Homosexuality vs. Mildew

number10a

First of all, I am not trolling. I have a genuine question. Why is homosexuality condemned by most Christian denominations, yet mildew is not?

I'll elaborate; homosexuality is condemned in Leviticus 18:22. Mildew is also looked down upon with much the same contempt in Leviticus 14:33-57. This is the same book of the Bible. Yet, why is it that nowadays we don't have Christian churches calling upon us to vacate our houses for a week if we find mildew in it and clean it with bird's blood, yet a man cannot sleep with another man? Why is one rule from the same book blatantly ignored, while another one enforced to the letter?

There are other examples of ignored rules from Leviticus, such as the ban on pork and ostrich meat. But the mildew one stands out as one of the most ridiculous rules I've ever come across.

PDN

Oh that we had a Jewish forum.

Most Christians believe that the Jewish rules and regulations were fulfilled in Christ and no longer apply to believers today. Therefore, if you can stand the stink, you are perfectly free to live in a mildewed house, to wear clothing made of mixed fibres, to eat bacon, and you don't have to get circumcised.

Christian views on homosexual behaviour come from the New Testament, not from Leviticus. The only people who don't seem to understand this are Fred Phelps and the occasional drive by atheist poster.

Still, we can be grateful for small mercies, at least you didn't post that pathetic letter about Dr Laura, gays, and shellfish.

Boston

Mildew is pretty disgusting, I wouldn't want to live next door to Mildew nor would I want it raising my babies.

DaraMcG

I think it's important to keep things in perspective...there are many more passages denouncing greed and love of money in the bible than there are homosexuality. There are also passages that tell us not to judge others lest we be judged. It's a very unchristian approach to dismiss or judge another person because of their sins when we are all sinners. The 2nd greatest commandment is love your neighbour as yourself.

philologos

DaraMcG wrote: »

I think it's important to keep things in perspective...there are many more passages denouncing greed and love of money in the bible than there are homosexuality. There are also passages that tell us not to judge others lest we be judged. It's a very unchristian approach to dismiss or judge another person because of their sins when we are all sinners. The 2nd greatest commandment is love your neighbour as yourself.

You're correct. However, this means that we should focus on Biblical morality as a whole, rather than just ignoring morality concerning money, or ignoring morality concerning sexuality. The idea is that we are to aim to higher standards both in how we deal financially, and in sexuality and all aspects of our lives.

It doesn't mean we ignore one thing over another, it means we aim to follow God in all ways in our lives.

What you're essentially arguing is, oh, this commandment's here more, so let's ignore that one. I find that reasoning invalid.

DaraMcG

Jakkass wrote: »

You're correct. However, this means that we should focus on Biblical morality as a whole, rather than just ignoring morality concerning money, or ignoring morality concerning sexuality. The idea is that we are to aim to higher standards both in how we deal financially, and in sexuality and all aspects of our lives.

It doesn't mean we ignore one thing over another, it means we aim to follow God in all ways in our lives.

What you're essentially arguing is, oh, this commandment's here more, so let's ignore that one. I find that reasoning invalid.

What i was actually trying to say was not that we ignore sin, but that you should try not to be judgmental or prejudiced since we're all sinners.
I used the example of greed because it is widespread and much ignored or thought to be normal, and if we're honest we can all identify with greed in our own lives.

DaraMcG

number10a you might be interested to know what the New Testament says on homosexuality ...Ive copied and pasted here some conclusions from an analysis of the passages that mention sexual behaviour but if you look up http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombiblnt.htm you can see info on how conservatives and liberals interpret each passage.
Nowhere is there condemnation of committed relationships of any orientation.

A common conservative conclusion: God's word repeatedly condemns same-sex behavior, either between two men or two women. It delivers a consistent message from Genesis to Jude.

A common liberal conclusion:
There is no passage in the Christian Scriptures that condemns same-sex committed relationships or same-sex marriage.

Romans 1 condemns Christian apostates who apparently had a heterosexual orientation and who engaged in what was for them unnatural sex: engaging in sex with members of the same sex.

1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 are ambiguous. They might possibly relate to homosexual behavior; but they might well refer to men who sexually abuse boys, or to male gigolos, or to male temple prostitutes. We just don't know. If these passages actually referred to persons with a homosexual orientation, they probably would not refer to loving, consensual same-sex behavior in a committed relationship. Paul was writing before the existence of a homosexual orientation was known. The only forms of homosexual behavior of which he was probably aware would have been males sexually abusing boys, and men engaging in same-sex orgies during Pagan worship

Jude 1:7 appears to refers to the desire by the men of Sodom to engage in bestiality with another species -- angels. There is none of this going on in by either homosexuals or heterosexuals today.

PDN

DaraMcG wrote: »

Romans 1 condemns Christian apostates who apparently had a heterosexual orientation and who engaged in what was for them unnatural sex: engaging in sex with members of the same sex.

That is one of the most convoluted and biased attempts to interpret Scripture that I have ever encountered. If one of my students ignored basic exegetical and hermeneutical principles in that way (irrespective of whether their conclusions were heterodox or orthodox) they would fail their course.

Romans 1 refers to the behaviour of people since the beginning of the world, not Christian apostates. It does not mention anything about orientation. Therefore you produce a nonsensical interpretation (that homosexual acts are fine if you think you're gay, but sinful if you're not gay ).

The problem with these kind of interpretations is that they are produced by people sitting down with a prearranged agenda (how can I interpret these verses in a way that will justify homosexual acts?). Then they proceed to twist and turn to produce a meaning, no matter how unlikely, that supports their agenda. That is what we call eisegesis (reading your meeaning into the text) rather than exegesis (drawing the author's meaning out of the text).

What we should do is sit down with those texts, try to lay aside our preconceived ideas, and ask what the authors really meant. If we do that, then we would never in a million years produce the kind of agenda-driven interpretations you cite above.

Btw, in case anyone accuses me of similarly trying to read my agenda into those texts, I would love it to be the case that the Bible permitted homosexual acts. Not because I'm gay myself (very hetero and happily married for 25 years) but because we have some very nice gay people (and family members) who attend our church services and I would love for them to be able to play a bigger part in the ministries of our church and to become committed members.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Btw, in case anyone accuses me of similarly trying to read my agenda into those texts, I would love it to be the case that the Bible permitted homosexual acts. Not because I'm gay myself (very hetero and happily married for 25 years) but because we have some very nice gay people (and family members) who attend our church services and I would love for them to be able to play a bigger part in the ministries of our church and to become committed members.

Would you say then, that if it were not for the bible you would have no issue with homosexuality?

Ghost Buster

PDN wrote: »

That is one of the most convoluted and biased attempts to interpret Scripture that I have ever encountered. If one of my students ignored basic exegetical and hermeneutical principles in that way (irrespective of whether their conclusions were heterodox or orthodox) they would fail their course.

Romans 1 refers to the behaviour of people since the beginning of the world, not Christian apostates. It does not mention anything about orientation. Therefore you produce a nonsensical interpretation (that homosexual acts are fine if you think you're gay, but sinful if you're not gay ).

The problem with these kind of interpretations is that they are produced by people sitting down with a prearranged agenda (how can I interpret these verses in a way that will justify homosexual acts?). Then they proceed to twist and turn to produce a meaning, no matter how unlikely, that supports their agenda. That is what we call eisegesis (reading your meeaning into the text) rather than exegesis (drawing the author's meaning out of the text).

What we should do is sit down with those texts, try to lay aside our preconceived ideas, and ask what the authors really meant. If we do that, then we would never in a million years produce the kind of agenda-driven interpretations you cite above.

Btw, in case anyone accuses me of similarly trying to read my agenda into those texts, I would love it to be the case that the Bible permitted homosexual acts. Not because I'm gay myself (very hetero and happily married for 25 years) but because we have some very nice gay people (and family members) who attend our church services and I would love for them to be able to play a bigger part in the ministries of our church and to become committed members.

Do you simply mean that it conflicts with your interpretation? The bible is wide open to interpretation, thats the problem in the first place. For a superior being His instruction manual to us is shockingly vague

DaraMcG

PDN wrote: »

That is one of the most convoluted and biased attempts to interpret Scripture that I have ever encountered. If one of my students ignored basic exegetical and hermeneutical principles in that way (irrespective of whether their conclusions were heterodox or orthodox) they would fail their course.

Can I ask then, in your interpretation....does that mean that a homosexual cannot be pleasing to God...even in a committed relationship or marriage?
Since clearly youve studied this Im also curious to know what do you make of that site's assertion that:
"The only forms of homosexual behavior of which he was probably aware would have been males sexually abusing boys, and men engaging in same-sex orgies during Pagan worship"
Do you think that true and if so wouldnt that have also affected the reasoning behind and interpretation of Romans 1?

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Would you say then, that if it were not for the bible you would have no issue with homosexuality?

And a follow up question if you would: if you don't have any personal problem with homosexuality and your viewing of it as immoral is entirely derived from the bible, do you feel this is a failing on your part, as in do you feel that you should "know in your heart" that homosexuality is immoral in the same way that we all know that murder and rape are immoral?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Romans 1 refers to the behaviour of people since the beginning of the world, not Christian apostates. It does not mention anything about orientation. Therefore you produce a nonsensical interpretation (that homosexual acts are fine if you think you're gay, but sinful if you're not gay ).

Not quite, homosexual acts are fine if you are gay (thus homosexual acts are your "natural use" for your sexual orientation) and done for love rather than lust, but not fine if you aren't and are just doing them for lust

The interpretation is that Romans 1 is arguing again unnatural acts of lust, heterosexuals who leave their men or women and, in lust, lie with others of the same sex. It doesn't cover a loving homosexual relationships.

That is the argument at least. Don't really want to get into an argument about exegetics or what ever, simply pointing out you don't seem to be following the interpretation.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Would you say then, that if it were not for the bible you would have no issue with homosexuality?

I don't think the charge is necessarily that some Christians take issue with homosexuality, more than they don't understand it particularly well.

The argument (and again I'm just explaining) is that the Bible refers to unnatural acts of lust between same sex partners carried out by heterosexual men and women. The sort of prison homosexual type thing (heterosexual people carrying out homosexual acts due to build up of sexual frustration/lust)

If someone views that as what homosexuality actually is (getting into the issue of someone choosing to be a homosexual and all that) then it is easy to see how the Bible would be saying homosexual acts are wrong.

But the argument from the pro-gay Christian lobby, or what ever you want to call it, is that this isn't homosexuality. That is heterosexuals carrying out same sex acts, not homosexuals carrying out same sex acts. One is just lust, the other encompasses love as well.

They argue that proper homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation, that encompasses love between same sex partners. It is not unnatural or lust. As such it is not covered by the Bible at all and thus one cannot say that the Bible condemns it. You then fall back to the general notions of love that the Bible talks about and apply them to loving homosexual relationships just as you would loving heterosexual relationships.

The argument (or at least the one I'm most familiar with) is not that the Bible actually condones homosexuality but that it is silent on the issue of actual relationships between homosexual partners, that the only thing it talks about is heterosexuals carrying out lustful unnatural same sex sexual relations.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think the charge is necessarily that some Christians take issue with homosexuality, more than they don't understand it particularly well.

The argument (and again I'm just explaining) is that the Bible refers to unnatural acts of lust between same sex partners carried out by heterosexual men and women. The sort of prison homosexual type thing (heterosexual people carrying out homosexual acts due to build up of sexual frustration/lust)

If someone views that as what homosexuality actually is (getting into the issue of someone choosing to be a homosexual and all that) then it is easy to see how the Bible would be saying homosexual acts are wrong.

But the argument from the pro-gay Christian lobby, or what ever you want to call it, is that this isn't homosexuality. That is heterosexuals carrying out same sex acts, not homosexuals carrying out same sex acts. One is just lust, the other encompasses love as well.

They argue that proper homosexuality is a natural sexual orientation, that encompasses love between same sex partners. It is not unnatural or lust. As such it is not covered by the Bible at all and thus one cannot say that the Bible condemns it. You then fall back to the general notions of love that the Bible talks about and apply them to loving homosexual relationships just as you would loving heterosexual relationships.

The argument (or at least the one I'm most familiar with) is not that the Bible actually condones homosexuality but that it is silent on the issue of actual relationships between homosexual partners, that the only thing it talks about is heterosexuals carrying out lustful unnatural same sex sexual relations.

I know the arguement for homosexuality WN. I wasn't actually looking to argue about it though. My question is a bit of a spin-off directed specifically at PDN relating to the last paragraph of his post.

marty1985

It's worth noting what Jesus said about homosexuality.



Nothing.



He said a lot about love and charity though.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I know the arguement for homosexuality WN. I wasn't actually looking to argue about it though. My question is a bit of a spin-off directed specifically at PDN relating to the last paragraph of his post.

Don't worry, neither am I.

I just made the post to clarify that PDN's statement about not being agenda driven because he wishes homosexuals could be Christians is some what missing the point.

wolfsbane

marty1985 wrote: »

It's worth noting what Jesus said about homosexuality.



Nothing.



He said a lot about love and charity though.

He didn't say anything about bestiality or paedophilia either, so they must be OK too?

No, for He spoke in the context of the morality God had already revealed - the OT. So He did not need to specifically mention all sins for them to be sin.

_________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;

PDN

wolfsbane wrote: »

He didn't say anything about bestiality or paedophilia either, so they must be OK too?

Based on past experience in these fora, it may not be long before some illiterate moron accuses you (falsely, of course) of equating homosexuality with bestiality or paedophilia.

PDN

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Do you simply mean that it conflicts with your interpretation? The bible is wide open to interpretation, thats the problem in the first place. For a superior being His instruction manual to us is shockingly vague

No, I don't mean anything of the kind. And the fact you ask that question is quite depressing in that it makes me wonder why bother posting stuff in a forum if people don't bother reading it before they respond to it.

When it comes to the New Testament, or indeed any other text of a comparable age, there are standard interpretative principles that historians and biblical scholars (Christians, Jews, atheists, and agnostics) follow. There are, of course some passages where various legitimate interpretations are suggested and argued over. But for many passages the intent of the author is abundantly clear - and in those cases differing interpretations are generally produced by those seeking justification for their agendas rather than genuinely seeking to understand what the author really meant.

Btw, the Bible isn't an instruction manual. It's more a correspondence between lovers (God and His Bride which is the Church). That's why it's expressed in stories, poetry, pieces of history, promises, shared disappointments etc. - even memories of past quarrels that are now thankfully resolved. It's pretty well the way that a married couple build up their relationship. I think this is where many non-Christians tie themselves up in knots - they want a document written like a legal contract rather than something that expresses love and devotion.

JimiTime

^^Good post.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Based on past experience in these fora, it may not be long before some illiterate moron accuses you (falsely, of course) of equating homosexuality with bestiality or paedophilia.

Yeah, isn't it really anoying when people do things like that?

PDN

DaraMcG wrote: »

Can I ask then, in your interpretation....does that mean that a homosexual cannot be pleasing to God...even in a committed relationship or marriage?

I believe a homosexual (I presume you're using the word in its popular sense of someone who feels a certain orientation) can be pleasing to God provided they don't act engage in homosexual acts.

Since clearly youve studied this Im also curious to know what do you make of that site's assertion that:
"The only forms of homosexual behavior of which he was probably aware would have been males sexually abusing boys, and men engaging in same-sex orgies during Pagan worship"
Do you think that true and if so wouldnt that have also affected the reasoning behind and interpretation of Romans 1?

No, I disagree with that. The site is probably correct that the most common forms of homosexual behaviour in the First Century were paedophilia, temple prostitution and the rape of slaves. They were the forms, amazingly enough, that were most accepted by society! However, if that website is claiming that consensual same-sex relationships never occurred in the First Century, then I would find that claim just as unbelievable as the Iranian President's assertion that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

Paul had visited Corinth and lived there for a while. Corinth was known throughout the ancient world as an "anything goes" kind of city in all things sexual. The idea that Paul could have spent time in Corinth and somehow remained oblivious to the fact that there were gay couples is, to be honest, unsustainable.

One of the things we see in the New Testament is that when Old Testament laws or ceremonies were no longer applicable then that was usually explicitly stated. This happens with regard to circumcision, dietary laws, temple sacrifices, sabbath observance etc.

Other OT laws are reinforced and restated as Christian principles in the NT (but without the penalty attached to them in the OT since the Christians no longer lived in a desert theocracy). So Christrians are still enjoined to honour their parents, not to steal, not to worship idols, not to commit adultery etc.

Now, when it comes to homosexual behaviour, there are no verses that say anything remotely like, "Hey! These restrictions against same-sex activities were just shadows that are fulfilled in Christ aand now the saints can rodger whoever they want." What we do have are a number of verses that speak of homosexual activities in a negative way, and none that speak of them in a positive way. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no warrant for some kind of special pleading that redefines every NT verse on the subject to try and pretend they don't include consensual gay sex, and then simultaneously expects us to believe that God changed his mind about men having sex with other men but somehow forgot to mention it in the NT.

I believe such interpretations are fundamentally flawed. If you try hard enough you can twist the Bible to support any view point (eg white supremacists, UFO conspiracies, the British people being the lost tribes of Israel etc.) but to do so you have to abandon the principles of textual interpretation that are recognised by most classicists, historians and biblical scholars in the academic world.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Would you say then, that if it were not for the bible you would have no issue with homosexuality?

Very unfortunate double entendre there, James.

The idea of men having sex with other men does not personally appeal to me, just as I find the idea of anyone eating prunes to be rather nauseating. But, if it weren't for the Bible I would probably view homosexual acts as I view prunes - not my thing, but not immoral.

As it is, because of the biblical teaching, I see homosexual acts as being incompatible with practising Christianity.

If non-Christians are consenting adults they can, as far I'm concerned, engage in gay sex, bisexual activities, threesomes foursomes, or whatever they want - and I'll defend their legal right to do so. If they're determined to reject Christ then eternity's not looking pretty for them - so they might as well squeeze as much fun as they can now. I have zero interest in trying to tell unbelievers that they should live by Christian standards or morality - with the added proviso, of course, that they shouldn't harm others.

Sam Vimes wrote:

And a follow up question if you would: if you don't have any personal problem with homosexuality and your viewing of it as immoral is entirely derived from the bible, do you feel this is a failing on your part, as in do you feel that you should "know in your heart" that homosexuality is immoral in the same way that we all know that murder and rape are immoral?

I don't actually agree that we all know that murder and rape are immoral. You and I might know it, but history demonstrates that it doesn't take much to make large numbers of people vengage in rape and murder with seemingly little or no conscience.

I believe that there is an inherent sense of right and wrong in our hearts - but our sinfulness has, to a greater or lesser degree, distorted our morality.

LookingFor

I'm curious how one supposes there's really only one way to interpret certain parts of the bible when various denominations have reached differing conclusions on the interpretations to be made and the context within which to place certain parts of the bible (including those relating to homosexuality). Different groups have invested significantly in study and deliberation of these issues and come to different conclusions, and I'm not just talking about some tiny splinter denomination formed by gay people, but some big denominations who - whether you agree with them or not - invest considerable attention and time into their study of the bible.

Ditto mentioning historians...I've seen many historians place certain aspects of the bible 'in context' in a way that would probably be displeasing - no offence - to someone like PDN.

I really don't think you can say there's a single-minded consensus or agreement on how the bible is to be approached, or in particular how specific parts (such as those relating to the topic) are interpreted.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

He didn't say anything about bestiality or paedophilia either, so they must be OK too?

That is sort of the point. We have non-Biblical reasons why bestiality and pedophilia are immoral.

What is the non-Biblical reason against homosexual partnerships?

If you discover the absence of a moral objection against genuine homosexual partnerships, rather than lust driven heterosexual same sex partnerships, as the authors of the passages above believe they have, then you are left with no other reason why homosexual partnerships based on love and companionship are immoral according to God.

PDN

LookingFor wrote: »

I'm curious how one supposes there's really only one way to interpret certain parts of the bible when various denominations have reached differing conclusions on the interpretations to be made and the context within which to place certain parts of the bible (including those relating to homosexuality). Different groups have invested significantly in study and deliberation of these issues and come to different conclusions, and I'm not just talking about some tiny splinter denomination formed by gay people, but some big denominations who - whether you agree with them or not - invest considerable attention and time into their study of the bible.

Ditto mentioning historians...I've seen many historians place certain aspects of the bible 'in context' in a way that would probably be displeasing - no offence - to someone like PDN.

I really don't think you can say there's a single-minded consensus or agreement on how the bible is to be approached, or in particular how specific parts (such as those relating to the topic) are interpreted.

There is indeed honest and legitimate debate and disagreement over many biblical passages. But then there are other interpretations that, for anyone who makes any attempt to be impartial, are obviously agenda-driven.

Yes, it is quite true that certain major denominations have indeed chosen to adopt interpretations that ignore the clear biblical teaching on homosexual behaviour. But, yet again, they are agenda driven.

A number of mainline Protestant denominations (primarily in the US) have an agenda in that they mistakenly think that endorsing certain activities will make them seem more tolerant and therefore arrest their quite alarming numerical decline. Ironically the opposite is true. People want to belong to a movement that actually stands for something. That is why the churches that are growing are those that are conservative in terms of doctrine and biblical morality.

I once heard a gay person say, "I wanted to join one of those churches that are accepting of gays - but then I discovered that the reason they are accepting of gays is because they don't actually believe anything that's in the Bible anyway, which defeats the point of wanting to be a Christian in the first place."

Or, as Dogbert once put it in a Dilbert comic strip: "I decided to start a discount religion. The tithing would only be 5% and I’d let people sin as much as they wanted. ........... The only problem is that I don’t want to spend time with anyone who would join that sort of religion!"

LookingFor

PDN wrote: »

There is indeed honest and legitimate debate and disagreement over many biblical passages. But then there are other interpretations that, for anyone who makes any attempt to be impartial, are obviously agenda-driven.

Yes, it is quite true that certain major denominations have indeed chosen to adopt interpretations that ignore the clear biblical teaching on homosexual behaviour. But, yet again, they are agenda driven.

I think that's a bit arrogant and diminishes the quite exhaustive deliberation that many people go through around this.

You can say there is consensus among 'Christians according to PDN', but to say there is consensus in general, across theologians and academia, is not true. At all.

PDN wrote: »

I once heard a gay person say, "I wanted to join one of those churches that are accepting of gays - but then I discovered that the reason they are accepting of gays is because they don't actually believe anything that's in the Bible anyway, which defeats the point of wanting to be a Christian in the first place."

Wow. I'd love to meet this person.

The suggestion you're offering here is that only way a Christian religion could be not anti-gay is if they don't believe 'the rest' either?

If a Christian belief falls apart in the absence of an anti-homosexual element then it's flakey to say the least. There is plenty of value in Jesus Christ and the Bible beyond an anti-gay teaching, that I simply would marvel at someone saying that it rings hollow without such teaching.

I do not, either, see what's so special about disagreement over this matter vs disagreement over so many matters across the Christian world, that it defines a denomination of worth vs one of non-worth, or serves as a litmus test for disingenuous study or bible interpretation. I know some people very hung up about homosexuality, but really.

PDN

LookingFor wrote: »

I think that's a bit arrogant and diminishes the quite exhaustive deliberation that many people go through around this.

To be honest, the interpretations suggested earlier in this thread show little evidence of 'exhaustive deliberation' at all. I have offered some reasons, for example, why the interpretation of Romans 1 didn't hold water. I would love to hear some theologically literate responses to that - rather than just "Oh well, other people say different things".

You can say there is consensus among 'Christians according to PDN', but to say there is consensus in general, across theologians and academia, is not true. At all.

That isn't true. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. My experience, as someone actively involved in teaching theology at third level, is that very few historians or bibical scholars (except those with an axe to grind) would agree with the kind of interpretations offered earlier in this thread.

(Of course if you're demanding 100% agreement among academics before you allow for a consensus then there is no consensus among scientists that evolution is true )

Wow. I'd love to meet this person.

Come to church then.

The suggestion you're offering here is that only way a Christian religion could be not anti-gay is if they don't believe 'the rest' either?

No, and that isn't what I said.

There are generally two kinds of churches that are believe homosexual acts to be acceptable for Christians.

a) The Rainbow Metropolitan Churches which are self-consciously 'gay churches'. In these congregations being gay is seen as the most important characteristic of the church, with everything else being seen through that perspective. For example, look at this website: http://rainbowcathedral.wordpress.com/ It's not difficult to see what is most important in their ethos.

b) Mainline Protestant Churches that are theologically liberal. Such churches tend to hold to a low view of biblical inspiration, see Christ as one of many ways to God, and sometimes even deny key Christian doctrines such as the atonement, the resurrection and the second coming of Christ. Now, you may or may not like the sound of that, but the statistical evidence is clear and has been so for 40 years - churches that adhere to such liberal theology are declining numerically. People are, in general, attracted more to churches that offer certainty, have confidence in their beliefs, and believe in the power of Christ to offer radical personal transformation.

If a Christian belief falls apart in the absence of an anti-homosexual element then it's flakey to say the least.

No, you've got it back to front. Flakey beliefs mean you're ready to ignore clear biblical teaching on sexual morality.

There is plenty of value in Jesus Christ and the Bible beyond an anti-gay teaching, that I simply would marvel at someone saying that it rings hollow without such teaching.

Indeed there is plenty of value - such as the saving power of Jesus Christ, our receipt of new life through the resurrection, living life in the power of the Holy Spirit, and looking forward to the wonderful return of Christ.

The tragedy is that those who try to arresty their numerical decline by endorsing homosexual behaviour have often already abandoned these things of value.

I do not, either, see what's so special about disagreement over this matter vs disagreement over so many matters across the Christian world, that it defines a denomination of worth vs one of non-worth,

It doesn't - and nobody says that it does. So put that straw man back in your pocket.

or serves as a litmus test for disingenuous study or bible interpretation.

Nobody said that either.

I know some people very hung up about homosexuality, but really.

Indeed some people are hung up about it. I just wish they'd stop posting threads about it in the Christianity Forum. Then we wouldn't have to waste our time answering them and could get down to what we'd really like to do in this forum - discussing Christian issues.

LookingFor

PDN wrote: »

To be honest, the interpretations suggested earlier in this thread show little evidence of 'exhaustive deliberation' at all.

I wasn't referring to those but others with significant 'academic investment' in the study of the bible, for want of a better phrase, including a number of denominations.

PDN wrote: »

That isn't true. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. My experience, as someone actively involved in teaching theology at third level, is that very few historians or bibical scholars (except those with an axe to grind) would agree with the kind of interpretations offered earlier in this thread.

There's two things here. 1) interpretation of intended meaning and 2) context and significance. I think you'll find greater consensus on the former than the latter. On the latter I've found much diversity of opinion among a broader range of academics (vs theologians).

PDN wrote: »

No, and that isn't what I said.

There are generally two kinds of churches that are believe homosexual acts to be acceptable for Christians.

a) The Rainbow Metropolitan Churches which are self-consciously 'gay churches'. In these congregations being gay is seen as the most important characteristic of the church, with everything else being seen through that perspective. For example, look at this website: http://rainbowcathedral.wordpress.com/ It's not difficult to see what is most important in their ethos.

b) Mainline Protestant Churches that are theologically liberal. Such churches tend to hold to a low view of biblical inspiration, see Christ as one of many ways to God, and sometimes even deny key Christian doctrines such as the atonement, the resurrection and the second coming of Christ.

Indeed there is plenty of value - such as the saving power of Jesus Christ, our receipt of new life through the resurrection, living life in the power of the Holy Spirit, and looking forward to the wonderful return of Christ.

The tragedy is that those who try to arresty their numerical decline by endorsing homosexual behaviour have often already abandoned these things of value.

I think that's certainly a shame if true, but it need not be the case. If there's a correlation between rescinding of anti-homosexual teachings and other more fundamental aspects of mainstream christian faith, then I think it leaves room for denominations 'in between', so to speak. Even among the most conservative denominations, there's room for changes in their doctrine and teachings - even if only small ones - that would be positive for gay people, and still respect their conservative interpretation of scripture.

Perhaps there your gay friend would feel more at home at such a church.

PDN wrote: »

It doesn't - and nobody says that it does. So put that straw man back in your pocket.


Nobody said that either.

It wasn't clear to me in your original post, but I'm glad you agree it is not in itself a hallmark of a discredited line of thinking.

PDN wrote: »

Indeed some people are hung up about it. I just wish they'd stop posting threads about it in the Christianity Forum. Then we wouldn't have to waste our time answering them and could get down to what we'd really like to do in this forum - discussing Christian issues.

Well, I didn't start the thread. But there are homosexual christians who would I'm sure appreciate you not discouraging the discussion of their relationship with their religion, or critical discourse of the treatment of homosexuality within their religion. These things are 'christian issues' I think. These discussions aren't welcome in the LGB forum, AFAIK, and probably rightfully so, since they are more specifically about one religion.

Ghost Buster

PDN wrote: »

To be honest, the interpretations suggested earlier in this thread show little evidence of 'exhaustive deliberation' at all. I have offered some reasons, for example, why the interpretation of Romans 1 didn't hold water. I would love to hear some theologically literate responses to that - rather than just "Oh well, other people say different things".

That isn't true. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. My experience, as someone actively involved in teaching theology at third level, is that very few historians or bibical scholars (except those with an axe to grind) would agree with the kind of interpretations offered earlier in this thread.

(Of course if you're demanding 100% agreement among academics before you allow for a consensus then there is no consensus among scientists that evolution is true )

Come to church then.

No, and that isn't what I said.

There are generally two kinds of churches that are believe homosexual acts to be acceptable for Christians.

a) The Rainbow Metropolitan Churches which are self-consciously 'gay churches'. In these congregations being gay is seen as the most important characteristic of the church, with everything else being seen through that perspective. For example, look at this website: http://rainbowcathedral.wordpress.com/ It's not difficult to see what is most important in their ethos.

b) Mainline Protestant Churches that are theologically liberal. Such churches tend to hold to a low view of biblical inspiration, see Christ as one of many ways to God, and sometimes even deny key Christian doctrines such as the atonement, the resurrection and the second coming of Christ. Now, you may or may not like the sound of that, but the statistical evidence is clear and has been so for 40 years - churches that adhere to such liberal theology are declining numerically. People are, in general, attracted more to churches that offer certainty, have confidence in their beliefs, and believe in the power of Christ to offer radical personal transformation.

No, you've got it back to front. Flakey beliefs mean you're ready to ignore clear biblical teaching on sexual morality.


Indeed there is plenty of value - such as the saving power of Jesus Christ, our receipt of new life through the resurrection, living life in the power of the Holy Spirit, and looking forward to the wonderful return of Christ.

The tragedy is that those who try to arresty their numerical decline by endorsing homosexual behaviour have often already abandoned these things of value.


It doesn't - and nobody says that it does. So put that straw man back in your pocket.


Nobody said that either.


Indeed some people are hung up about it. I just wish they'd stop posting threads about it in the Christianity Forum. Then we wouldn't have to waste our time answering them and could get down to what we'd really like to do in this forum - discussing Christian issues.[/QUOTE

Hi lited in red is the very crux of the problem. It isnt clear. The word "interpretation" has been to subject of many postings here. If it was all so clear there would be no need of theologans, biblical scholars and regular Joe Soaps spending time interpreting parts of the bible.

PDN

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Hi lited in red is the very crux of the problem. It isnt clear. The word "interpretation" has been to subject of many postings here. If it was all so clear there would be no need of theologans, biblical scholars and regular Joe Soaps spending time interpreting parts of the bible.

s

Not so. People pushing an agenda will ignore what is clear, or try to convince others that it is not clear. After all we have a Creationism thread in which people present different interpretations of the scientific evidence. Does that prove that there is no clear evidence for evolution?

You are also comitting a rather basic logical fallacy which takes the following form:

1. Some parts of the Bible are not immediately clear.
2. The passages concerning homosexual behaviour are part of the Bible.
3. Therefore the passages concerning homosexuality are not clear.

Do you see the problem with that? If not, let's try the same logic where we substitute other properties:

1. Some human beings are racists.
2. Ghost Buster is a human being.
3. Therefore Ghost Buster is a racist.

Not good logic! :eek:

Fanny Cradock

LookingFor wrote: »

Well, I didn't start the thread. But there are homosexual christians who would I'm sure appreciate you not discouraging the discussion of their relationship with their religion, or critical discourse of the treatment of homosexuality within their religion. These things are 'christian issues' I think. These discussions aren't welcome in the LGB forum, AFAIK, and probably rightfully so, since they are more specifically about one religion.

Topics on this forum wax and wane. Sometimes they reoccur with tiresome regularity. I would think that the frustration sometimes shown here is that we keep having the same discussion on homosexuality with the same net result: frustration for all.

Fanny Cradock

PDN, I'm wondering if there is a standard within Pentecostalism with regards to, say, sexually active unmarried couples or practising homosexuals who are also members of the church? Is it a matter between them and God? Or is there a Corinthians response?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

To be honest, the interpretations suggested earlier in this thread show little evidence of 'exhaustive deliberation' at all. I have offered some reasons, for example, why the interpretation of Romans 1 didn't hold water. I would love to hear some theologically literate responses to that - rather than just "Oh well, other people say different things".

You were given their theological response to Romans 1. The first time you misrepresented it and the second time you ignored it because it was, in your opinion, "agenda driven"

Which is fair enough, but it is a bit silly to complain it hasn't been put forward.

Christians have always argued with other Christians about the "correct" way to interpret passages of the Bible, so I'm not particularly surprised you object to these interpretations. Creationists object to your interpretations of passages throughout the Bible, Catholics object to Protestants, Protestants to Catholics. All make the call from authority of hermeneutics All dismiss the other as "agenda driven"

This is nothing new, and I think any of the Christians or non-Christians debating with you who seem to be shocked or upset by this need to take chill pill.

But you could at least correctly represent the actual arguments being put forward by liberal Christians in how they approach homosexuality, even if you still want to dismiss them as agenda driven.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I believe a homosexual (I presume you're using the word in its popular sense of someone who feels a certain orientation) can be pleasing to God provided they don't act engage in homosexual acts.

So why does god make people homosexual if he doesn't want them to do homosexual things ?

Or is homosexuality a result of 'the fall'/satan/sin ?

If you believe that homosexual acts are not pleasing to god then are you against people performing homosexual acts ?

Would you be opposed to legislation outlawing such acts ?

Or would you rather try and educate homosexuals about the folly of their ways and hope to persuade them to stop committing such acts ?

Or something else entirely ?

No, I disagree with that. The site is probably correct that the most common forms of homosexual behaviour in the First Century were paedophilia, temple prostitution and the rape of slaves. They were the forms, amazingly enough, that were most accepted by society!

Depends what society your talking about. Homosexual acts in Greece, especially in Spartan society among soldiers was very common. Especially when you consider the soldiers were not allowed to live with their wives but had to share barracks with other soldiers.

One of the things we see in the New Testament is that when Old Testament laws or ceremonies were no longer applicable then that was usually explicitly stated. This happens with regard to circumcision, dietary laws, temple sacrifices, sabbath observance etc.

Explicitly stated eh ?

Like these from Leviticus.

Don't have a variety of crops on the same field
Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric
Don't cut your hair nor shave.
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed.
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die.
If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death.
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death.
If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed.
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people"
Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death.
If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake.
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God.
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community.

Or these from Deuteronomy;

Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)
If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)
Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

Where does the NT explicitly state these are not applicable ?

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

PDN, I'm wondering if there is a standard within Pentecostalism with regards to, say, sexually active unmarried couples or practising homosexuals who are also members of the church? Is it a matter between them and God? Or is there a Corinthians response?

Each church and denomination has their own way of doing things.

In my own denomination, people, upon becoming members of the church, agree to adhere to certain doctrines and to certain standards of behaviour. So the procedure for deaing with someone who is involved in sexual immorality would be the same as dealing with someone who denied the Trinity, who was caught shop-lifting, or who was heard making racist comments.

1. A pastor would speak with them privately, and, if they expressed repentance and a desire not to repeat the action, then they remain as members. After all, all of us mess up from time to time, and the church should be a place of healing and forgiveness. However, if they were involved in some kind of ministry in the church (eg teaching, being an usher, playing a musical instrument) we might ask then to step aside from that for a limited period to sort themselves out.

2. If they refused to express repentance, or if they were continuing in a pattern of behaviour, then 2 or 3 other leaders would meet with them, and again they would be asked to change their ways.

3. If that failed to produce a change of heart then they would eventually have their membership terminated. They would, by the way, still be able to attend church services and events (unless there was an issue with them being predators) - but would lose their voting privileges and would not be able to serve in any of the ministries of the church.

All of the above is done, as far as is possible, in private communications with the person concerned. No public announcements are made to the church (no 'scarlet letters' - a la Nathaniel Hawthorne). There is also a process of appeal. So anyone who feels they have been dealt with unfairly by local leaders or pastors can appeal to their district pastor or bishop.

Exceptions would occur to the above process if someone was suspected of something criminal such as murder, assault or rape - and particularly any allegation of child abuse. There the procedure would be to remove them from the church immediately to protect others, to inform the Gardai (in any case where child abuse is alleged), and then to ask questions later. Thankfully we've never had to deal with any such situations here in Ireland.

Actually things rarely if ever get to stage 3 (removing somebody's membership). I've only had to do that twice in the last 15 years (both for good old fashioned heterosexual adultery). Most people wanting to live an immoral lifestyle recognise that their behaviour is incompatible with their church membership and so resign it themselves.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

But, if it weren't for the Bible I would probably view homosexual acts as I view prunes - not my thing, but not immoral.
...
I believe that there is an inherent sense of right and wrong in our hearts - but our sinfulness has, to a greater or lesser degree, distorted our morality.

So would you say that the fact that you don't have an inherent sense in your heart that homosexuality is immoral is a result of this distortion? That if you were closer to god's standard you would view homosexuality as immoral in the same way you view murder as immoral?

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So would you say that the fact that you don't have an inherent sense in your heart that homosexuality is immoral is a result of this distortion? That if you were closer to god's standard you would view homosexuality as immoral in the same way you view murder as immoral?

Yes, I think that my own sinful nature distorts my view of morality. I believe that there is an objective standard of morality (God's) and that relying purely on our subjective feelings about right and wrong can get us in all kinds of trouble. I'm sure, for example, that the killer of Theo van Gogh felt that what he was doing was morally OK, as did many slave owners in the 18th Century.

The Bible actually describes some of the darkest periods in Israel's history as being when subjective standards of morality were followed. "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6)

That if you were closer to god's standard you would view homosexuality as immoral in the same way you view murder as immoral?

Your wording is somewhat ambiguous - accidentally, I'm sure. I certainly would not treat homosexuality as equivalent with murder - nor, I believe, does God. If I was closer to God's standard then I would probably see homosexual acts as immoral in the same way I say heterosexual acts outside of marriage as immoral.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I think that my own sinful nature distorts my view of morality. I believe that there is an objective standard of morality (God's) and that relying purely on our subjective feelings about right and wrong can get us in all kinds of trouble. I'm sure, for example, that the killer of Theo van Gogh felt that what he was doing was morally OK, as did many slave owners in the 18th Century.

The Bible actually describes some of the darkest periods in Israel's history as being when subjective standards of morality were followed. "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6)

Your wording is somewhat ambiguous - accidentally, I'm sure. I certainly would not treat homosexuality as equivalent with murder - nor, I believe, does God. If I was closer to God's standard then I would probably see homosexual acts as immoral in the same way I say heterosexual acts outside of marriage as immoral.

With things like murder, rape, theft, adultery etc the reason for viewing such things as wrong is immediately apparent, ie they harm other people. Why do you suppose homosexuality and sex outside marriage should be viewed as immoral, or is it enough that god's standard says they are immoral and there doesn't necessarily have to be a reason behind it?

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and there doesn't necessarily have to be a reason behind it?

Come on Sam, you should have known the answer to this before you even wrote it. There is a reason behind it, God does everything for a reason, even if the reason isn't immediately clear to us.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Come on Sam, you should have known the answer to this before you even wrote it. There is a reason behind it, God does everything for a reason, even if the reason isn't immediately clear to us.

Then we're getting into euthyphro dilemma territory again. Did god say that homosexuality is immoral because it is or is it immoral because he decided it would be....

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then we're getting into euthyphro dilemma territory again. Did god say that homosexuality is immoral because it is or is it immoral because he decided it would be....

Agreed, though to avoid going down that road it is not that relevant to the question at hand, whether PDN believes there is a reason why homosexuality is immoral. I think we can all agree that we are often told to do things without been given the reason why, and this doesn't mean that no reason exists.

The issue is more what did God actually tell us, rather than what was the reason behind it. Christians like PDN interpret the passages as saying that God was telling us not to commit homosexual acts, where as other Christians like the ones mentioned above, interpret it more specifically as God telling heterosexuals not to commit sexual acts with same sex partners out of lust as this leads to depraved body and mind (God warning about the dangers of STDs perhaps)

The point that I think some Christians, perhaps ignorant of homosexuality, are missing is that a modern homosexual Christian doesn't look at Romans 1 and see himself or his own sexual desires. He is not a married heterosexual man running off to have orgies with other men out of some lustful desire to experiment, as was common in Roman times.

I should also point out, in case anyone things I'm a gay Christian, I'm playing devils advocate here as a straight atheist. Personally I would love for Christianity to clearly condemn homosexuals, as I think that would make a lot of people, gay and straight, realise Christianity is nonsense and leave the religion. The reality, despite PDN protests, is that it doesn't, or at least doesn't within the context that it is real and the truth from God

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

With things like murder, rape, theft, adultery etc the reason for viewing such things as wrong is immediately apparent, ie they harm other people. Why do you suppose homosexuality and sex outside marriage should be viewed as immoral, or is it enough that god's standard says they are immoral and there doesn't necessarily have to be a reason behind it?

I think it boils down to how you view sex.

Some see sex as simply a way of gratifying a biological urge. God has little or no place in such a viewpoint.

Others, often influenced by the likes of St Augustine, see sex as something dirty, but unfortunately necessary in order to continue the species. In this viewpoint God doesn't really like us having sex (which does beg the question as to why He didn't cut it out altogether and let us reproduce asexually) and is much happier when we do it dutifully to have children, but don't enjoy it too much.

Others see sex as an act of giving and receiving that enhances a long term loving relationship.

However, I see sex as the consummation of a covenant relationship between a man and a woman which is the closest you can get on earth to the relationship between Christ and the Church. Marriage, by my definition, is more than just a long term relationship that can be terminated by mutual consent or by the order of a judge. Marriage, for me, is where a couple bind themselves exclusively together for life, are prepared to die for each other, and are henceforth so joined together that their separate identities are joined together as "one flesh".

So, my view of sexual morality is based on my estimation of sex as a wonderful gift from God that is infinitely precious and should be enjoyed and savoured to the utmost.

To cheapen the gift of sex by taking it outside its rightful context of marriage is, in my opinion, like pissing on a Picasso, like tattooing Shakespeare on your buttocks to peep out over a whale-tale thong, or plastering HP sauce all over an exquisitely prepared Filet Mignon steak.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Marriage, by my definition, is more than just a long term relationship that can be terminated by mutual consent or by the order of a judge. Marriage, for me, is where a couple bind themselves exclusively together for life, are prepared to die for each other, and are henceforth so joined together that their separate identities are joined together as "one flesh".

You agree though (I hope) that many homosexual couples have this desire to bind themselves together as well, and are blocked, at least in having this commitment recognized by fellow Christians, by various interpretations of the Bible that include that God only wants men and women to marry each other?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You agree though (I hope) that many homosexual couples have this desire to bind themselves together as well, and are blocked, at least in having this commitment recognized by fellow Christians, by various interpretations of the Bible that include that God only wants men and women to marry each other?

I would allow that such people may hypothetically exist, but personally I've never met someone who expressed a desire that their relationship with their same-sex lover would be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church.

For example, have you ever heard of anyone, professing Christian or otherwise, who said "I want have a same-sex wedding and both me and my partner believe that we should refrain from any sexual activity until our wedding night?" No, me neither.

What we get is same-sex couples saying is, "We want the same rights as heterosexual couples." Which generally seems to mean the following:
a) The right to hook up with someone at a pub or a nightclub and, either on the first date or in a short space of time, engage in casual sex.
b) The right to hold a marriage in a church even though they ignore the church's teaching entirely in sexual matters.
c) The right to wear a white dress, even though everyone in the wedding would wet themselves laughing at the idea of the bride being virginal.
d) The right to recite wedding vows to each other while all the while saying, "Sure, I don't reallly mean all this stuff, if it all goes wrong I can always get divorced."
e) The right to terminate the marriage and divorce if either of the partners "fall out of love" with each other.

And, given such a devalued concept of marriage, same-sex couples may well be given those same rights.

But it ain't nowhere near the Christian concept of what marriage is.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

I would allow that such people may hypothetically exist, but personally I've never met someone who expressed a desire that their relationship with their same-sex lover would be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church.

For example, have you ever heard of anyone, professing Christian or otherwise, who said "I want to have a same-sex wedding and both me and my partner believe that we should refrain from any sexual activity until our wedding night?" No, me neither.

A long-standing friend became an ordained priest in the Church of England recently. He has been in a monogamous same-sex relationship for over 30 years. When civil partnerships were introduced in England, he and his partner decided to enter into one, largely for tax reasons. My friend checked with his bishop about this, and his bishop apparently told my friend that, up to the civil partnership coming into effect, the bishop's view was that a "don't ask, don't tell" policy should apply to personal relationships of priests under his charge, but once the civil partnership was there, my friend would have to undertake not to have sexual relations with his partner, but simply to tell everyone that the civil partnership was to avoid inheritance tax.

So would this be a case of "I want to have a same-sex wedding and both me and my partner believe that we should refrain from any sexual activity after our wedding night"?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I would allow that such people may hypothetically exist, but personally I've never met someone who expressed a desire that their relationship with their same-sex lover would be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church.

Well that isn't that surprising nor particularly relevant. The acceptance that they can hypothetically exist is good enough, given that they seem to (see below)

PDN wrote: »

For example, have you ever heard of anyone, professing Christian or otherwise, who said "I want have a same-sex wedding and both me and my partner believe that we should refrain from any sexual activity until our wedding night?" No, me neither.

Again that you have personally never met anyone who said this isn't surprising nor particularly relevant.

Groups such as these contain gay Christians who preach just that

http://www.whosoever.org
http://www.gaychristian.net

For example, from whosoever.org
http://www.whosoever.org/seeds/livin2gether.html

Not only does living together offer the "temptation" but it expects that the couple would have had sex. However, the question here is, when does the marriage take place? The "Holy Union" is simply the final public act of the covenant. The covenant between the couple and God should have taken place long before they ever move in together. Our counsel to couples is not to meet and simply move in together, but rather date for a period of time until they are sure what their relationship is about.
...
Marriage is a covenant between the couple and God, the Rite or Sacrament of Marriage is the public act in which the community joins and acknowledges that covenant.
...
Likewise with couples, they are in covenant when they recognize God in their relationship and the love they share is a gift from God. Yes, I would frown on sexual relationships prior to that recognition. However, with that recognition and commitment to one another comes the covenant.

And that was only a 5 second Google search.

PDN wrote: »

But it ain't nowhere near the Christian concept of what marriage is.

True, but you are looking at the wider gay community.

Not all gays are Christians, what some of them call for (for example recognition of their marriage by the State, or to have casual homosexual sex legalized) is some what irrelevant to the issue at hand. Gay people who don't want to be Christians is not the issue.

We should be careful not to fall into the same logical fallacy you gave out to Ghost Buster about

1. Some gays call for the right to do unChristian things, devaluing marriage as they go
2. Some Christians are gay
3. Therefore gay Christians are calling for the right to do unChristian things, devaluing marriage as they go.

PDN

hivizman wrote: »

A long-standing friend became an ordained priest in the Church of England recently. He has been in a monogamous same-sex relationship for over 30 years. When civil partnerships were introduced in England, he and his partner decided to enter into one, largely for tax reasons. My friend checked with his bishop about this, and his bishop apparently told my friend that, up to the civil partnership coming into effect, the bishop's view was that a "don't ask, don't tell" policy should apply to personal relationships of priests under his charge, but once the civil partnership was there, my friend would have to undertake not to have sexual relations with his partner, but simply to tell everyone that the civil partnership was to avoid inheritance tax.

So would this be a case of "I want to have a same-sex wedding and both me and my partner believe that we should refrain from any sexual activity after our wedding night"?

No, but it does rather neatly illustrate what happens when churches choose to ignore biblical teaching.

Over 25 years ago when I was in theological training (at a nonconformist College) a male colleague of mine was propositioned by an Anglican priest who served as chaplain at the hospital where we were visiting terminally ill patients. Our tutor confronted the priest who responded by saying, "But my Bishop said it was OK so long as I confined my sexual contacts to other clergymen."

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

And that was only a 5 second Google search.

It's a shame your 5 second google search wasn't followed by a 20 second reading of the link. Because that's all the time it took to see that the link you cite: http://www.whosoever.org/seeds/livin2gether.html actually teaches the opposite of what you're saying.

The guy is teaching that an informal recognition that God is in a homosexual relationship is sufficient to warrant living together and having sex together, with no formal marriage ceremony yet having taken place.

Again, it's a watering down of Christian teaching and terminology where the word 'covenant' (which in Scripture is a lifelong binding relationship) is turned into "Let's live together for a while and test the water to see if this will last".

You're obviously learning from the Creationism thread how to do a quick google, link to websites that actually contradict the point you're trying to make, and then cite them as evidence because you either didn't read them properly or else don't understand them.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The guy is teaching that an informal recognition that God is in a homosexual relationship is sufficient to warrant living together and having sex together, with no formal marriage ceremony yet having taken place.

Yes? And?

That isn't relevant to the issue, which was your implied assertion that gays don't want to live their lives based on Christian teaching.

This is a point about when exactly a marriage is recognized by God, when the couple "informally" commit to each other in the presence of God, or when they have the "formal" ceremony with the rest of the community. It is an issue of interpretation of doctrine, rather than intent.

The intent is not to have sexual relations with each other until married. The issue discussed in this response was simply the pastor clarifying that he is not actually teaching (in his view) sex before marriage, but sex before formal marriage ceremonies. (you can see from his other articles he doesn't put much weight in community "formal" ceremonies, which often have little to do with God)

If you make your commitment 1 year previous to when you stand up in the church (the average time it takes to organised a wedding) then that is when you married, according to this pastor. I've seen plenty of heterosexual Christians teach the same thing, that the ceremony in the church or on the beach or hillside is something for the community, it is not your commitment to God (unless you are Catholic), that the marriage starts at the moment you commit to God.

If you disagree fair enough, but that isn't an issue for this thread, nor is it a sign that gay Christians are not committed to the Christian idea of marriage (ie a covenant to God)

PDN wrote: »

Again, it's a watering down of Christian teaching and terminology where the word 'covenant' (which in Scripture is a lifelong binding relationship) is turned into "Let's live together for a while and test the water to see if this will last".

I'm not quite sure what your agenda here is PDN, but you seem insistant on misrepresenting everything that is put to you in relation to this topic.

I agree entirely with you that the pastor is saying that actual "marriage" takes place when the couple commit to each other in the eyes of God, which can be before the formal community ceremony.

If you object to that interpretation fair enough, but how you go from that to the idea that this pastor is telling them ah sure just try it out and see what happens, is beyond me. Why do you bothered to "quote" that sentence when what the pastor said is nothing like it.

What the pastor actually said was

"However, with that recognition and commitment to one another comes the covenant. Living together is the next logical step to test the relationship and make sure of a life long commitment."

Here are similar posts by the same pastor writes again on what he is talking about

http://www.whosoever.org/seeds/wedlock.html

"You say that you love each other. Have you made a commitment to each other? Have you promised to be with each other?

Wedlock or marriage that the Bible speaks is about making a covenant or promise to God, yourselves and your community. In other words you commit yourselves and your relationship to God.

If you have proclaimed to the community you are a couple, made your commitment to each other, and you understand that it is God that blesses you both and is at the center of this relationship then you commit NO SIN in being intimate.

I might add that "Holy Unions", "Commitment Ceremonies" and "Heterosexual Marriage" are all formal proclamations of the aforementioned. As a witness to your community you might at some point want to consider some sort of ceremony. Depending on where in the country or world you are there are Gay Churches or Gay Friendly churches that will perform such a ceremony"

http://www.whosoever.org/seeds/letter83.shtml

"Marriage in today's sense is less about two people who love each other deeply and are committed to living in a way that will enhance that love. Rather, it is about tax breaks, exemptions, property and legitimate (read: legal) sex. I wonder which scenario God is more concerned about?

We live in a world where marriage vows are usually not worth the paper on which they are written. Yet the idea of a covenant is the total investment of those involved. I wonder if God is more concerned about promises and covenants that call on people to go deeper in their relationship than simply dogma and church rules. Finally, I wonder, from a spiritual perspective, if a God who by biblical definition is both male and female is really concerned about the gender identity of a couple who are willing to live in covenant with each other."

The pastor is not saying live together, have sex, see how it goes and if you like it then get married. That is a completely fabrication of the position.

What the pastor was saying in the original piece is that once you are married at the point of the covenant with God, and once you are married the next logical step is to live together, which involves having sex.

Living together tests the marriage, as it does every marriage, but the goal is ensuring a life long commitment. The goal isn't "testing out the water" :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

You're obviously learning from the Creationism thread how to do a quick google, link to websites that actually contradict the point you're trying to make, and then cite them as evidence because you either didn't read them properly or else don't understand them.

Indeed :rolleyes:

And you are obviously learning the fine art of "quoting" things what were never said in an effort to misrepresent the persons position.

Why you insist on doing this I'm not sure. I can't quite figure out your agenda here, but this is like the 4th time you have been given a piece of text from a gay Christian and repeated it back completely differently to how it was actually said (someone ironically consider you pride yourself on understanding the authors "meaning")

I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt but it is making me seriously question the usefulness of continuing presenting this position to you since you seem insistent on misrepresenting it to others.