philologos wrote: » Most of the time this is how it ends up. In a minority of issues there is minor disagreement, but it certainly isn't the post-modern exercise that Bannasidhe makes it out to be.
philologos wrote: » The Bible is clear on this issue, the texts concerning marriage and sexuality are clear.
philologos wrote: » No, God decides. That's the point I'm making. Christianity isn't about what people think, it's about what is true and what God has already declared. No matter what I decide, the final call's up to Him. No matter how contrary I want to be, it is God's call, and He's revealed Himself in Scripture. If the Bible says one thing, and certain churches aren't then the problem isn't with Scripture, it's with the churches. I'm responding only to the Episcopal Church issues, and advocating what is unbiblical in churches.
28064212 wrote: » Do you believe that it is impossible for there to be more than one way to interpret Scripture?
philologos wrote: » No matter what I decide, the final call's up to Him. No matter how contrary I want to be, it is God's call, and He's revealed Himself in Scripture.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Then Christians need to decide who gets to define what that term means nd the means by which it is defined. In the meanwhile as it remains a catch-all phrase to describe a situation where divergent interpretations apply in the differing denominations all whom whom believe themselves to be right and the true Christians It cannot be used to imply there is one unified meaning or the existence of one unified belief system. Where have I or anybody else rammed anything? The churches decided for themselves. All I have ever spoken about is civil rights of the citizen to equal treatment by the State. The churches are not the State and are, of course, free to decide what takes place within their organisations for themselves. I don't care either way. But the churches should not attempt to dictate to the State either.
philologos wrote: » The New Testament explains our position in respect to the law of Moses. So nobody decides, the Scriptures themselves explain this. As does the Old Testament actually. The nature of the New Covenant is described by the Jewish prophets particularly Jeremiah and Isaiah, amongst other prophesies. I don't find it all that convincing. When the Bible is rather clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, and when it is rather clear that human sexuality should be kept within a marriage it's hard to justify something which seems to fly in the face of it. Unless, I define Christianity as a godless ideology which ignores Scripture when it doesn't suit. These denominations have decided that their word is better than what's Scriptural. That's the problem, that's why I can't genuinely call that position Christian. Christianity is rooted in Scripture, not in man's opinion. I think that you and others on this thread do advocate ramming secular thinking into Christian churches. That's what I've seen in most of the points made so far. It's not about what I do or don't like. There are times when I have found Scripture challenging and difficult, but following God means listening to Him and trying to conform to His standard even when it seems difficult.
Bannasidhe wrote: » If we are to take the Bible - the WHOLE Bible OT and NT as the guide to follow then this begs the question why are some strictures and instructions no longer considered valid (women to marry their rapist/slavery/mixed fibres/ leaving city limit to go to the toilet/trimming sidelocks and beards/ prohibition against certain foods etc etc) no longer considered valid and may be safely ignored while others must be upheld? Who decides the context?
Bannasidhe wrote: » All I am pointing out - and I will keep repeating - is the existence of Christian denominations who do not agree that marriage is only between a man and a woman so saying that viewpoint is a Christian one is not true.
Bannasidhe wrote: » These denominations have decided to adopt what you call 'secular thought on sexuality' all by themselves and you don't appear to like that - which given that it disagrees with your beliefs is completely understandable, but please do not try and claim that I am ramming anything anywhere just because I provided evidence of something you don't like and am answering questions put to me.
JimiTime wrote: » I just mean in the context of the question. I don't disagree that many call themselves Christian, but if we don't define Christian (And you seem to be saying that they are all valid claims), then its a worthless term for the purpose of discussion. Which is why BIBLICAL has an objective root to discuss. As I said, for the purpose of this question, I think BIBLICAL, is the best term to work with. The bible as a whole would be both the OT and NT.
philologos wrote: » That line in bold is what the problem is. The Bible is to be read as a whole. By reading Scripture, I expect to have to submit to God's better judgement in looking to it. The most honest approach would be to say what does the Bible as a whole say about X. If there is clear consistency throughout on this issue (as there is in this case and many others) then there's no decent grounds for ignoring anything. I give credence to it all as I want to understand God more. The bible isn't just a rule book, it helps us to understand who God is and what He stands for, what He has done, and what He will one day do. It also explains the countless times when God has made Himself known to 40 writers over numerous centuries. In terms of conduct, there has to be very serious questions asked (particularly considering salvation) where people refuse to repent of sin, or where people refuse to listen to God's word before their own. Edit: Your latest posts are all about ramming secular thought on sexuality into Christian churches.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I think scriptural passages exist which can affirm most, if not all (thinking of the RCC mainly here) positions held by the various Christians denominations. So we agree on that.It is a matter of which ones the reader gives more credence to - so in my opinion it is a matter of how one defines context and which interpretation is at play and this is part of the problem with stating there is such a thing as a Christian position. There really isn't one.
Bannasidhe wrote: » You are free to live according to your Holy Book - you do not have the right to impose the strictures of your Holy Book on all of society. To you that may seem like intolerance...
Links234 wrote: » "My interpretation of the bible is the correct one, all other interpretations are wrong" said every Christian denomination ever. I'm a little surprised how critical you are Phil of other denominations who differ from your own views
Bannasidhe wrote: » But we cannot leave 'Christian' aside when people are using that very term while objecting to Gay marriage. There are several posts in this thread which say 'As I Christian I...' or 'As Christians we...' or references to Christian belief ....
I would love if you all could agree on a description. I do think that is an internal matter and will accept whatever definition all those who call themselves Christians agree upon, as long as there is consistency. That is what is lacking now.
OT or NT or OT&NT?
JimiTime wrote: » Again, lets leave 'Christian' aside, as its a corrupted term unless we can agree on a definition. I think BIBLICAL is an easier term to anchor. So my question would entail the bible AS A WHOLE, rather than picking and choosing passages in isolation. Its this scripture mining that tends to lead to bad theology. So would you have an opinion on if the bible as a whole, affirms or condemns homosexual union?
Bannasidhe wrote: » I think scriptural passages exist which can affirm most, if not all (thinking of the RCC mainly here) positions held by the various Christians denominations. So we agree on that. It is a matter of which ones the reader gives more credence to - so in my opinion it is a matter of how one defines context and which interpretation is at play and this is part of the problem with stating there is such a thing as a Christian position. There really isn't one.
JimiTime wrote: » I do, regularly. But YOU said you are familiar, and I'm simply asking what YOU think having read the bible? I don't mind if you'd prefer not to answer, I was just interested in YOUR opinion. If you don't want to give your opinion, no bother. I obviously know that many professing Christians affirm everything from sexual immorality, to prosperity gospels, hating America, Fags, arming oneself for an end of the world nuclear battle and all kinds of things. Unlike yourself though, I think it is most certainly in our capabilities to discern what the bible's position is. Thats not a discussion for here though. If you change your mind though, I'd like to hear your opinion.
Thats the insult (as well as innaccurate btw):) I didn't DEMAND anything from you. The question I asked required a level of knowledge about the bible, and rather than simply assume you had it, I asked, if you felt qualified to form an opinion, would you mind giving it. Thats when you said 'It was a bit rich' as if I had demanded something from you. All I did, was ask for your opinion, IF you felt you knew enough about the subject matter to give one. Your response was barbed. Saying 'its a bit rich coming from you', is usually meant as an insult. You don't think so?
Links234 wrote: » I know this question wasn't aimed at me, but in my honest opinion, in order to condemn people for their sexuality you already have to ignore some pretty big things. Something about loving thy neighbour as thyself, and something about that being a fairly important commandment... and the whole judge not thing as well. It would appear to me that you need to ignore a hell of a lot more in order to have a gay condemning theology.
Bannasidhe wrote: » And I repeat, my interpretation is not relevant as I am not a member of the Christian Fellowship. The relevant thing is that many of your fellow Christians do believe that 'an honest reading of scripture will lead to a gay affirming theology' and are acting according to that belief. You can take the theology up with them.
Yes, I am but as I said my opinion is not relevant. What is relevant is that the Christian Fellowship is deeply divided on the issue so for anyone to state there is a 'Christian' position is nonsense.
I didn't insult you - or if I did it was unintentional and I apologise. Nor did I think you were insulting me. So I don't know where you are getting all of this stuff about insults from. I simply pointed that I found it 'a bit rich' that a poster who has on numerous occasions refused to 'inform' himself about a topic (even when links were supplied) while continuing to discuss that topic should demand to know if someone else has 'informed themselves'.
All I can say is, if you really believe I have insulted you - please report my post and I will accept the MODS decision on the matter.
JimiTime wrote: » Do you think IN YOUR OPINION, that an honest reading of scripture will lead to a gay affirming theology? Or do you think you have to ignore certain bits?
JimiTime wrote: » But everyone has the capacity for discernment. You said you were familiar with scripture, so are you familiar enough with it to discern on this occasion? Do you think IN YOUR OPINION, that an honest reading of scripture will lead to a gay affirming theology? Or do you think you have to ignore certain bits?
But I'm asking you. You said you were familiar with the writings. Are you familiar enough to have an opinion on the subject matter here?
I have no idea what you're getting at, but it doesn't deal with how you tried to insult me after, for some reason, believing I had tried to insult you. I understand I'm not exactly your favourite poster, but YOU turned an innocuous question into a barb against me. I pointed out your error concisely. Is it that you still, for some reason, believe I was trying to insult you? Because I'm struggling to understand why, rather than apologise for what you said, you threw another insult. Have I insulted you again somehow?
Bannasidhe wrote: » It very much depends on which bit of scripture one decided is important. It is Paul/Leviticus' anti-homosexuality or Jesus' admissions to not judge. And therein lies the problem. Scriptural passage are open to widely differing interpretation and, indeed, scriptural 'approval' for many thaings - such as slavery- can easily be found.
See answer re: differing possible interpretations above. The fact remains not all Christians share your interpretation of scripture. Therefore there is no unified Christian position. What I think scriptural passages mean is irrelevant as I am not part of the Christian Fellowship. Christians disagree with you - take the theology up with them.
Word of advice - practice what you preach.
wonderfulname wrote: » "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made." Humans as commodities is a reality of a first century philosophy, any rational that makes this non applicable to modern incarnations of same can be used in relation this topic and others. You already come to the same conclusions other christians do with regard following an ancient doctrine in modern times, just not on this issue, so you can't preach purity of adherance.
philologos wrote: » I essentially object to any church undermining or ignoring what God has told us. Rather we should be consumed with a love for Scripture and for humble obedience to it.
philologos wrote: » What a strawman My position is that the Gospel is relevant for all time and to all people. The Gospel isn't ours to change, it's God's. I believe that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever more and that His word us relevant in every age. The problem is the more and more we start undermining this, it starts to look like we are trying to make God submit to us than to submit to Him. I essentially object to any church undermining or ignoring what God has told us. Rather we should be consumed with a love for Scripture and for humble obedience to it.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Possibly as many things were acceptable in the 1st century that have no place in the 21st century. Perhaps you would like the Roman Empire to return? Also do you shun all 'modern' medical and technological advances as they are not compatible with a 1st century philosophy?
philologos wrote: » I find it bizarre that believing in Biblical Christianity as was practiced from the first century is seen now as somehow radical and extreme. .
JimiTime wrote: » Ok, to be more precise, is this theology, biblically compatible.
Firstly, those who bang on about tolerance a lot, I find are usually the most intolerant of folk, and in fact only tolerate views which are agreeable to their own, but thats a different topic I suppose. Secondly, I'm not sure how familiar you are with scripture, but we are not told to tolerate sin, but flee from it. We are certainly not told to encourage it. So IF the biblical stance on sex is in fact not compatible with homosexuality, then rather than such tolerance being a positive thing, it is a grave and heinous thing.
My point was nothing to do with the scriptures authority in terms of you, but I was rather asking you if you had any knowledge of scripture, do you think, looking honestly at the scriptures as a whole, do you believe that this churches position is biblical.
Just a word of advice. When someone says, 'I'm not sure how informed you are', it means, 'I'm not sure how informed you are'. It doesn't mean, 'You are an ignoramous'. Maybe you could bear that in mind before you start throwing silly insults about, in reaction to insults you THINK have been made against you. You could at least TRY to be civil in the future, and before jumping the gun in future and fling out your personal barbs, you could ask yourself, 'Have you actually been insulted, or are you just being paranoid'. This is not the first time you've done it, and I'm not the only one I've observed you doing it too neither. How you took umbridge at my quite simple and innocent post, is truly beyond me. You may think I'm out to ge you or something, but all I can say is that I'm not. So, if you can accept my correcting your misunderstanding and manner above, can you answer the question I originally asked?
philologos wrote: » I find it bizarre that believing in Biblical Christianity as was practiced from the first century is seen now as somehow radical and extreme. All I've pretty much said is that I refuse to undermine Jesus' Lordship by refusing to submit to Him over the world. I have a big feeling that there's going to be a bumpy ride ahead for Christians who refuse to compromise the Gospel in their churches.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I think that as Christians cannot agree there is no such thing as a Christian position.
I think it is amusing how when some Christians actually openly act in a tolerant manner other Christians take issue with it.
I think I don't need to be familiar with the Bible (even though I am) anymore than I need to be familiar with the Koran. Neither are my 'holy' books so they should not be allowed to dictate how I live my life or my civil rights. Are you familiar with the Koran?
As for how 'informed' I am - that is pretty rich coming from you Jimi given your willingness to make pronouncements on subjects like gay parents when by your own admission you have no interest in informing yourself by reading studies but prefer to base your views on 'personal observation'.
tommy2bad wrote: » Submit? isnt that Islam? Sorry phil but I have to disagree. I don't see a clear position historically or geographically. Thats a major problem with claiming any position is the 'one true way' I think if we are to follow Jesus then first love one another is the basis we start from, not some rules that were employed at some arbitrary time in the past.
