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

philologos · 16-02-2013 12:25AM

The Bible does advocate sexual relations be between a man and a woman in marriage. Indeed marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman by Jesus Himself.

I trust in Him. The Bible speaks into our lives in many ways but to say that I will ignore certain teaching from Jesus and what standards God has revealed to us in order to conduct Christian lives because don't agree with personal philosophy is wrong.

God comes first for me and I need to live a life that shows that by submitting to His word.

In the above passage for example the author of Hebrews when mentioning sexual immorality is pointing to the Biblical standard of what was sexually immoral. Acts outside if a man and a woman according to the rest of Scripture.

Silvio.Dante · 16-02-2013 01:47AM

philologos wrote: »

The Bible does advocate sexual relations be between a man and a woman in marriage. Indeed marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman by Jesus Himself.

I trust in Him. The Bible speaks into our lives in many ways but to say that I will ignore certain teaching from Jesus and what standards God has revealed to us in order to conduct Christian lives because don't agree with personal philosophy is wrong.

God comes first for me and I need to live a life that shows that by submitting to His word.

In the above passage for example the author of Hebrews when mentioning sexual immorality is pointing to the Biblical standard of what was sexually immoral. Acts outside if a man and a woman according to the rest of Scripture.

Great post...:)

16-02-2013 01:52AM

Wowreally? wrote: »

Theres nothing "anti gay marriage" in the bible.

Hebrews 13:4-7

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you." So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?" Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

philologos wrote: »

The Bible does advocate sexual relations be between a man and a woman in marriage. Indeed marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman by Jesus Himself.

I trust in Him. The Bible speaks into our lives in many ways but to say that I will ignore certain teaching from Jesus and what standards God has revealed to us in order to conduct Christian lives because don't agree with personal philosophy is wrong.

God comes first for me and I need to live a life that shows that by submitting to His word.

In the above passage for example the author of Hebrews when mentioning sexual immorality is pointing to the Biblical standard of what was sexually immoral. Acts outside if a man and a woman according to the rest of Scripture.

It's almost like two people read the same passage, and came to different conclusions...

philologos · 16-02-2013 08:54AM

Or one is doing eisegesis, and one is doing exegesis.

Either way the proponents of this position need to present a full case considering all the passages that encourage sexual relationships to be kept within a marriage (between a man and a woman).

I can't be so willing to compromise God's word. I take it extremely seriously. If I believe that Jesus is Lord over my whole life that's what I mean.

lazygal · 16-02-2013 09:11AM

philologos wrote: »

Or one is doing eisegesis, and one is doing exegesis.

Either way the proponents of this position need to present a full case considering all the passages that encourage sexual relationships to be kept within a marriage (between a man and a woman).

I can't be so willing to compromise God's word. I take it extremely seriously. If I believe that Jesus is Lord over my whole life that's what I mean.

How do you deal with the parts of life not mentioned in the bible?

Bannasidhe · 16-02-2013 12:04PM

philologos wrote: »

Or one is doing eisegesis, and one is doing exegesis.

Either way the proponents of this position need to present a full case considering all the passages that encourage sexual relationships to be kept within a marriage (between a man and a woman).

I can't be so willing to compromise God's word. I take it extremely seriously. If I believe that Jesus is Lord over my whole life that's what I mean.

Then perhaps you can point us out the passages in which Jesus wrote his considered opinion?

Not Paul, not Mark's version, not Luke's version - but Jesus'.

Silvio.Dante · 16-02-2013 01:24PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then perhaps you can point us out the passages in which Jesus wrote his considered opinion?

Not Paul, not Mark's version, not Luke's version - but Jesus'.

Why..?

Bannasidhe · 16-02-2013 01:32PM

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Why..?

Because everything written about what Jesus did or did not say in the Bible is what legal people call 'hearsay' (and therefore not admissible in a court of law) and historians call a 'secondary source' - i.e. something to be treated with extreme caution.

Jesus himself left no written record, all the NT contains is second/third/fourth hand accounts which are open to interpretation. Yet, we are constantly having it held up as an unimpeachable source as to Jesus' views.

It isn't, it is other people's later interpretations of Jesus' views.

ShooterSF · 16-02-2013 05:13PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wise words from a wise man.

Personally, I would say that expecting someone who is homosexual to remain celibate is to punish them, but that is just my interpretation.

In fairness he is talking a bout the same god who had no problem punishing a fig tree for being a fig tree so...

hames · 16-02-2013 07:20PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because everything written about what Jesus did or did not say in the Bible is what legal people call 'hearsay' (and therefore not admissible in a court of law) and historians call a 'secondary source' - i.e. something to be treated with extreme caution.

Jesus himself left no written record, all the NT contains is second/third/fourth hand accounts which are open to interpretation. Yet, we are constantly having it held up as an unimpeachable source as to Jesus' views.

It isn't, it is other people's later interpretations of Jesus' views.

It is the legitimate, scripurally inspired or logically deduced opinion of some Christians, especially Evangelicals, that the Bible (or one version of it in particular, e.g. King James) is free from error.

Personally, I and a lot of mainstream Christians disagree.

Nevertheless I also disagree with your expectation that scripture ought to meet some legal threshold of criteria as would be required by a Court of Laws. We do not bundle scripture into the same Paddywagon as the temporal laws that govern our day to day interactions in the present era. In fact to do so would be a theological absurdity, necessarily subordinating the moral clarity that can be derived from the Christian doctrine to a weakened human thought process riddled with infirmity and errors. That is to say, nothing could be, except what is understood, anticipated or visible to the human mind, or within the clutches of man himself, thereby making him equal to God. As you can see, this is a preposterous path to tread.

MrPudding · 16-02-2013 08:10PM

hames wrote: »

Nevertheless I also disagree with your expectation that scripture ought to meet some legal threshold of criteria as would be required by a Court of Laws. We do not bundle scripture into the same Paddywagon as the temporal laws that govern our day to day interactions in the present era.

You are quite right. Arguably, given the type of thing many try to justify using the word of god, it should be held to a higher threshold.

hames wrote: »

In fact to do so would be a theological absurdity, necessarily subordinating the moral clarity that can be derived from the Christian doctrine to a weakened human thought process riddled with infirmity and errors. That is to say, nothing could be, except what is understood, anticipated or visible to the human mind, or within the clutches of man himself, thereby making him equal to God. As you can see, this is a preposterous path to tread.

This simply does not make sense. What was being suggested was that we could not be certain that what is alleged to be the words of Jesus are in fact the words of Jesus. And your response to this is that we can't question if they are the words of Jesus because they are the words of Jesus...? OK, got it.

MrP

hames · 16-02-2013 08:30PM

MrPudding wrote: »

This simply does not make sense. What was being suggested was that we could not be certain that what is alleged to be the words of Jesus are in fact the words of Jesus. And your response to this is that we can't question if they are the words of Jesus because they are the words of Jesus...? OK, got it.

MrP

I think you misunderstood my post, with respect.

I was not saying that scripture itself is the proof of divine inspiration, although it is one leg of the stool, so to speak.

My point was simply that what is divine cannot be held accountable to fallible human constructions like courts of law, which would totally subordinate God to a scurry of boy clerks and a secular moral outlook, totally annihilating God in the process! It cannot be done, it is completely without reason.

Now how we can best examine or explain the infallibility, inerrancy or otherwise, of the bible is another matter, one which largely involves prayer, logical reasoning, scripture (yes), and a personal relationship with God.

It is this process that has led most of us who are Christians to conclude that the Bible may err from time to time, having been written by man, although he was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

philologos · 16-02-2013 11:49PM

lazygal wrote: »

How do you deal with the parts of life not mentioned in the bible?

Like which? - For example if you mean the post that I've already answered about IVF, or sperm donors or anything else, it is an old issue with a new name. It is about surrogate mother or fatherhood, which is a practice we see in the book of Genesis.

So if you asked me if sperm or ova donation is acceptable, I'd say yes, because surrogate mother and fatherhood is mentioned in the Torah as being morally acceptable.

philologos · 16-02-2013 11:53PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then perhaps you can point us out the passages in which Jesus wrote his considered opinion?

Not Paul, not Mark's version, not Luke's version - but Jesus'.

The Bible is the only reliable account of Jesus' life that we have. It is based on eyewitness testimony.

If we are going to say anything about Jesus at all it will more than likely be rooted in Scripture. Scripture is where Christians look to for what Jesus came, and said and did while He was on the temporal earth before He was crucified, was resurrected and was ascended as God has predestined from the beginning of creation so that man could be saved through Him.

I am bound by God's word and as a Christian I aim to repent and to follow Him continually in every area of my life. Irrespective of whether or not people change His gospel, there's no fooling God at the end of the day.

I trust Him, and I won't waver. Man isn't God and he never will be.

hames: Why would you believe in such an incompetent god? The problem with undermining the God of the Bible is that when you do you essentially make god whatever you feel like rather than what He truly has revealed Himself to be.

hames · 17-02-2013 12:10AM

philologos wrote: »

hames: Why would you believe in such an incompetent god?

I don't believe in an incompetent God and I would suggest you speak about others' beliefs with respect as I plan to do of yours. This is a Christian forum and I hope the exchange will reflect that.

To return to the issue of biblical reliability, it is not necessary for God to have left instructions and explanations with regard to Christian morality that are so pristine that they do not contain occasional human error which either crept in during their transcription or in later translations and editions.

After all, the Bible does not say anything about how we ought proceed with specific scientific advances like genetic modification of plants & animals; it has taken theologians a good deal of time to mull over questions of this nature and eventually reach their various conclusions. Is the failure of God to leave detailed instructions on matters of this nature, which could never have arisen in the time of Jesus, evidence of his incompetence?

Not at all. Here is my explanation.

To people like me, the Bible is like layer upon layer of rock that forms a base of evidence from which we can deduce, along with sacred tradition, prayer and reflection, the justification for an answer to a specific moral question.

In a similar vein, therefore, it is not necessary for all of the answers to be within the confines of the Bible. We accept that human frailty may have given rise to errors, ambiguities, or omissions in its formation, but that these can be mended over using evidence elsewhere in the Bible and the spiritual resources that we have to hand, with our faith (and God's competence) firmly intact.

lazygal · 17-02-2013 12:12AM

philologos wrote: »

The Bible is the only reliable account of Jesus' life that we have. It is based on eyewitness testimony.

If we are going to say anything about Jesus at all it will more than likely be rooted in Scripture. Scripture is where Christians look to for what Jesus came, and said and did while He was on the temporal earth before He was crucified, was resurrected and was ascended as God has predestined from the beginning of creation so that man could be saved through Him.

I am bound by God's word and as a Christian I aim to repent and to follow Him continually in every area of my life. Irrespective of whether or not people change His gospel, there's no fooling God at the end of the day.

I trust Him, and I won't waver. Man isn't God and he never will be.

hames: Why would you believe in such an incompetent god? The problem with undermining the God of the Bible is that when you do you essentially make god whatever you feel like rather than what He truly has revealed Himself to be.

How do you know you're reading the books properly? How do you know the Calvinists aren't reading the bible properly, or the Westboro Baptist Church, or the Roman Catholic Church? Is it not a sin of pride to know for certain your reading is the only correct way of reading the bible? Given the splits and New Christian sects formed since the reformation, how come you've managed to know for certain your interpretation is the only correct one and anyone who says different is not reading the bible the way God intended?

hames · 17-02-2013 01:48AM

lazygal wrote: »

How do you know you're reading the books properly? How do you know the Calvinists aren't reading the bible properly, or the Westboro Baptist Church, or the Roman Catholic Church? Is it not a sin of pride to know for certain your reading is the only correct way of reading the bible?

I do not agree that there could be any sin attached to settling on a position after a period of prayer, mental struggle or self examination, or consultation with a Priest or theologian.

There are many, many beliefs that I hold which are inconsistent with present Church teaching, just as many current teachings are inconsistent with some teachings of the past. In general, however, my beliefs are usually well aligned with Catholic moral theology and doctrine. That is why, although I cannot agree with all of its teachings, I am a member of the Catholic Church.

Personally I find it sad that so many Catholics do not examine the logical or spiritual rigour of Church Teaching with passion and like in many other Churches, I accept that passive acceptance of the official position, arising largely out of a belief in the institution in itself, can be a problem for the Church and its congregations.

JimiTime · 17-02-2013 02:30AM

philologos wrote: »

Or one is doing eisegesis, and one is doing exegesis.

As intellectually deficient and dishonest as eisegesis is, I would not even credit what has gone on here to be even at that level. You are basically dealing with, 'Oh, this guy says this and another guy says that, ergo, its all open to interpretation'.

tommy2bad · 17-02-2013 02:34AM

hames wrote: »

I do not agree that there could be any sin attached to settling on a position after a period of prayer, mental struggle or self examination, or consultation with a Priest or theologian.

There are many, many beliefs that I hold which are inconsistent with present Church teaching, just as many current teachings are inconsistent with some teachings of the past. In general, however, my beliefs are usually well aligned with Catholic moral theology and doctrine. That is why, although I cannot agree with all of its teachings, I am a member of the Catholic Church.

Personally I find it sad that so many Catholics do not examine the logical or spiritual rigour of Church Teaching with passion and like in many other Churches, I accept that passive acceptance of the official position, arising largely out of a belief in the institution in itself, can be a problem for the Church and its congregations.

And if one of those beliefs is dogma? What then?
Finger not the moon kinda thing[/I].

I largely agree with you but is it not more a group consensus after prayer reading and contemplation that counts rather than an individual decision?
Good call on the 3 legs of teaching; scripture, tradition and the spirit.

philologos · 17-02-2013 07:44AM

hames wrote: »

I don't believe in an incompetent God and I would suggest you speak about others' beliefs with respect as I plan to do of yours. This is a Christian forum and I hope the exchange will reflect that.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful of your right to believe what you will, but I think that if a god revealed himself to creation and then allowed humans to have supremacy or some kind of corrupting influence on his revealed word then that would say something about the competence of a god.

It's also why I'm pretty suspicious of Islamic claims of the Bible being corrupted.

I think it was a fair point, if you think that the Bible is corrupt that says something about the competence of God and His sovereign sufficiency and His Lordship over creation.

hames wrote: »

To return to the issue of biblical reliability, it is not necessary for God to have left instructions and explanations with regard to Christian morality that are so pristine that they do not contain occasional human error which either crept in during their transcription or in later translations and editions.

It isn't necessary, but He did at least in so far as the orthodox Christian position is concerned. If you want to believe in a god who is radically different from this then the question has to be asked, is that god a Christian god? Moreover, if that god starts to look more like what you want doesn't that somehow show that you've made a god in your own image rather than accepting that there is a sovereign God and a sovereign Lord over creation.

If you look at my signature you'll see that the Bible, and in particular the New Testament is the most authentic ancient (circulated) text in the ancient world. We have 40,000 copies in Greek and in Syriac and other languages by which to compare. It is by this comparison that we have an incredibly good idea as to what the text was when it was first written.

The translation point is moot also. I agree translations aren't perfect, but thankfully we have things like concordances that can help us get closer to God's word as it was originally written.

hames wrote: »

After all, the Bible does not say anything about how we ought proceed with specific scientific advances like genetic modification of plants & animals; it has taken theologians a good deal of time to mull over questions of this nature and eventually reach their various conclusions. Is the failure of God to leave detailed instructions on matters of this nature, which could never have arisen in the time of Jesus, evidence of his incompetence?

As I said in respect to lazygal and IVF. The Bible mightn't say anything specifically about technology X, but the Bible does give us principles which should govern how we use technology X. On the IVF and sperm donor point, if the Bible speaks about surrogate motherhood and surrogate fatherhood in Scripture, then this principle is applicable to how we use IVF.

Although the Bible doesn't say anything specific about the genetic modification of animals and plants, the Bible does say that humankind is meant to have dominion over creation, but that this is a God given dominion over creation. Therefore, we have to treat the creation in a way that glorifies God rather than in a way that glorifies ourselves. God gives us a Biblical framework by which to live our lives, and it speaks into pretty much everything. If not by direct reference certainly by substance and by implication.

Indeed that would be a humanist philosophy rather than a Christian one.

hames wrote: »

Not at all. Here is my explanation.

To people like me, the Bible is like layer upon layer of rock that forms a base of evidence from which we can deduce, along with sacred tradition, prayer and reflection, the justification for an answer to a specific moral question.

I think the Bible is the only trustworthy source that we have about God's nature or about Jesus Christ. I think any traditions, or any church practices shouldn't be contradictory to Scripture. We need to sit under the authority of God's word, not to sit in authority over it. The idea that any other source other than the Bible could present an accurate position on either is dubious, but not just dubious, possibly blasphemous also.

hames wrote: »

In a similar vein, therefore, it is not necessary for all of the answers to be within the confines of the Bible. We accept that human frailty may have given rise to errors, ambiguities, or omissions in its formation, but that these can be mended over using evidence elsewhere in the Bible and the spiritual resources that we have to hand, with our faith (and God's competence) firmly intact.

Not if we consider that the Bible is the inspired word of God rather than just stuff that some guys wrote. I'd say the latter is an atheistic view rather than a Christian one.

The idea that somehow that anything else other than Scripture can give us a better picture of Jesus is absurd at best considering that the most thorough, contemporary and consistent accounts we have of Jesus' life are in the New Testament.

The idea that we can present God's word better than Himself is incredibly blasphemous. There's serious questions to be asked about whether one truly regards God as Lord over creation, or one believes that God has authority over creation, and that God has complete control over creation as the Bible says or if one believes in something else. If it is the latter we start to get into a territory where we have to evaluate as to whether such a position is truly Christian.

philologos · 17-02-2013 07:46AM

JimiTime wrote: »

As intellectually deficient and dishonest as eisegesis is, I would not even credit what has gone on here to be even at that level. You are basically dealing with, 'Oh, this guy says this and another guy says that, ergo, its all open to interpretation'.

Yes, and my simple point is that it doesn't matter what me, you or Billy down the road has to say on the matter.

Is it what God has revealed to mankind about Himself? If it isn't, it doesn't matter a damn. If it is it's the most important and valuable thing that we can ever know in all creation. It is like coming across the finest pearl on the face of the planet and even far more than this.

A lot of this discussion reminds me of the language being used at the time of the fall:

Genesis 3:1 wrote:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”

We're doing what Satan did in the garden. Did God really say that? Did God really say that sexual expression should be between a man and a woman in marriage?

At times when I've been tempted by things I've attempted to say this kind of stuff myself, but it is deeply wrong.

efb · 17-02-2013 08:10AM

Isnt Adam and Eve a parable?

lazygal · 17-02-2013 08:22AM

Phil, do you believe the world was created in six days?

JimiTime · 17-02-2013 10:15AM

lazygal wrote: »

Phil, do you believe the world was created in six days?

What relevance does that question have?

lazygal · 17-02-2013 10:19AM

JimiTime wrote: »

What relevance does that question have?

I'm interested in whether he believes the bible story of creation or has interpreted it to mean something else.

JimiTime · 17-02-2013 10:28AM

lazygal wrote: »

I'm interested in whether he believes the bible story of creation or has interpreted it to mean something else.

I gathered you wanted to know that, thus the question:) Again though, I'm asking what relevance the question has here? Is it something along the lines of, 'You've interpreted it in this way, thus everything is open to interpretation'?

Zombrex · 17-02-2013 11:27AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't. We've been given a (suspiciously precise) figure for Kerry, but nowhere else. Without figures for everywhere, how are we to know?

Ok let me rephrase. If it was that figure, what makes you think that would be Ireland's pinkest place.

Zombrex · 17-02-2013 11:39AM

JimiTime wrote: »

I gathered you wanted to know that, thus the question:) Again though, I'm asking what relevance the question has here? Is it something along the lines of, 'You've interpreted it in this way, thus everything is open to interpretation'?

Who decides what is or isn't open to interpretation.

I've made the point a few times that modern Christians are forced to reinterpret things like the second coming simply to remain Christian. Why is that ok but rethinking the position on homosexual relationships isn't? You say it is clearly not what the original authors meant. I agree. But then you don't go on what was clearly meant by the original authors either.

Benny_Cake · 17-02-2013 11:42AM

lazygal wrote: »

Phil, do you believe the world was created in six days?

If anyone wants to discuss whether Genesis is a literal account of creation, we have a megathread for that. It's completely off-topic here.

17-02-2013 12:07PM

JimiTime wrote: »

You are basically dealing with, 'Oh, this guy says this and another guy says that, ergo, its all open to interpretation'.

Nope, that's the way Philo has interpreted it, which is a nice little parallel analogy all by itself. No-one's actually said that though. What is being contended is Philologos' claim that "I say this, ergo, everyone else is wrong, and I'm the only person who isn't bringing their personal bias into it"

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

Comments