The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

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.

Make a Scriptural argument with relevant quotations and I'll walk through it.

I believe that the Bible is God's inspired word to mankind and is as relevant today as it was in the first century. Faithful teaching from Scripture tends to bring about stable and healthy churches.

If my church started warping Scripture to make itself more popular with the world, I'd be gone elsewhere. I suspect many more would join me.

What's the point in being a Christian if it starts looking like a humanist doctrine rather than a God centred faith?

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.

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?

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.

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?

Word of advice - practice what you preach.

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?

Links234

"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

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?

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.

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?

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 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?

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.

Links234

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

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?

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.

I don't generally report such things, nor do I have any desire to. I'd rather sort it out.

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.

Firstly, people are not condemned for their sexuality, they are condemned for their actions.
In terms of the bible references you alluded to, could you detail them to me, and contextualise, especially 'Love thy neighbour', in terms of sin.

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.

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.

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?

I don't actually, if I had called you a hypocrite that would have been an insult - I didn't. I said it was 'a bit rich' as in 'I find this ironic'.

I don't generally report such things, nor do I have any desire to. I'd rather sort it out.[/QUOTE]

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.

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?

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?

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?

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 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.

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.

As I said, for the purpose of this question, I think BIBLICAL, is the best term to work with.

OT or NT or OT&NT?

The bible as a whole would be both the OT and NT.

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

For the record. I am an Anglican (I don't mention it much because I believe that being a Christian is first priority), so the Episcopal Church of the USA are the American branch of my denomination.

It's not so much about the particular issue I would say than what is happening in abstract.

My issue is with those who claim that their own opinion is more important than Scripture. This implies deep issues in terms of theology. If you hold to this position, you're essentially saying that God submits to you, but you don't submit to God, you don't seek to follow His word, you don't seek to be corrected and taught by God by reading Scripture.

That's a huge huge problem as a Christian. The Bible says that if we have become Christians, we now live to serve Christ, there should be a process by which the believer is becoming more and more in line with God's word (albeit over a long period of time). Formerly we were under sin, and under God's wrath. Now, we have been saved by Christ, to serve Him, to submit to Him, and to hold to the Gospel.

Now, if we are more interested in changing Christianity to suit us rather than being conformed to it that implies that one doesn't believe that Jesus is Lord.

Moreover if one doesn't truly repent of all sin, and turn to Christ, then one has rejected the very means of salvation of being rescued by Christ, and to inheriting eternal life. That's huge.

Now, this applies to our attitude to all sin. It's important to clarify that I have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, it is important to also clarify that I fall into sin, it's a part of becoming more like Jesus to struggle and wrestle with sin until the point when Christ returns.

What's fundamentally important is are we wrestling anymore or have we given up and said that our sin is OK? For me, when I sin, I repent and turn to Christ and seek out His word and His unfailing mercy and I aim to resolve never to do this again. It's been a struggle and the battle is still on, but if we refuse to repent and accept God's word, then there is huge huge problems in terms of how we understand God.

Essentially what we are saying is that we are more important than God, and that is horrific blasphemy.

I take a hardline approach to this because it is so so important in terms of the Christian gospel. If we undermine it, we are essentially leading people to judgement rather than God's amazing kindness and mercy. There's not much more that makes me upset, and makes me angry than seeing people particularly in the church reject God's word rather than submitting to Him. I long for our churches to teach the Bible faithfully and to lead people to follow Jesus rather than following the mere whims of the secular world.

I'm also critical of the Episcopal Church of the USA because they teach false doctrine, and they have ousted out people who have disagreed with their liberal views from the church. On a secondary level as an Anglican I can see that Thomas Cranmer and the other English reformers would have never agreed with the approach of the Episcopalians at present.

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.

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:

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...

Your latest posts are all about ramming secular thought on sexuality into Christian churches.

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.

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?

and Phil - no, I am not ramming secular thought on sexuality into Christian churches - I have zero influence over the Episcopalian Church. They decided for themselves that they wished to celebrate Gay marriages.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do you believe that it is impossible for there to be more than one way to interpret Scripture?

28064212 wrote: »

Do you believe that it is impossible for there to be more than one way to interpret Scripture?

The Bible is clear on this issue, the texts concerning marriage and sexuality are clear.

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. Disagreement that arises when the Bible is clear however is generally down to other factors than reading.

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.

But the sheer fact that they obviously disagree with what you believe is the true path (as do many many others) indicates that it is unclear what excatly God declared.

You believe the true path was revealed to you - but those who disagree believe just as vehemently that they are right.

Ye can fight it out among yerselves - but don't be surprised if your pronouncements which make claims on behalf of all Christians are questioned.

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.

So it is possible for the Bible to be ambiguous on at least some issues?

philologos wrote: »

The Bible is clear on this issue, the texts concerning marriage and sexuality are clear.

You say the Bible is clear on this issue. If another Christian says the Bible is not clear on this issue, why should your opinion take precedence over their's?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But the sheer fact that they obviously disagree with what you believe is the true path (as do many many others) indicates that it is unclear what excatly God declared.

You believe the true path was revealed to you - but those who disagree believe just as vehemently that they are right.

Ye can fight it out among yerselves - but don't be surprised if your pronouncements which make claims on behalf of all Christians are questioned.

The Bible's clear on this issue. People can refuse to listen to it, but the reality is that the Bible does clearly state a number of places says that sexual acts outside of marriage is a sin, and from the beginning marriage is presented as the union between a man and a woman where two become one flesh.

You yourself implied in a previous post that changing the Bible should be absolutely kosher on this issue. That implies that the debate from the liberal perspective isn't really about what it says but about what people want:

No - it is not a strawman. You believe a philosophy developed 2000 years ago is relevant now despite the fact that the world is vastly different.

The world isn't "vastly different". Mankind is still the same, mankind still faces similar problems and similar issues, in fact the church as a whole has faced varying kinds of heresies over the years. This one is the one we just happen to be facing at this particular juncture.

No, I don't believe the truth path was revealed to me. It's been revealed to all mankind in Scripture. Some choose to reject it and some choose to accept it.

philologos wrote: »

The Bible's clear on this issue. People can refuse to listen to it, but the reality is that the Bible does clearly state a number of places says that sexual acts outside of marriage is a sin, and from the beginning marriage is presented as the union between a man and a woman where two become one flesh.

The Bible is clear about many other strictures that are largely ignored. Plus - you say the Bible is clear on this issue - other Christians disagree.

You yourself implied in a previous post that changing the Bible should be absolutely kosher on this issue. That implies that the debate from the liberal perspective isn't really about what it says but about what people want:

Where did I say that?

I'm the spokesperson for the Liberal perspective now??? I never got the memo.
I am the spokesperson for me and me alone. Just like you are the spokesperson for You. Not all Christians.

The world isn't "vastly different". Mankind is still the same, mankind still faces similar problems and similar issues, in fact the church as a whole has faced varying kinds of heresies over the years. This one is the one we just happen to be facing at this particular juncture.

Someone who seriously speaks of Heresies ( a very emotive term given the history attached to that word, and an interesting choice given that to other Christians (example Roman Catholics) it is you who are the heretic) may not have moved on, but western European society certainly has - particularly since it didn't exist 2000 years ago.

No, I don't believe the truth path was revealed to me. It's been revealed to all mankind in Scripture. Some choose to reject it and some choose to accept it.

Those who disagree wit you would make the same claim.
You believe you are right - they believe they are right.
You all call yourselves Christians.

28064212 wrote: »

So it is possible for the Bible to be ambiguous on at least some issues?

There are a minority of texts which have been interpreted differently.

28064212 wrote: »

You say the Bible is clear on this issue. If another Christian says the Bible is not clear on this issue, why should your opinion take precedence over their's?

The text is clear in this case. Anyone who is genuinely honest with it will see that the opinion that marriage is anything but between a man and a woman, and that sexual expression should take place outside of a marriage just isn't there Scripturally.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Bible is clear about many other strictures that are largely ignored. Plus - you say the Bible is clear on this issue - other Christians disagree.

I think the counsel of Scripture applies to every single facet of my life. When I read it, I'm listening to what it says, and I'm aiming to be corrected, disciplined, and taught from what it says. I've made clear that this for me is about something far far bigger than homosexuality, it's about whether or not we are submitting to Scripture and if we believe that Jesus is actually Lord.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where did I say that?

I'm the spokesperson for the Liberal perspective now??? I never got the memo.
I am the spokesperson for me and me alone. Just like you are the spokesperson for You. Not all Christians.

I quoted it underneath.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Someone who seriously speaks of Heresies ( a very emotive term given the history attached to that word, and an interesting choice given that to other Christians (example Roman Catholics) it is you who are the heretic) may not have moved on, but western European society certainly has - particularly since it didn't exist 2000 years ago.

Heresy is what we're talking about. For example orthodox Christianity prevailed over the Arian heresy. If Biblical Christianity says one thing about this subject, and people insist on another opinion that just isn't warranted from the Biblical text, then that's heretical.

Christianity teaches that the Gospel is the living and abiding word of God and it is relevant to every age. Why? Because Jesus is the same. It's not ours to change and I stand by that position.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Those who disagree wit you would make the same claim.
You believe you are right - they believe they are right.
You all call yourselves Christians.

I'd like to see the substance of the disagreement. I don't think the disagreement comes from Scripture in this case.

This isn't about me being right. It's about whether or not Scripture says what it does in a number of places on this topic.

philologos wrote: »

There are a minority of texts which have been interpreted differently.

...So it is possible for the Bible to be ambiguous on at least some issues?

philologos wrote: »

The text is clear in this case. Anyone who is genuinely honest with it will see that the opinion that marriage is anything but between a man and a woman, and that sexual expression should take place outside of a marriage just isn't there Scripturally.

...You say the Bible is clear on this issue. If another Christian says the Bible is not clear on this issue, why should your opinion take precedence over theirs?

28064212 wrote: »

...So it is possible for the Bible to be ambiguous on at least some issues?

...You say the Bible is clear on this issue. If another Christian says the Bible is not clear on this issue, why should your opinion take precedence over theirs?

Some passages of Scripture. Generally not on "issues", but mainly in the poetic texts of Psalms, the prophets, or in some parts of the historical books of the OT.

Do you think that reading is an entirely postmodern exercise?

I don't think anyone could interpret the Scripture that we have in a way that says that marriage is anything but the union between a man and a woman, or that sexuality should be outside of a marriage. If there was we'd see more decent Scriptural arguments from those who advocate changing the definition of marriage.

If necessary I can walk through the passages I'm thinking of, but if you think reading is a postmodern exercise (and I don't think any person can claim that that position is that rational) then it is futile.

There's a Biblical consensus on this issue from looking to the relevant passages.

philologos wrote: »

I don't think anyone could interpret the Scripture that we have in a way that says that marriage is anything but the union between a man and a woman, or that sexuality should be outside of a marriage

And yet, people have. Which isn't very surprising. We're talking about a two thousand year-old document who's writing is spread out over several centuries, by dozens of authors, in thousands of contexts, in a handful of languages and subsequently interpreted through a handful of others. Claiming to be the only one who can interpret it correctly...

28064212 wrote: »

And yet, people have. Which isn't very surprising. We're talking about a two thousand year-old document who's writing is spread out over several centuries, by dozens of authors, in thousands of contexts, in a handful of languages and subsequently interpreted through a handful of others. Claiming to be the only one who can interpret it correctly...

What passages does one have to undermine the position is what matters. If there is no solid Biblical case for it and a strong argument against it doesn't hold. If there's a good argument for holding to the position that one does from Scripture position is unbiblical.

The huge problem with your argument us that it precludes the perspective that Christians have about God's authorship. God clearly had an intention to reveal what He did to us no matter how hard we rebel. It isn't human decided rules for a tiddlywinks club.

God's ready and more than able to forgive those who refuse to acknowledge Him, but people must repent first and turn to Christ.

Can you answer my question on reading being a postmodern exercise? Do you believe that about every book or just the Bible? Why in the latter?