Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Can You Remove Offensive Thread?

Forum Quick Jump

55 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/1/2001 9:25 AM (GMT -6)

Alright, time for a new approach:

IF the act of heterosexual intercourse is considered God's intention for human sexuality and homosexual intercourse is not, then:

1. We can grant that God desires those who engage in sex to do so heterosexually.

IF we suspect that God's ideal was that we have only one sexual partner, then:

2. We can see that divorce and remarriage is wrong and thereby sin.

Now, the progression here is logical and sound. #2 is subordinate to #1. Even if we grant that remarriage is adultery, it DOES MATTER whether we are speaking of a situation that in its continuation is in itself (the history of previous marriage not in play) counter to God's intention.

IF the forgiveness of sins is possible and divorce is a sin, then in principle that sin too is forgivable. Being in a new faithful marriage that at least has the potential to be godly is seperable from the history of both persons.

NOW, if the above all holds, we cannot then conclude that a gay union is admissable under the same principles because it is the very structure of the relationship that is unsound, or against God's will (as per #1).

In short, just because we see that Christ made an acception for #2 above, based on the forgivableness of sins and the stubbornness of men, this does not make what is in principle unaceptable (violation of #1), now acceptable.

To clarify for the sake of reality:

a. This is not to say that we are now in a better position before God than gay couples. This is only to say that the argument I have been hearing seems faulty and I want a new one if I am to believe that it is "okay" to accept gay unions.

b. This is not to say that I am not a sinner or that I can pluck specks out of others eyes, it is only a discussion about things that others have insisted we consider. We need to do so rigorously and faithfully.

c. I have spoken no words of judgment here at all. I have not even suggested that I even believe that homosexuality is a sin. So don't play the hypocrite card. I will reject it. So far, those who defend the "right" of gays to live in that lifestyle do seem to recognize that it is sin. THAT in itself is the core problem that I and others here seem to see in the argument.

My thoughts at this point:
I. Let us not restrict the power of God to transform us. In Christ, we are slaves to righteousness, not to sin. The argument I address above hands itself over to the inevitability of sin winning, this concedes too much. If the Son of God sets us free then we are free indeed. Either the power of sin has been defeated or it has not. We should have hope not resignation to the world.
II. I agree that we should principly deal with our own issues and that we should do so by discerning the will of God for our lives. I have plenty to do so I won't be bothering any gay people unless God puts them in my path and insists I confront them.
III. I consider this conversation to be highly unfortunate for several reasons: this issue is WAY over-exposed and out of proportion to the real problems in the world, none of us on this board--that am aware of--actually struggle with this issue personally, and with all sin--it is God's job to expose and transform.
IV. It has been established for the sake of response to the group "Godhatesfags" that God does indeed love all people without partiality. This, in my opinion, should have settled the discussion about whether the name of this demonic group is in fact justifiable.

Why we are still dealing with this is beyond me. If we must, let us start where things matter most with a more pertinent question (besides the question of whether homosexual activity between mutually consenting adults is even a sin): is it "okay" to live in sin so that grace may abound? Paul says no (repeatedly in Romans), and I don't think Jesus disagrees. This leads us back to Selah's problem, when and who and where is it appropriate for me to hear from others about my sin or for me to speak lovingly to others about theirs? Again, I take a very conservative perspective, if God does not lead you to confront someone'ssin, shut up and work on your own. But if God does, what would you let stand in the way of obedience to that? Given a reasonably healthy, though not even close to perfect community, I think that this can work. With a little covenant faith and faithfulness (i.e., love).

As much as I appreciate Wink's argument that we ignore what the Bible says about most of the issues regarding sexuality, it is not a sound argument that WE SHOULD do this arbitrarily. We perhaps have some work to do on those passages, but saying "hey, we ignore this and that, let' just ignore this too" is to be a part of an identified problem, not its solution. The solution may involve similar conclusions in practice, but it may not.

SO:
1. Let's either deal with the questions surrounding whether homosexual activity between mutually consenting adults is even a sin (which Wink seems to suggest it is) OR,
2. Let's critically analyze why and how we ignore the majority of what the Bible says about sexual relations. But let's NOT
3. Keep beating a dead horse about how we should treat gay people. I think that this should be clear by now: we love them with the same impartiality that God shows and we follow God's lead in all things, particularly things as important as confrontation with those we love.

If any of these directions seem fruitful I will engage in them but I have about had it otherwise.

blessings.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/1/2001 10:47 AM (GMT -6)

Semeia and others, please be patient, I have just finished rereading the other thread including the Smedes article very recently posted. My response will come when it is finished. I may save energy and time to wait for that. That is if this conversation is still open for discussion....

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 12/1/2001 11:58 AM (GMT -6)

Modes, you bring up some good points. This conversation is always open to discuss as far as I am concerned - I think it is very important at many levels. I would love to respond to some of your thoughts but will wait for your next response.

thanks,
Iconoclast

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/1/2001 1:07 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

Modes, you bring up some good points. This conversation is always open to discuss as far as I am concerned - I think it is very important at many levels. I would love to respond to some of your thoughts but will wait for your next response.

thanks,
Iconoclast

Hmmm..... appearantly my stuff is too long to cut and paste, I will start a new thread and see what I can do. Look for it it the "tearing down walls" section.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 12/1/2001 1:35 PM (GMT -6)

Modes:

Semeia,
It seems that you and Icon have declared war on the word "judgment" but this is a bit problematic. Many Christians use the word to indicate that discernment that you and Icon agree to be necessary to intervene, or as I say, interrupt. We need to be as gracious as we can about what people are getting at. It may be that there is more agreement than not. The bible doesn't unequivocally declare war on the word "judgment" it can be used rightly and Christianly. We do agree, I think. I don't think you would deny that "good judgment" is used in life and especially in community.

Icon,
Your equating the unforgivable sin with judgment only intensifies the above problem infinitely.

Iconoclast:

I certainly do not intend to declare war on the word “judgement”. I do intend to clearly show that there are two kinds of “judgement”:

a. “Bad Judgement”: Judging Good and Evil – the thing that made us fall and that separates us from God (because we judge him evil because we suffer pain) and that separates us from each other – the opposite of Love I think. It is the core thing that is wrong with us – and it is buried deep in our unconscious – it is in fact our fallen essence. Other words for this are Accusation, Condemnation and Attacking.

b. “Good Judgement”: Loving Action – the irreconcilable opposite of Judging is Action. Yes – we use our brains to process logic to determine what a loving, helpful action might be in this or that particular instance – and yes – sometimes that action is pretty serious – confronting an alcoholic ultimatum sort of stuff. But notice how very different this is than what we all do all of the time in our thoughts – we fundamentally accuse, condemn and attack almost all of the time.

The issue of the sin of homosexuality really brings the distinction of these two kinds of judgement to the forefront. Just look at our attitudes on this – our condemnation of “their” sin (which is of course really condemnation of them) – our refusal to fellowship them – our refusal to believe that when they accept Jesus as their savior that they are saved – our need to tell them that they are wrong to be homosexual and that they should repent. This is judging homosexuals as evil. Do we judge ourselves as evil and unworthy of fellowship because of our sin? By the way – I think that the extent to which we are Judging is the extent to which we are separated from them and therefore not being loving.

Now I would expect at this point the following counter argument: Yes – this is all well and good but the real point is that homosexuality is like alcoholism and should be treated as such – we should not judge we should simply take direct confrontational action to separate ourselves and allow that person to “hit bottom” so that they will change their behavior – it’s the most loving thing to do.

If this is where you go then I think we are simply dealing with some factual questions as to what is the best course of action to love someone who is homosexual. My conclusion after looking at the evidence is that homosexuality is more similar to being born blind than it is to being dominated by alcoholism.

Sorry to digress so much here – back on point: I think you have an excellent point about the word “judgment” and it’s multiple meanings. I am sure we very much agree on most of this – in fact I think we are in “violent agreement” most of the time.

Would you be willing to agree on the terminology of “Judging” vs. “Loving Action”. Then we could still say that we use our best judgement to determine what a Loving Action would be. And we could say that we have no right to be Judging someone – no different than we have no right to avenge a wrong (Vengeance is mine saith the Lord).

Modes:

In terms of Selah's question, we were not even in the realm of the salvation question. I took her to be asking what were the most damaging sins and asking this in the context of the question of how I might relate to a pastor committing the sin. We were talking about dealing with "residual sin" if you will. In short, your answering Selah's question about "serious sins" was accomplished by pulling the question completely out of context.

Iconoclast:

Oops – I didn’t mean to pull it so far out of context. I guess I should have read more carefully. In general however I do stand by what I am suggesting regardless of whether we are in the realm of the salvation question. I think the evidence is overwhelming that we fundamentally become separated from God and therefore each other because of our judging of good and evil. And it is not of God’s doing – it is of our own doing. God wishes that no one perish. The greatest harm we do to ourselves and others comes from using our own judgement of good and evil rather than simply doing the will of God.

What do you mean by “residual sin”?

Modes:
Besides:
As I understand it, the unforgivable sin is confusing God with Satan. You demythologize and reinterpret the meaning of that problematic passage beyond the historical discussions. This may be defensible, but you'd need to do more to defend it than assert your conclusions. First, we'd have to agree that Satan is a metaphor for judgment. This is difficult to establish biblically, though certainly Satan did play the role of accuser, in the OT it was in the service of God's law. There's a bunch of messy stuff to work through before we can do what you have attempted. Second, we'd have to agree that judgment itself is somehow equivolent to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (in particular) but not of Christ. For blaspheming Christ is not the unforgivable sin. Actually, it seems we'd also have to accept the premise that God is a metaphor for Love.

Iconoclast:

I am really looking forward to having this discussion with you some day!

thanks,
Iconoclast

55 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual