Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Question?

Forum Quick Jump

264 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

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

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 2/26/2003 4:44 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Tim, A_Theist and especially John Earp. Also to BBC (what's up Bro?),

I just wanted to encourage you in your efforts, but also offer some perspective from personal experience.

A year ago I signed up for a listserv for the Christian Apologetics community. These are people who spend their lives arguing with those who have different belief systems. If you've ever studied Mormonism, for instance, you know that huge numbers of people can believe something despite an amazing amount of contrary factual, textual, and even social evidence.

Their most bitter debates, however, are never with the 'unsaved'. They reserve their greatest vitriol and most bitter acrimony for each other. Brothers and sisters in Christ at the point of anger if not hatred over doctrinal differences....

It can be disheartening as an observer, but it's a fascinating psychological study because these are, almost without exception, trained professional arguers. They don't usually devolve into the non sequitors, the ad hominems (care to re-examine that last post A_Theist?), the red herrings and, yes, Sophistry that plague so much Internet theological disputation. And even THEY can't agree on some of Scripture's basic tenets or how to apply them.

Also, I made a (short) career out of studying rhetoric and credulity. I even tackled the question, "How could people have once believed that blacks were less than human?"

So I'm not surprised that someone can make a case that the Bible is silent about or even supportive of homosexuality, especially in 'loving monogamous unions'. I'm even less surprised that people believe its genetic because those arguments have the backing of <Science!>. There are arguments for a young earth, for Islam, for slavery, and many other things to be "found" in the Bible. It's a rich text. And, just like there are entire journals that have been around for decades dealing with nothing but Shakespeare's few dozen works, rich texts have a superabundance of meanings that can never fully be tapped or ruled out. There's 30 solid interpretations of Hamlet's "problem" that can credibly be argued, for goodness sakes.

And people work much harder at justifying their sin than at interpreting Shakespeare, myself and Adam and Eve included. Some of us do it in treatises that 'recontextualize' clear commands and find shades of meaning to Greek terms. For good or ill, humans live in and are made by a world where everything hinges on what the definition of is, is, and Chirac can Truly Believe that Saddam isn't in material breach of the UN resolution(s).

So if you like being compared to thugs who beat up gays, chasing your tail--intellectually speaking, and lofty pronouncements about your closemindedness, by all means keep arguing. You'll have the added benefit of sharpening the reasons for your own beliefs, which is a biblical goal. I doubt anyone's mind will be changed, though. Despite all that, I'm impressed with your efforts and, in most cases, your argument style. I don't have the patience for it any more.

But, as Paul might say, "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God [or to homosexual apologists]; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved."

It might be, that by giving offense, we can make it harder for the Holy Spirit to change hearts. That is, if you believe God doesn't regularly override human will.

Anyway... know what I decided about people in Antebellum America believing blacks were sub-human? Regardless of why people believe something, it is almost always some outside material influence that changes their belief. For a homosexual apologist, that might be getting violently treated by a gay person or seeing the ruin that comes from a homosexual 'union'. It might be having a close friend successfully turn her back on homosexuality--giving the lie to the genetic argument in turn. Or, as it seems to be with many great cultural shifts, sometimes it's God. God moves us so powerfully with such strong evidence, that all we can utter is an Amen.

For the Holy Spirit over the bright world broods
with warm breath and with Ah! bright wings

Think about this: why is America more pro-life now than in the last 20 years? The material evidence of fetus corpses and sonograms are part of it. The material evidence of broken and single-parent homes because fathers have been made unimportant is another part. It is hard for society to kick against the goads. And, in homosexual permissiveness, like in abortion we'll most likely end up after years of kicking with only bloody feet and bowed heads.

But the more we offend as we argue our case hoping to win people's heads to our side, the harder we make it for our "enemies" to respond to whatever God and the world may be telling us.

One the other hand, sometimes material proof goes along with argument. The slaves, Frederick Douglass notably, stood up and proved, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, that they were fully and in every way human. But enough people had to be confronted with the Truth, with the evidence of their eyes and heart, by seeing the 'sub-humans' speak powerful words in electric phrases that made heaven ring. The very fact that they argued their own case so well made it nearly impossible to deny their humanity.

Just so, IF you can argue and be loving and winsome, and keep arguing, and keep forgiving when you are treated dismissively. And keep supporting your case. And be willing to work more on proving that you're loving than on disproving some 'fact' about homosexuality, some people might just be persuaded. Otherwise, you might be aruging just to argue. It may be fun in a twisted way, but Paul specifical rebukes it, remember?

Of course, language and egos and discussion boards being what they are, I've probably offended Semeia or Iconoclast. But my message isn't for them. I have to hope they'll forgive me.

Be God's
Terry

(Edited out typos. Grrrr. It's the teacher in me.)

Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 02/27/2003 5:32:39 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 2/26/2003 6:14 PM (GMT -6)

Empiress

I believe this debate isn't really about whether or not homosexuality is wrong or right. The debate is about who we think GOD is. And I believe in an untamed God who creates wild diversity among his people and wants nothing more than to help us be the extravagantly unique creatures he created us to be! And if we make mistakes or we get it wrong sometimes or we live less than ideal and miss the mark our whole lives....he's still going to love us and accept us into his kingdom.

Iconoclast

Thank you for that awesome post Empiress. I think you are right on - at its core this really is a debate about who God is and how His love operates in this world.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 2/26/2003 6:15 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
(care to re-examine that last post A_Theist?)

Could you point out where I ad hominemed?

Blessings,
Paul

"The 'sovereignty' of God is not, I suggest, a very biblical idea, especially if one has a low opinion of the respect of sovereigns for the freedom of their subjects."
~Charles Hartshorne

Edited by - A_Theist on 02/26/2003 11:18:33 PM

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 2/26/2003 7:08 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

Anyway... know what I decided about people in Antebellum America believing blacks were sub-human? Regardless of why people believe something, it is almost always some outside material influence that changes their belief. For a homosexual apologist, that might be getting violently treated by a gay person or seeing the ruin that comes from a homosexual 'union'. It might be having a close friend successfully turn her back on homosexuality--giving the lie to the genetic argument in turn. Or, as it seems to be with many great cultural shifts, sometimes it's God. God moves us so powerful with such strong evidence, that all we can utter is an Amen.

For the Holy Spirit over the bright world broods
with warm breath and with Ah! bright wings

Shell: Terry this is an interesting comment because those of us that are posting whom you refer to as homosexual apologists,are those who have expressed the "material outside influence" that has changed our lives, and it is our relationship with homosexual individuals. We have had the opportunity to grow in a loving relationship with friends or family that are homosexual and have come to a point of love and understanding that those who are the outside looking in simply do not have. Myself and Empiress actually have had the opposite reaction that you are expressing here. Instead of being treated "violently by a gay person", or witnessing the "ruin of a homosexual union", we started out with opinions and biases and then after experiencing a friendship with someone who is gay the walls were completely melted away. It is interesting and I sincerely mean this that I too hope and pray that the holy spirit would move to change the hearts of those who feel the need to stand in judgement of homosexuals. The Holy Spirit DID move on my heart when I was struggling with this issue in prayer and crying out to the Lord on behalf of this particular person in my life.

Shell

Edited by - shell on 02/27/2003 12:09:59 AM

Edited by - shell on 02/27/2003 12:15:19 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 2/26/2003 11:36 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia,

I have no doubt that you will try (as you have repeatedly) to twist what I say or read meanings into my words that I never intended. That said, for the benefit of others who may read this thread, I do have a response to your winking at sin in your own life by saying that no one else can possibly claim to live free from it. I should add here that I have never once claimed to be, as you put it, "without sin." I do claim my birthright as a Christian, that Jesus is a Savior from sin, and that by abiding in Him I am kept from sinning. That is, I have sinned in my life, to my great dismay and disgust, and for that I deserve nothing but hell forever. But just because one has sinned does not mean one still must. Jesus has set me free from many habitual sins, and I have every reason to believe that deliverance for all who will come to him is the primary reason and motive for His ministry.

However I might answer the question, "Are you saying you don't sin?" in no way alters what the word of God says. Likewise, how one views the issue of divorce and remarriage in no way changes the objective fact that sodomy is everywhere condemned in Scripture.

The following tract makes a decisive case against Sinnianity:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Revival_Theology/files/Who%20Shall%20See%20God%202.htm

As to the issue of sinning or not, once again your problem is with the Bible, and not me. The Bible is abundantly clear that:

1. True Christians should perish the thought of continuing in sin that grace may abound (Rom. 6:1-4). Those who would change this verse to read, "LET us continue in sin, that grace may abound," have conclusive proof that they are yet unregenerate. A true Christian hates sin in his life, and will do whatever it takes to rid himself/herself from it.

2. True Christians are given power over sin through their identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (entire chapter of Romans 6:4-14).

3. True Christians are no longer slaves to sin (v.6)

4. True Christians are free from sin (v.7)

5. True Christians are to consider (reckon) themselves dead to sin and alive to God through Christ. (v.11)

6. True Christians are commanded to "not let sin reign" in their mortal bodies, not to obey its lusts. (vv.12-13)

7. Being under grace as opposed to law does not mean "sin all you want and you still get to call yourself a Christian and go to heaven." (v.15)

8. That Christians, because they have obeyed the truth, have have already been freed from sin, and are now slaves of righteousness, (v.18) and the outcome of sanctification/holiness is eternal life (v.22).

In other words, sanctification and eternal life itself is by no means automatic upon a one-time repitition of a so-called "sinner's prayer," but is perpetually conditioned upon a life of radical discipleship to Jesus Christ. Compare John 8:31ff: So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, {then} you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

John 8:34 ¶ Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 "The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

The radical oneness of true Christian faith and obedience is perhaps no better expressed than here:

John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

God hates sin, all forms of it. The fear of the Lord is to hate evil.

As Charles Finney said, "A Christian is justified no longer than he obeys."

As Jesus said, "Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? Luke 6:46

and,

Matt 7:13 ¶ "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
Matt 7:14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

and,

Matt 7:21 ¶ "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}
Matt 7:22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
Matt 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

As to Jesus' statements about the log and the speck, He himself plainly states what one is to do:

Matt 7:5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Of course, I realize that you would cavil at Jesus' statement here as well by saying this it is absolutely impossible, prior to one's physical death, to remove the log from one's eye, but nevertheless, it is Christ's own plain statement. If he had meant otherwise, why did he not speak otherwise? As many criticize others for "judgmentalism" they have in that act become judgmental as well.

When you claim (as you so often do, patting yourself on the back) to walk in the right way of love and set it in juxtaposition to what you perceive as judgmentalism, you in fact have become judgmental as well. Not that I am whining about it at all, just trying to help you see the tremendously huge log in your own eye.

Readers who are interested in more information on Christian Perfection are kindly directed to the links on my website. Many great men and women of God throughout history (including even many Calvinists) have disagreed sharply with the idea that a Christian can continue in sin and still justly claim to stand justified before God.

(All scriptures NASB)

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 02/27/2003 05:20:42 AM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 2/27/2003 3:31 AM (GMT -6)

Terry,

I totally gel with what you are saying. As they say in AA, people have to come to their own enlightenment. Thanks. REALLY appreciated your thoughts bro.

Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 2/27/2003 4:00 AM (GMT -6)

An observation...

Maybe one for the threes thread, but...

I see a trinity emerging.

One God = Loving
One God = Just
One God = Loving and Just

Some clearly seem to be worshipping the Loving God, some seem to be worshipping the Just God, and others the Loving/Just God.

peace and love, don

---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 2/27/2003 8:32 AM (GMT -6)

Ok. We’ve all had some heated discussion about this topic of homosexuality, what, about three major times now? It definitely is a “hot button” issue. I don’t know about the rest of the crew (and others that read but don’t say anything) but I just want to give a honk’n huge kudos to Semeia, Miss. E and Iconoclast.

Though I vigorously dissent from their position, I believe that their position is by far the best exposition THAT I HAVE HEARD coming from that side of the theological spectrum on this issue. I believe that they have been courteous, thorough, provocative and cogent. They have remained steady. They have remained valiant. That is not an easy thing to do when you consider that a majority of the church takes a traditional conservative stance as I and others do here. No doubt, we all have presuppositions that color the way we think on ANY given issue. I hope we will examine them a little more closely as a result of this and future discussions on this issue and change them where change is needed.

Though I doubt any minds will substantially be changed, (as Terry has pointed out) my prayer is for the homosexual themselves. They are the reason that we debate and we must not forget them. They have names. They have faces. They have struggles. They have love ones. They are human. More important than examining theological arguments, when the rubber meets the road, all of us (especially myself) will need to continue checking our hearts in terms of judgmentalism and holier-than-thou attitudes. This is a given. Thanks.

Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 2/27/2003 9:38 AM (GMT -6)

They remain valiant at changing the issue and not answering the question, but rather "bait and switching," to the topic of the poor "martyrdom," of homosexuals. I suppose there is virture is that...that part about my god being wild was pretty funny though.

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/27/2003 9:59 AM (GMT -6)

Thank you Brandon for your gracious words. I admire the strength of character you have demonstrated in making that post.

Your sister because of the cross,
~E

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 2/27/2003 10:51 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

They remain valiant at changing the issue and not answering the question, but rather "bait and switching," to the topic of the poor "martyrdom," of homosexuals. I suppose there is virture is that...that part about my god being wild was pretty funny though.

Gracious and good-natured as always, aren't you, HonorDad? Brandon tries to ensure that this debate is elevated and mature, and you immediately attempt pull it down. What a mystery it is that so many people here find it impossible to dialogue with you.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

shell
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280

Posted 2/27/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Though I doubt any minds will substantially be changed, (as Terry has pointed out) my prayer is for the homosexual themselves. They are the reason that we debate and we must not forget them. They have names. They have faces. They have struggles. They have love ones. They are human. More important than examining theological arguments, when the rubber meets the road, all of us (especially myself) will need to continue checking our hearts in terms of judgmentalism and holier-than-thou attitudes. This is a given. Thanks.

Brandon,

Thank you for that powerful statement. All along my hope has been that we all could agree on what you have just said. You did a perfect job of expressing that. You made my day because I too, like Empiress expressed in the unity thread, have been very hurt, sad and despairing over this thread.

Shell

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 2/27/2003 12:25 PM (GMT -6)

Brett: I always feel good when someone says I'm bringing the topic down. When people are offended, it is usually a good thing, particularly when they react as you do.
Since Brett brought in "maturity," I will drop in more of my immaturity. Avoiding the issue in the name of "love," is not an argument. It is avoiding the issue. As much as I admire A Theist (and John Earp) for attempting to keep the subject on track, I feel it is all for naught, for people who already "know" what the issue is, there is no dialogue, only the truth as they see it.
Miss E, the issue is not, how "wild" your God is, or how we see God, but whether or not homosexuality is a sin. That is the issue. Maybe it makes me narrowminded to want to see the issue addressed as such but that was the issue as asked.
The issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin does not ride on how the Christian church deals with homosexuals. Would homosexuality be more of a sin if we treated homosexuals better? Would adultery? The fact that Miss E, Sem, Icon and others have to attach their arguments, in fact, put the thrust of any discussion of homosexuality on the issue of how we treats homosexuals and, to a lesser extent, "cultural" issues shows the hollowness of their arguments.
I would suggest you guys take a class on deductive reasoning, or perhaps debate 101. If you want to actually discuss an issue, have enough respect for the person asking to stay on the subject, not your version of the subject. Now that would truly be an example of genuine love.
Brett: Gracious and good-natured as always,

, keep it up. Rightous indignation never fails to crack me up

. I thought about it and decided to keep my name the same. But if your dislike of this Dad guy is that strong, he'll soon be on my idol list.
PS. now that everyone has expressed how wonderful everyone is, perhaps the issue can be addressed. But then again, maybe not.

Edited by - honorman on 02/27/2003 5:29:08 PM

Edited by - honorman on 02/27/2003 5:31:11 PM

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 2/27/2003 12:51 PM (GMT -6)

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometime sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C S Lewis.

Some off the issue stuff...

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 2/27/2003 1:48 PM (GMT -6)

Honorman,

If that is all you've got from my post, then you missed my point.

Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 2/27/2003 6:52 PM (GMT -6)

Thank you for the kind words Brandon.

Now...back to the debate.

The following are excerpts from the link that John Earp posted (bold and italics are original):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Revival_Theology/files/Who%20Shall%20See%20God%202.htm

>>>>>>>>>
A man is what he is in his heart, and a man's heart is what it chooses to be. A man may know his own heart as surely as God knows it if he will be honest enough to examine his desires, purposes and motives. To help you make this examination of your heart let us now see what a pure heart is and who are the pure in heart.

The pure heart must be universally benevolent, or in other words, it is totally loving. It will fulfil the law of love both to God and to all men. No one would ever consider a heart pure if it is in any way unloving.

True love is not just mental agreement that men ought to love, nor is it an emotion or feeling, as the latter are involuntary states of the mind and body. True love is a voluntary attitude producing action on behalf of the beloved.

True love is the deliberate choice to promote the happiness and highest well-being of God and all human beings - a wholly unselfish attitude choosing God's glory and other's happiness and welfare for THEIR sakes and not one's own.

When the Lord comes He will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness "and disclose the purposes of the heart."

It scarcely needs to be mentioned that the pure are "obedient from the heart" to all the commandments of the Lord and all His known will. The pure in heart will always do what they think is right. They are never willfully disobedient; they never deliberately sin. Who could ever believe a willfully disobedient heart to be pure?

Two points must be emphasized, however, with respect to obedience: (a) that there is a kind of wrong action which is not deliberate disobedience, and (b) that there is a kind of deliberate obedience that is not love or purity or "obedience from the heart."

(a) The man of pure heart may act wrongly, due either to error or to an undeliberate impulse of the body. But when the pure man finds himself in the wrong, he is predisposed to cease the minute he sees it, correct the action, and make all necessary restitution. The pure heart is always predisposed to accept correction, and is in fact searching for any improvement in action. The man who is pure in heart is sensitive to the needs of men as well as the will of God, immediately recognizing that anything which is best for a man is the will of God; and he is instantly obedient to that knowledge.

(b) There is a kind of obedience, on the other hand, that is mere legalism. The rules are kept to the letter, and perhaps obedience is much praised. But if one's obedience consists only in control of the mind and body while there is no love in the heart for the purpose behind God's law - which is the well-being of others - then it is mere legalism. Mere external conformity, no matter how exacting, is not "obedience from the heart" and does not truly fulfill the law. The truly obedient are no less careful to keep every commandment of the Lord than the legalist, but do so in love, with full appreciation of the good purpose for which the moral law was given and in adoration for God whose loving kindness established it.

The pure heart is also pure in motive. The very trouble with the legalistic obedience mentioned above is that it proceeds from an impure motive. One may, indeed, intend good rather than harm from one's action, and intend good for a selfish motive. One may bestow all his goods to feed the poor and give his body to be burned, but if his motive is selfish and not simply love, even his "good intentions" are worthless.

There are only two kinds of motives: the 'desire to help others for their own sakes, or the desire to help one's self even if that calls for helping others. The motive behind a helpful act may be to save one's soul, or to have prestige, or to feel good about it; all of these are selfish.

Strictly speaking, the purpose for which one lives will always be the underlying motive behind all action.

The pure in heart obey from the motive of love, intend good just for the other's sake and choose the well-being of God and all beings as the supreme purpose in life.

The pure heart is a sinless heart.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Romans 14:23 - …for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Kierkegaard – The opposite of sin is not virtue but faith.

I agree that a pure heart is a sinless heart. A pure heart is a heart that loves the Lord and thus obeys his command which is to love one another. It is a heart that acts out of faith.

If someone is deliberately not acting out of love then they are not acting out of faith and it is sin. Jesus calls us to perfection. NOT perfection of virtue (for that is simply pharisaical self-righteousness) but rather perfection of faith – the perfection of always acting out of a pure and loving heart.

Perhaps a better way to frame the issue we are debating is to ask the following question:

Can we KNOW that a gay person in a loving monogamous homosexual relationship by definition CANNOT be acting out of a pure and loving heart – cannot be acting out of faith?

My answer to this is no. We cannot possibly know this based on this fact alone.

Why do I answer this way:

1. A gay person can truly love their partner out of a pure motive of love. Thus the very fact of their relationship is no evidence of an unloving motive or unloving behavior toward each other or toward other people. In other words, they will not find their behavior in this regard to be harmful or unloving towards others and thus there will be no reason to change.

2. I cannot find any unequivocal evidence in the Bible that a faithful gay relationship by people who are “naturally” gay is against God’s loving will. Thus, if I cannot find this evidence, then it is clear to me that a gay person will not be able to find it either and therefore they can indeed be acting out of faith from a pure heart.

Here is my summation of the Biblical evidence:

I see the old law proscriptions of homosexual behavior in the same class as the “purity” laws. Clearly none of us today believe that these other “purity” laws are against God’s loving will for us today.

I see the references in 1 Corinthians and Timothy as being words that do not pertain to a faithful gay relationship. To me these passages are all about unmistakably unloving behavior that to let another Christian continue in without at least trying to help is itself an unloving act.

I see the reference in Romans 1 as related to men and women giving up their “natural” orientation for a homosexual orientation AS A RESULT of rebelling against God – NOT from their earliest conscious memory – and MOREOVER – notice the passage goes on to say all of the other unmistakably unloving behavior that is concommitant with this. A good tree does not bear bad fruit and a bad tree does not bear good fruit. Given this teaching of Jesus it is crystal clear to me that this passage by Paul is NOT saying that ALL homosexual desire comes from an impure heart. It is also NOT saying that by definition a faithful gay relationship is against God’s will.

I am not alone in this summation. There are many Christians like myself who have honestly read the Bible and sought the evidence and who have come to these same conclusions.

I also look at another key piece of evidence for my conclusion and that is how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees regarding the Sabbath. To work on the Sabbath carried the death penalty. Clearly this was an important law. Yet Jesus deliberately and without necessity broke this law right in front of the Pharisees. Why? Everyone would agree that if it is necessary to violate a law in order to effect a higher law then not only is it permissable to break the first law it is, in fact, unlawful NOT to do so. This is how the Pharisees thought. But Jesus absolutely demolished this whole mindset when He healed people on the Sabbath when He could have waited until the next day. Or when He and His disciples picked grain on the Sabbath when they clearly weren’t starving. And what was Jesus answer to the Pharisees? The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. To the Pharisees this was the height of lawlessness and proved to them that Jesus had an impure heart and was not of God. To the Pharisees Jesus was clearly an unrepentant sinner. They could not see Jesus’ pure heart because they were blinded by their view of how the law worked – they thought their interpretation of the law was somehow synonomous with God’s loving will – that to deliberately break one of God’s laws was prima facie evidence of being against God. They failed to look at the totality of what Jesus did – they failed to look at the fruit He was bearing – the love he obviously displayed in the totality of His being.

But there is another lesson in what Jesus did in breaking the Sabbath without necessity. He showed us that the law was made for man and not man for the law. He showed us how love acts. Love breaks a big law just to show a little kindness. Love turns water into wine at the request of His mother just so the host won’t be embarrassed. Love is all about the other person – it is not about trying to be virtuous by following some ethical rule or another. Love is completely free from law. Now if Love is unloving then of course it is not love and therefore it is not of God. But I can’t for the life of me see ANYTHING that is inherently unloving about a gay couple loving each other.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 02/28/2003 12:00:40 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/28/2003 1:00 AM (GMT -6)

Faced with Scripture's injunctions and his own construction based on Hymanist "happiness" Icon chooses his own reason over Revelation.

"Happiness" is not a Fruit of the Spirit. "Joy" is, but that is something different than what the Enlightenment meant by "pursuit of happiness." So, whats to say should be switched around. Its not that "Joy" differes from "happiness"; it is that "happiness" differes from "Joy." Humanistic, Elightenment-style "happiness" is the counterfeit.

Whether there be real goodness ALONG WITH their sexual relationship is besides the point. Jesus pointed out that robbers have mutual caring too. But sin is sin.

Icon's formula only RATIONALIZED the issue, seemingly away.

But sin remains. As does the mercy of Scripture to point that out to us.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 2/28/2003 1:25 AM (GMT -6)

We MUST love those who engage in homosexuality. The CHURCH must love those who engage in homosexuality. As I posted on another thread:

quote:
...be nice, comforting, embracing, accepting, etc. Befriend and be befriended.

Befriend and be befriended.

But as Tigress chose to post:

quote:
Tigress: I totally agree with this statement:

"Another monk in modern times advises: “Do not let those who shout about bringing sinners to God detract you from first saving yourself. If you lose yourself trying to save others, you have taken away an example that might ultimately save hundreds. This is what the Fathers teach us. We must follow this wisdom, rather than the foolish wisdom of those who would define for us a goal and a mission which God did not give us."

Humanistic ideas of the place of happiness, replacing the God-centered standard of the new birth are dangerous.

As Bonhoeffer said it: When Christ bids a man, he bids him "Come and die." That is not mere "happiness."

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 2/28/2003 1:39 AM (GMT -6)

I can undergo the pain of disagreement between us, concerning sin; only my conscience suffers the pangs of such. I can suffer the wrong, abuse, or injustice of another with bold strength; it is my own sin that leaves me weak. There are several kinds of eloquence, style, music, or soil and so forth, but is there a natural state of kindness in the heart of men. God is kind to the unthankful, and to the evil of mankind and I am to have kindness toward others, being tenderhearted, no matter their sin. Nevertheless, I can make none happy by granting their requests; to make what I believe the Bible calls sin, look nonetheless.

I rest in the uneasiness of discontent at the real or supposed superiority of my love for another, when I desire through my efforts to depreciate that person, lying in the pleasure of seeing them depressed, by the words of my mouth or thoughts. It would be an ambitious vain display of my own worth, to boast of my true love for you, by not disagreeing with your view of ‘gay monogamous couples’; as for being of God’s approval, it appears to me, less than decent toward the natural charm of true innocent affections.

Rejoiceth not in iniquity,
But rejoiceth in the truth,
Beareth all things,
Believeth all things,
Hopeth all things,
Endureth all things.

Charity never faileth…

Thank you all, for sharing the honest content of your heart toward this subject, I love you.

God is Love,

Tim

1Jo 2:16…the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father…

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 2/28/2003 1:47 AM (GMT -6)

…When leaving behind me, my pursuit for happiness upon this dusty road, I finally found true joy in the journey…

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 2/28/2003 4:10 AM (GMT -6)

Brandon, thank you so much for that post. I appreciate it very much. These conversations can be very taxing for all involved. It's very discouraging and demotivating (in terms of continuing this discussion) to be told that one is filling minds with "filth" or practicing "sinnianity." I very much appreciate that, even though you disagree with our position, you can see the spirit in which we participate. Thank you.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 2/28/2003 5:47 AM (GMT -6)

Icon, your post was excellent and I’d like to dialogue with it a bit.

Icon said:

quote:

If someone is deliberately not acting out of love then they are not acting out of faith and it is sin. Jesus calls us to perfection. NOT perfection of virtue (for that is simply pharisaical self-righteousness) but rather perfection of faith – the perfection of always acting out of a pure and loving heart.

This distinction is imperative. Related to it is Jesus’ injunction that “your righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisee’s”… and he didn’t mean we needed to more exacting rule abiders either. The higher calling of righteousness is always acting in faith and love…and it’s much more difficult. As you put it: “…it is necessary to violate a law in order to effect a higher law then not only is it permissable to break the first law it is, in fact, unlawful NOT to do so.” Jesus’ breaking of the Sabbath rules was that higher “righteousness” in action. Jesus demonstrated once and for all in that revolutionary act of “law breaking” that PEOPLE come before LAWS because the whole point behind having laws is to help us love our neighbors.

Is it “lawless” to say that people come before rules? This is the way Jesus lived. Was he lawless or was he, rather, fulfilling the purpose of the law: to love God and neighbor? I feel as though in the Church we have to continually go back over the ground Jesus trod so many times because we can never get it straight: people come before the law, “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

It seems we prefer to live by the old covenant by which righteousness can only come about by keeping the Law. (We go so far as to create NEW laws out of the NT!) The new covenant of faith is much more difficult and much more complicated in the sense that we no longer have an A to Z rule book on every behavior. We have to examine our hearts continually and really think and ask: “What does love require?” rather than merely falling back on the black and white road of the Law. It’s always easier to stone the adulterers than to look into our own hearts of sin.

Icon said regarding the Biblical evidence:

quote:
I see the old law proscriptions of homosexual behavior in the same class as the “purity” laws. Clearly none of us today believe that these other “purity” laws are against God’s loving will for us today.

I see the references in 1 Corinthians and Timothy as being words that do not pertain to a faithful gay relationship. To me these passages are all about unmistakably unloving behavior that to let another Christian continue in without at least trying to help is itself an unloving act.

I see the reference in Romans 1 as related to men and women giving up their “natural” orientation for a homosexual orientation AS A RESULT of rebelling against God – NOT from their earliest conscious memory – and MOREOVER – notice the passage goes on to say all of the other unmistakably unloving behavior that is concommitant with this. A good tree does not bear bad fruit and a bad tree does not bear good fruit. Given this teaching of Jesus it is crystal clear to me that this passage by Paul is NOT saying that ALL homosexual desire comes from an impure heart. It is also NOT saying that by definition a faithful gay relationship is against God’s will.

People’s response to this is often, “You’re just making the Biblical texts complicated instead of taking them at face value and applying their most ‘obvious’ meaning in order to justify sin.” They claim it requires some kind of gymnastic theological maneuvering to deduce that the Bible doesn’t address the issue confronting us today: how to deal with committed monogamous homosexual relationships.

What is incredibly ironic about these arguments is that these arguments are so similar to those made when slavery was argued about in our nation. I do not say this to inflame people, I say it as a matter of historical fact. Please know I am not comparing anyone here to slaveholders or abolitionists...the topic is quite different but the methodology is strikingly similar: think methodology not personal comparison PLEASE.

The pro-slavery groups had the Bible on their “side” and the anti-slavery folks had to continually argue for applying the higher law of love and justice in place of these specific Biblical injunctions.

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

It was, initially, the Anabaptist groups (Mennonites and Quakers) who argued against slavery using Biblical passages that spoke more generally of justice, love, and mercy which they saw as overiding the particular Biblical injunctions.

Sure, the Bible is very CLEAR that “slaves obey your masters” but it was also clear to abolitionists that the Bible was NOT talking about the type of slavery that was occurring in America in the South. When Christians finally came to reject the validity of the pro-slavery passages in the Bible, they were forced to accept that the Bible could not be considered a totally reliable guide on civil and moral topics. Therefore, just because there are Bible verses to back up a particular position does not ensure that position is automatically “right” about what the most loving and moral thing to do is in any particular context. We need to remember –context-- in applying Scripture and yes, that can seem “complicated” and it can appear to be making that which is so “simple” into something more “complex.” But that too does not mean it is wrong. Our commitment is to deduce what the most faithful, just and loving thing is: Our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees.

How do we deduce what is the most loving, faithful, and just thing to do in the case of homosexuality? I think we already have some very good answers to that by looking at how we treat remarried couples….and certainly Icon and Semeia have already honed in on this point. (Note: While I would argue that divorce can be morally justified in the same way that a committed homosexual relationship is morally justified, I will not do so here for the sake of argument.)

While the Bible is clear that divorce is sin and that remarriage is living in the state of perpetual “adultery” do we:

A. Prevent remarried couples from being FULL members of the Church

B. Exclude them from Christian fellowship

C. Confront them with their “sin” for the entirety of the relationship

D. Fear for the state of their soul and warn them about hell if they persist in remarriage

No, we do not do any of these things because we realize that is not the most loving, faithful, and just thing to do. We recognize that God can bless relationships that are not, Biblically speaking, “ideal” EVEN THOUGH the Bible is so clear on the issue of divorce and remarriage as sin, in fact, it is much clearer on this issue than homosexuality! But we recognize that there are realities that prompt divorce and remarriage that must be leveraged alongide the Biblical injunctions and call for mercy, because this is what this individual or couple is "capable" of.

But what I find outrageous about this whole thing is that while we can say with CERTAINTY that divorce and remarriage is a an act of FREE WILL, chosen freely by those who engage in it, science tells us that homosexual orientation is (again for the sake of argument) at least somewhat genetically and environmentally unchosen! But we STILL fully accept remarried couples into the Church while reserving the most heated condemnation for homosexual couples and excluding them from the House of God. WHAT GIVES???

-----

A note about sexuality and conversion therapy:

Much argument has been made about the supposed “success” or “failure” of conversion therapy for homosexuals. Here is a more full response:
First, doctors and scientists tell us that sexual orientation occurs on a spectrum. That means there are people who are firmly heterosexual and firmly homosexual and people on varying points along the spectrum including bisexuals. However, many people who claim a predominance of homosexual or heterosexual orientation are actually fall somewhere between the two extremes. A person with a mild tendency towards homosexuality might very well consider themselves “homosexual” and they may go through conversion therapy and “convert” because they were never that deeply predisposed towards homosexuality. For those who fall closer to the middle of the spectrum and simply desire to be more fully accepted by society and the Church, I actually believe that conversion therapy can be a good thing for them. However, for those who fall closer to the edge of the spectrum, those for whom homosexual orientation is much more deeply apart of the physical and psychological make up, conversion therapy will fail miserably and be nothing but destructive and even abusive for them.

This is why all of us can speak of accounts in which people we knew had varying experiences with conversion therapy. We are all unique individuals and it would be an error to suppose that just because some people can change their sexual orientation does not mean that everyone can…regardless of how vigorous the therapy is. And it doesn’t come down to merely “giving their burdens to God” either. Surely those of you who are deeply predisposed to heterosexuality can understand this: no amount of conversion therapy is going to make you become homosexual suddenly…it is too much apart of who you are.

Peace,
~E

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 2/28/2003 6:45 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Terry,
Let me say first off that I appreciate your writing skills. It is good to have you back.
However, I am having a little trouble understanding what all you were saying in your last post. I hope you don’t mind my asking you to clarify some things for me.
I have discussed it with my sister and we are not coming to an agreement on what all you meant. So let me tell you what I’m getting and then you can correct where I am missing the point. K?

Hey Tim, A_Theist and especially John Earp. Also to BBC (what's up Bro?), I just wanted to encourage you in your efforts, but also offer some perspective from personal experience.

*You are greeting these people in particular because you hold similar views or you are in relationship with them.

A year ago I signed up for a listserv for the Christian Apologetics community. These are people who spend their lives arguing with those who have different belief systems. If you've ever studied Mormonism, for instance, you know that huge numbers of people can believe something despite an amazing amount of contrary factual, textual, and even social evidence.
Their most bitter debates, however, are never with the 'unsaved'. They reserve their greatest vitriol and most bitter acrimony for each other. Brothers and sisters in Christ at the point of anger if not hatred over doctrinal differences....
It can be disheartening as an observer, but it's a fascinating psychological study because these are, almost without exception, trained professional arguers. They don't usually devolve into the non sequitors, the ad hominems (care to re-examine that last post A_Theist?), the red herrings and, yes, Sophistry that plague so much Internet theological disputation. And even THEY can't agree on some of Scripture's basic tenets or how to apply them.

*Up to this point my interpretation is that you are admonishing Tim and A_Theist for their unprofessional debating skills. (and by inference… John and the others. However until just recently IMHO John & BBBC have done a good job in presenting their side objectively.)

Also, I made a (short) career out of studying rhetoric and credulity. I even tackled the question, "How could people have once believed that blacks were less than human?"
So I'm not surprised that someone can make a case that the Bible is silent about or even supportive of homosexuality, especially in 'loving monogamous unions'. I'm even less surprised that people believe its genetic because those arguments have the backing of <Science!>. There are arguments for a young earth, for Islam, for slavery, and many other things to be "found" in the Bible. It's a rich text. And, just like there are entire journals that have been around for decades dealing with nothing but Shakespeare's few dozen works, rich texts have a superabundance of meanings that can never fully be tapped or ruled out. There's 30 solid interpretations of Hamlet's "problem" that can credibly be argued, for goodness sakes.

*Okay, I think this is pretty straight forward…We all know there are a lot of interpretations or we wouldn’t be here discussing.

And people work much harder at justifying their sin than at interpreting Shakespeare, myself and Adam and Eve included. Some of us do it in treatises that 'recontextualize' clear commands and find shades of meaning to Greek terms. For good or ill, humans live in and are made by a world where everything hinges on what the definition of is, is, and Chirac can Truly Believe that Saddam isn't in material breach of the UN resolution(s).

* an inference to the Icon’s post using interpretations of the Greek. (He is working hard at justifying sin, in your opinion)

So if you like being compared to thugs who beat up gays, chasing your tail--intellectually speaking, and lofty pronouncements about your closemindedness, by all means keep arguing. You'll have the added benefit of sharpening the reasons for your own beliefs, which is a biblical goal.

*Now here, you are saying that if you become an apologist, you have to take ad hominems, and insults in stride. I agree. But if you are inferring your opinion about the debating skills of people involved in this thread you should be more clear. This almost seems like a passive aggressive attack on other posters on this board. Did you mean to give that impression? Or is that just a subject interpretation that is wrong?

I doubt anyone's mind will be changed, though.

*Perhaps the main debaters won’t, but the debate is for the benefit of the audience. People that read it can “learn by hearing.”
Despite all that, I'm impressed with your efforts and, in most cases, your argument style. I don't have the patience for it any more.

* Do you mean despite the fact that sometimes debate is unfruitful, and despite the fact that they could learn to debate more effectively, you MOSTLY like their style...?

But, as Paul might say, "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God [or to homosexual apologists]; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved."

*BUT, they could work on debating without offense.

It might be, that by giving offense, we can make it harder for the Holy Spirit to change hearts. That is, if you believe God doesn't regularly override human will.

*They are defeating themselves, and hindering the Holy Spirit by debating for Christ without his love.

Anyway... know what I decided about people in Antebellum America believing blacks were sub-human? Regardless of why people believe something, it is almost always some outside material influence that changes their belief. For a homosexual apologist, that might be getting violently treated by a gay person or seeing the ruin that comes from a homosexual 'union'. It might be having a close friend successfully turn her back on homosexuality--giving the lie to the genetic argument in turn. Or, as it seems to be with many great cultural shifts, sometimes it's God. God moves us so powerfully with such strong evidence, that all we can utter is an Amen.

* Do you mean that when the apologists (Icon, Semeia, and E) have a bad experience with homosexuals they will convert? Does this infer that the reason A-Theist et all believe the way they do is that they have had bad experiences?

But the more we offend as we argue our case hoping to win people's heads to our side, the harder we make it for our "enemies" to respond to whatever God and the world may be telling us.

*Again, I take this as an admonishment to raise the bar in the debate.

Just so, IF you can argue and be loving and winsome, and keep
arguing, and keep forgiving when you are treated dismissively. And keep supporting your case. And be willing to work more on proving that you're loving than on disproving some 'fact' about homosexuality, some people might just be persuaded. Otherwise, you might be aruging just to argue. It may be fun in a twisted way, but Paul specifical rebukes it, remember?

* Here again, is the encouragement to speak God’s truth with God’s love. My impression of this thread so far is that Semeia and Icon and E have gone out of their way to be loving, while Tim and A-theist have been dismissive.

Of course, language and egos and discussion boards being what they are, I've probably offended Semeia or Iconoclast. But my message isn't for them. I have to hope they'll forgive me.

*And here you end by saying it was not your intention to offend the “other side” but to admonish “your side” to debate more lovingly.
Please tell me if I have you straight on this. I was really touched by this post. I thought it was well timed and well needed. But my sister, who reads the board with me and discusses with me, felt that the whole post was to infer judgment on the other side. I disagreed. I felt the whole point was the admonishment, even given the fact that you discount the other side. Do you get me?

Tim made a comment about the audience of a debate. Well, I guess that would be me, and those I represent, who read more than they post. From the audience position it is my opinion that the “other side” has demonstrated that they are more interested in loving, than proving a fact as you mentioned above. In contrast to A-Theist and Tim who have been flip etc.

For instance Tim would post bible verses and then expect us to read his mind, as to what he was trying to say. That is not debating. And A_Theist has consistently been insulting. And just after you posted this A-Theist came back with, “where was I Ad hominem?” Like it was all a big joke, and you were in on it. (Which gave my sister the impression that she was right, that you were only using the admonishment as a pretext to relay your main point which was to discount Icon and Semeia and E. and that you didn’t really disapprove of the tone the debate was taking.

So I apologize for the length, but I would really appreciate some clarity. Maybe I am too naïve, and I know I am an optimist, so I do look for the good in people, but I really feel like, you are saying that if you want to debate, you should debate well. And I really believed that your ending expression to Icon and Semeia was sincere, and that while you disagreed with them, you were not trying to offend them, and I would even go as far as to say that you appreciate the high caliber of their debating skills (ie loving, not hateful) Unlike my sister’s opinion that you were dissing them at the end.
Thanks,
Springs

Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 2/28/2003 7:55 AM (GMT -6)

Brandon,
Thank you so much for that post. I appreciate your objectivity and your grace. You have raised the bar. We all appreciate that. It says a lot of about your character.
-S

Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 2/28/2003 7:57 AM (GMT -6)

Terry, I resonate with your foray into rhetoric, though I have not traveled its territory nearly extensively as you have. Are you a Flannery O'Connor fan?

quote:
For the Holy Spirit over the bright world broods
with warm breath and with Ah! bright wings

One of my personal favorites! (have you ever heard Mortal's version?) I think Hopkins' vision of Beauty as "pied," "couple-coloured," "brinded," and "rose-moled," is a powerful illustration of the burden for unity that has recently been expressed on this board.

quote:
The slaves, Frederick Douglass notably, stood up and proved, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, that they were fully and in every way human. But enough people had to be confronted with the Truth, with the evidence of their eyes and heart, by seeing the 'sub-humans' speak powerful words in electric phrases that made heaven ring. The very fact that they argued their own case so well made it nearly impossible to deny their humanity.

Incidently—a point which is neither here nor there—did you know that Gerard Manley Hopkins was gay?

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 02/28/2003 1:02:11 PM

264 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:56 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