to answer and when not to is key!
The real commandments don't stop at ten.
Also, being married for almost 3 years. Knowing when to answer and when not to is key!
14
September at 19:07 via mobile
· Like · 1
Jacob
Bolton I thought you were done with putting words in my mouth they don?
14
September at 19:18 via mobile
· Like
Don
Cameron Yes. Marriage teaches us many things. I've learnt in marriage that
if you don't answer the question then you are not allowed to comment on the
discussion unless it's to agree (joke).
How many commandments were on the stone tablets brought down the mountain?
I think there were around 10-ish?
How many commandments were on the stone tablets brought down the mountain?
I think there were around 10-ish?
Don
Cameron Whoops. Hit enter too early. Those were the commandments I was
referring to. Were the people meant to take them literally or interpret them
however they saw fit?
(It's ok if you just say 'Yes Dear. I agree with you')
(It's ok if you just say 'Yes Dear. I agree with you')
Caitlin
D'Arrietta Wow, you people are still going? May you all be right and your
sense of biblical superiority prevail always. Amen.
14
September at 19:48 via mobile
· Like · 2
Jacob
Bolton Amen Caitlin
14
September at 21:08 via mobile
· Like · 1
Mitchell Gibson I
beleib in gawd
14
September at 23:04 via mobile
· Like
Joel
Rothman Jacob, you asked me to explain more about Christians not going to
heaven.
Basically, traditional Christianity has almost built itself around the question of whether you are going to heaven or hell when you die. This is interesting, because the idea that Christians can expect to go to heaven has very little biblical support. In the Bible heaven is the part of the creation that is above the earth: a part that is very difficult for humans to comprehend, but which powerfully influences life on earth, and a part in which God’s authority and glory is more fully expressed than on earth. But why expect to go there when we die? I don’t expect to go to any other particular part of creation when I die, except a bit further down into the earth. When I die I don’t expect to go to Denmark, or the Himalayas, or the moon.
The Bible does contain the idea that some particular people in particular cases may go to heaven. Elijah was carried up to heaven on a chariot, and Jesus was taken up to heaven a few weeks after his resurrection. The New Testament contains the idea that martyrs “who follow the Lamb wherever he goes” will live in glory in heaven after their deaths (see Paul and Revelation). But generally Christians can expect to “sleep” in the ground with everyone else until the eschatological, cosmic resurrection, when all humans are raised to life to face judgment. If the judgment is favourable they will then live on a renewed earth in transformed bodies, and participate in the fully embodied Kingdom of God.
There are some aspects of that picture that I find really inspiring, and other aspects that I am personally not completely comfortable with. But that is what the Bible communicates.
So, just on that Bible passage that Don quoted, here is what is going on:
The Pharisees believe in THE resurrection, i.e. that at a great future historic moment all the righteous people who have died will be raised back to life to live on a changed earth. The Sadducees believe that when you’re dead, you’re dead. Jesus is drawn into this debate and he says that the Pharisees are right and the Sadducees are wrong. So the idea of “going to heaven” is nowhere to be found in that passage. It is neither affirmed nor denied – it just is not the topic under discussion. If they knew that future Christians would take their debate as referring to heaven, I think both the Pharisees and the Sadducees would be very surprised.
If you read again through all those Bible passages you assumed were talking about going to heaven, and ask “is it really”, you should find that most of them are actually talking about the eschatological resurrection and the renewed earth. Those that ARE about going to heaven are the minority and specifically have martyrs in mind.
Basically, traditional Christianity has almost built itself around the question of whether you are going to heaven or hell when you die. This is interesting, because the idea that Christians can expect to go to heaven has very little biblical support. In the Bible heaven is the part of the creation that is above the earth: a part that is very difficult for humans to comprehend, but which powerfully influences life on earth, and a part in which God’s authority and glory is more fully expressed than on earth. But why expect to go there when we die? I don’t expect to go to any other particular part of creation when I die, except a bit further down into the earth. When I die I don’t expect to go to Denmark, or the Himalayas, or the moon.
The Bible does contain the idea that some particular people in particular cases may go to heaven. Elijah was carried up to heaven on a chariot, and Jesus was taken up to heaven a few weeks after his resurrection. The New Testament contains the idea that martyrs “who follow the Lamb wherever he goes” will live in glory in heaven after their deaths (see Paul and Revelation). But generally Christians can expect to “sleep” in the ground with everyone else until the eschatological, cosmic resurrection, when all humans are raised to life to face judgment. If the judgment is favourable they will then live on a renewed earth in transformed bodies, and participate in the fully embodied Kingdom of God.
There are some aspects of that picture that I find really inspiring, and other aspects that I am personally not completely comfortable with. But that is what the Bible communicates.
So, just on that Bible passage that Don quoted, here is what is going on:
The Pharisees believe in THE resurrection, i.e. that at a great future historic moment all the righteous people who have died will be raised back to life to live on a changed earth. The Sadducees believe that when you’re dead, you’re dead. Jesus is drawn into this debate and he says that the Pharisees are right and the Sadducees are wrong. So the idea of “going to heaven” is nowhere to be found in that passage. It is neither affirmed nor denied – it just is not the topic under discussion. If they knew that future Christians would take their debate as referring to heaven, I think both the Pharisees and the Sadducees would be very surprised.
If you read again through all those Bible passages you assumed were talking about going to heaven, and ask “is it really”, you should find that most of them are actually talking about the eschatological resurrection and the renewed earth. Those that ARE about going to heaven are the minority and specifically have martyrs in mind.
Don
Cameron Fair point but... isn't calling it 'a changed earth' the same as
calling it 'heaven'? Isaiah talked about this and spoke of a place where the
old earth and the old heavens are done away with and people dwell with God. The
new testament doesn't contradict this when the greek refers to a place of
paradise/dwelling with God. I know you might call this a conservative way of
interpretation but regardless of the label, if the text fits that description,
why is it wrong to use it that way?
Do you believe in a progressive revelation, old testament being a shadow etc?
Also... I guess you are going to duck the question about interpreting the ten commandments?
Thanks for the bit about "that's what the bible communicates" too. I liked that bit (as you might have guessed).
Do you believe in a progressive revelation, old testament being a shadow etc?
Also... I guess you are going to duck the question about interpreting the ten commandments?
Thanks for the bit about "that's what the bible communicates" too. I liked that bit (as you might have guessed).
Joel
Rothman on creationism and the ten commandments:
That’s kinda funny Don. You once mocked creationism, and now you rant in favour of it. I once advocated creationism, and now I rant against it. I have never used my FB wall to rant about homosexuality, as Jacob has, but I have sometimes used it to rant about creationism, climate change denial and homeopathy. Just to be clear on where I stand, I believe that Young Earth Creationism is one of the most destructive doctrines facing the church and the world today. But I still hope I’m capable of having a respectful discussion about it (with a few disrespectful comments thrown in too).
Don, you asked me
“Are the ten commandments to be taken literally or not? (Were the Israelites meant to take them at face value?)”
To me those two questions can have quite different answers. The ten commandments are not straightforwardly prescriptive for Christian living today, particularly the one about the Sabbath – though they should not just be casually dismissed either.
But yes, the Israelites were meant to take them at face value.
I will wait to hear in what way my true beliefs have been exposed. (Should I be nervous?)
That’s kinda funny Don. You once mocked creationism, and now you rant in favour of it. I once advocated creationism, and now I rant against it. I have never used my FB wall to rant about homosexuality, as Jacob has, but I have sometimes used it to rant about creationism, climate change denial and homeopathy. Just to be clear on where I stand, I believe that Young Earth Creationism is one of the most destructive doctrines facing the church and the world today. But I still hope I’m capable of having a respectful discussion about it (with a few disrespectful comments thrown in too).
Don, you asked me
“Are the ten commandments to be taken literally or not? (Were the Israelites meant to take them at face value?)”
To me those two questions can have quite different answers. The ten commandments are not straightforwardly prescriptive for Christian living today, particularly the one about the Sabbath – though they should not just be casually dismissed either.
But yes, the Israelites were meant to take them at face value.
I will wait to hear in what way my true beliefs have been exposed. (Should I be nervous?)
Don
Cameron Don't be nervous mate and I have no issues with a decent
conversation on creation/evolution etc with you.
I agree with your point about us not having to obey the ten commandments (as our righteousness comes by grace through faith etc) but they read as literal commands and the people of the day were to take them literally.
Here is the issue. In the middle of the 'literal' ten commandments we are told that that the people are to work (literally) six days and rest one as God created the world in six days.
I agree with your point about us not having to obey the ten commandments (as our righteousness comes by grace through faith etc) but they read as literal commands and the people of the day were to take them literally.
Here is the issue. In the middle of the 'literal' ten commandments we are told that that the people are to work (literally) six days and rest one as God created the world in six days.
Don
Cameron If the ten commandments are literal then what they contain must be
literal as well? If that's true then God created the world in six days. I had
no issue with this when I was reading the bible as a story and not taking it as
true but how does a non-creationist read this passage and stay faithful to the
text? Is it literal or figurative? Or can we cherry pick things in the same
passage that we will accept as literal while other stuff is allegory?
I also think it's funny we have swapped sides and in this discussion we may urge each to come back to the other side.
I have met a few people with doctorates in science and they believe testable, observable, repeatable science mostly stands in favour of a young earth. I'm sure you've heard most of it before though.
I also think it's funny we have swapped sides and in this discussion we may urge each to come back to the other side.
I have met a few people with doctorates in science and they believe testable, observable, repeatable science mostly stands in favour of a young earth. I'm sure you've heard most of it before though.
Joel
Rothman “isn't calling it 'a changed earth' the same as calling it
'heaven'?”
I see your point, but I have a few objections:
- I believe that when we are using biblical language it is “best practice” to use it biblically, otherwise we set ourselves up create false meanings from the Bible, or to miss a potentially important point.
- there are significant theological differences between going up to heaven and leaving the earth behind, and hoping for a healed and transformed earth.
- the phrase “a changed earth” was deliberately vague, because early Judaism had a range of views of just how much the earth would be changed. At the light end of the scale it is just that crops grow well, and we are not subject to an oppressive foreign government. If that is what is meant by “a changed earth”, then that is very different to “heaven”. In the debate between the Sadducees and Pharisees, it is likely that the Pharisees were more towards the lighter end of the scale, so when Jesus supported the Pharisees that was quite different from talking about heaven.
- even in the radically different earth of Revelation 21-22, there are still some differences between that and heaven.
I see your point, but I have a few objections:
- I believe that when we are using biblical language it is “best practice” to use it biblically, otherwise we set ourselves up create false meanings from the Bible, or to miss a potentially important point.
- there are significant theological differences between going up to heaven and leaving the earth behind, and hoping for a healed and transformed earth.
- the phrase “a changed earth” was deliberately vague, because early Judaism had a range of views of just how much the earth would be changed. At the light end of the scale it is just that crops grow well, and we are not subject to an oppressive foreign government. If that is what is meant by “a changed earth”, then that is very different to “heaven”. In the debate between the Sadducees and Pharisees, it is likely that the Pharisees were more towards the lighter end of the scale, so when Jesus supported the Pharisees that was quite different from talking about heaven.
- even in the radically different earth of Revelation 21-22, there are still some differences between that and heaven.
Don
Cameron I think we see each others point even if we don't agree. Thanks for
the explanation.
Jacob
Bolton What is our purpose for hope then?
Yesterday
at 09:06 via mobile · Like
Don
Cameron Jesus!
Jacob
Bolton Elaborate?
Yesterday
at 12:52 via mobile · Like
Emma
Hallas Jacob Bolton
you are a bloody legend! I respect you greatly!
Yesterday
at 12:58 · Like
· 2
Annalisa
Lawrence I second what Emma
said
Yesterday
at 13:56 via mobile · Like · 1
Jacob
Bolton We love you both Emma
Hallas and Annalisa
Lawrence/bucky
Yesterday
at 15:23 via mobile · Like · 3
Christop
Booth This discussion is way too long. Can someone give me a summary?
Yesterday
at 16:02 · Like
· 1
Annalisa
Lawrence “Judgement is the forbidden objectivization of the other person
which destroys single-minded love. I am not forbidden to have my own thoughts
about the other person, to realize his shortcomings, but only to the extent
that it offers to me an occasion for forgiveness and unconditional love, as Jesus
proves to me.”
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Yesterday
at 17:36 via mobile · Like · 1
Joel
Rothman Hi Christop,
Well, I am biased, but this is my summary:
Some people (mainly Don) have been arguing that the throughout the Bible God communicates quite clearly that sex is for marriage, and marriage is between one man and one woman for life. The anti-gay verses in Leviticus have been quoted, as has Romans 1.
Others (mainly me and Jacob) have been arguing that the Bible is far more complicated than that, with some books of the Bible (esp the OT) having a different understanding of sex, marriage and procreation, which allows for polygamy, concubinage, etc. We have argued that the clear consistency that Don speaks of is the result of reading many passages through a traditional theological lens instead of doing proper exegesis. We have argued that we are to come to an understanding of biblical sexuality in part by doing proper exegesis of the passages, but even more importantly by considering the entire sweep of scripture, and the gospel principles that emerge, such as “full inclusion”, “fullness of life” and “relationship”. When you put this together with the reality of unchosen and fixed sexual orientation (as shown by modern scientific study), you come to the conclusion that the church must support homosexual people in expressing their sexual humanity in relationship (marriage) with someone of the same sex.
Don and others have denied that “full inclusion” is a gospel principle, and suggested that more biblical principles include “self denial”. I have affirmed that “self denial” is also a biblical principle. Don has argued that the church must love and welcome the homosexual person, and support them in living a celibate life. Don has also argued that the OT doesn’t really support e.g. polygamy, it just reports as historical facts that certain people had more than one wife.
I have objected to Don’s easy way of dismissing the narrative theology of the OT, and his dismissal of those instructions in the Torah that seem to promote an approach to sex and marriage different to his ‘one man, one woman, in marriage, for life’.
(also, in the last 20 or so posts some tangents have been introduced, such as whether Christians hope to go to heaven or hope in the eschatological, cosmic resurrection)
Well, I am biased, but this is my summary:
Some people (mainly Don) have been arguing that the throughout the Bible God communicates quite clearly that sex is for marriage, and marriage is between one man and one woman for life. The anti-gay verses in Leviticus have been quoted, as has Romans 1.
Others (mainly me and Jacob) have been arguing that the Bible is far more complicated than that, with some books of the Bible (esp the OT) having a different understanding of sex, marriage and procreation, which allows for polygamy, concubinage, etc. We have argued that the clear consistency that Don speaks of is the result of reading many passages through a traditional theological lens instead of doing proper exegesis. We have argued that we are to come to an understanding of biblical sexuality in part by doing proper exegesis of the passages, but even more importantly by considering the entire sweep of scripture, and the gospel principles that emerge, such as “full inclusion”, “fullness of life” and “relationship”. When you put this together with the reality of unchosen and fixed sexual orientation (as shown by modern scientific study), you come to the conclusion that the church must support homosexual people in expressing their sexual humanity in relationship (marriage) with someone of the same sex.
Don and others have denied that “full inclusion” is a gospel principle, and suggested that more biblical principles include “self denial”. I have affirmed that “self denial” is also a biblical principle. Don has argued that the church must love and welcome the homosexual person, and support them in living a celibate life. Don has also argued that the OT doesn’t really support e.g. polygamy, it just reports as historical facts that certain people had more than one wife.
I have objected to Don’s easy way of dismissing the narrative theology of the OT, and his dismissal of those instructions in the Torah that seem to promote an approach to sex and marriage different to his ‘one man, one woman, in marriage, for life’.
(also, in the last 20 or so posts some tangents have been introduced, such as whether Christians hope to go to heaven or hope in the eschatological, cosmic resurrection)
23
hours ago · Like
· 1
Jacob
Bolton My faith/Christianity has also apparently come into question...
22
hours ago via mobile · Like
Jacob
Bolton Also I have argued that when Jesus defines marriage between a man
and a women he has simply defined one type of marriage not the type of
marriage.
Tho I believe Joel disagrees with me here, and doesn't see Jesus as defining marriage at all. Tho I may have my facts crossed
Tho I believe Joel disagrees with me here, and doesn't see Jesus as defining marriage at all. Tho I may have my facts crossed
22
hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
Joel
Rothman Hi Don,
On our other tangent on creationism:
“Here is the issue. In the middle of the 'literal' ten commandments we are told that that the people are to work (literally) six days and rest one as God created the world in six days... Is it literal or figurative? Or can we cherry pick things in the same passage that we will accept as literal while other stuff is allegory?”
I came to faith in a Dutch Reformed church and heard a bit about Calvin. Putting aside the 5 Points of Calvinism and all that, I do consider myself a Calvinist on the issue of scientific cosmology and the Bible. I try to learn from his insights and his mistakes. Calvin argued that when the Bible mentions scientific cosmological issues, we are not meant to take that as God instructing us on cosmological facts, but God speaking in the language of the people: God uses “baby language” to talk to us. God communicated important theological truths to people, and didn’t use the Bible to correct people’s scientific (mis)understandings. The scientific “facts” mentioned in the Bible are not what God is communicating to us: they are part of the language in which God expresses his real communication.
The ancient world had various literary genres, as do we, and a failure to understand the genre leads to misunderstandings. Misunderstandings also arise when we fail to appreciate the differences between the sorts of questions we moderns want answered, and the sorts of questions the ancients wanted answered. Genesis 1 and 2 express important theological truths in a literary form the ancients would have understood and addressing the questions the ancients were interested in. The issue of “scientific truth” is a modern concern.
The ancients believed in a dome above the earth that held back the cosmic waters. Genesis 1 describes God creating this dome. Following Calvin’s idea, I do not believe that the message was, “yes, the dome really exists”, but “God is the creator of the world you see”.
The six days, plus the seventh, are a literary device to help express God’s message. It did not matter whether or not the original hearers thought of them as literal or figurative: either way they would get the theological message.
Later references in the Bible to the six days do not determine how we read them in Genesis. The original hearers of the Exodus 20 (the ten commandments) would know the Genesis story and their understanding of the Genesis story would inform their understanding of what was being communicated to them in the ten commandments (not the other way around). Imagine if I said in a sermon, “...which reminds me of when Homer Simpson turned to Bart and said...” If you understood the reference, your knowledge of the nature of the show The Simpsons would inform your understanding of what I was saying in my sermon. You would not conclude that I am teaching that The Simpsons is a historically factual account.
So when Ex 20 says “six days you shall labour, for in six days God made the world”, that is God using baby language to communicate the theological point, and giving them a rhythm of life that reminds them of the creation story (Gen 1), and the need to live in harmony with the creation and the Creator.
That is not “cherry picking”. It is a consistent hermeneutic.
And I am even being more consistent than Calvin, who forgot his own argument and condemned Galileo for teaching ideas contrary to the Bible.
And I am being far more consistent than Young Earth Creationists, who divide the Bible’s scientific references into literal or figurative depending on which part of modern science they contradict. If they contradict parts of science that absolutely cannot possibly be denied then the Bible verses are not literal, but if they contradict parts of science that you might be able to cast doubt on, then the Bible verse ARE literal. If they contradict “observable, repeatable” science they are determined to be figurative (e.g. they’re now OK with Galileo, there is no sky-dome, and the earth does not really have pillars holding it up), but if they contradict “historical science” then they are literally true (e.g. God created animals so evolution is wrong, and the earth is only a few thousand years old).
For creationists to claim that they “believe God’s Word, not fallible human science”, and yet have their understanding of science be the determinative factor in their Biblical interpretation...well, this must be the ultimate hypocrisy.
On our other tangent on creationism:
“Here is the issue. In the middle of the 'literal' ten commandments we are told that that the people are to work (literally) six days and rest one as God created the world in six days... Is it literal or figurative? Or can we cherry pick things in the same passage that we will accept as literal while other stuff is allegory?”
I came to faith in a Dutch Reformed church and heard a bit about Calvin. Putting aside the 5 Points of Calvinism and all that, I do consider myself a Calvinist on the issue of scientific cosmology and the Bible. I try to learn from his insights and his mistakes. Calvin argued that when the Bible mentions scientific cosmological issues, we are not meant to take that as God instructing us on cosmological facts, but God speaking in the language of the people: God uses “baby language” to talk to us. God communicated important theological truths to people, and didn’t use the Bible to correct people’s scientific (mis)understandings. The scientific “facts” mentioned in the Bible are not what God is communicating to us: they are part of the language in which God expresses his real communication.
The ancient world had various literary genres, as do we, and a failure to understand the genre leads to misunderstandings. Misunderstandings also arise when we fail to appreciate the differences between the sorts of questions we moderns want answered, and the sorts of questions the ancients wanted answered. Genesis 1 and 2 express important theological truths in a literary form the ancients would have understood and addressing the questions the ancients were interested in. The issue of “scientific truth” is a modern concern.
The ancients believed in a dome above the earth that held back the cosmic waters. Genesis 1 describes God creating this dome. Following Calvin’s idea, I do not believe that the message was, “yes, the dome really exists”, but “God is the creator of the world you see”.
The six days, plus the seventh, are a literary device to help express God’s message. It did not matter whether or not the original hearers thought of them as literal or figurative: either way they would get the theological message.
Later references in the Bible to the six days do not determine how we read them in Genesis. The original hearers of the Exodus 20 (the ten commandments) would know the Genesis story and their understanding of the Genesis story would inform their understanding of what was being communicated to them in the ten commandments (not the other way around). Imagine if I said in a sermon, “...which reminds me of when Homer Simpson turned to Bart and said...” If you understood the reference, your knowledge of the nature of the show The Simpsons would inform your understanding of what I was saying in my sermon. You would not conclude that I am teaching that The Simpsons is a historically factual account.
So when Ex 20 says “six days you shall labour, for in six days God made the world”, that is God using baby language to communicate the theological point, and giving them a rhythm of life that reminds them of the creation story (Gen 1), and the need to live in harmony with the creation and the Creator.
That is not “cherry picking”. It is a consistent hermeneutic.
And I am even being more consistent than Calvin, who forgot his own argument and condemned Galileo for teaching ideas contrary to the Bible.
And I am being far more consistent than Young Earth Creationists, who divide the Bible’s scientific references into literal or figurative depending on which part of modern science they contradict. If they contradict parts of science that absolutely cannot possibly be denied then the Bible verses are not literal, but if they contradict parts of science that you might be able to cast doubt on, then the Bible verse ARE literal. If they contradict “observable, repeatable” science they are determined to be figurative (e.g. they’re now OK with Galileo, there is no sky-dome, and the earth does not really have pillars holding it up), but if they contradict “historical science” then they are literally true (e.g. God created animals so evolution is wrong, and the earth is only a few thousand years old).
For creationists to claim that they “believe God’s Word, not fallible human science”, and yet have their understanding of science be the determinative factor in their Biblical interpretation...well, this must be the ultimate hypocrisy.
No comments:
Post a Comment