 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > homosexuality in your face | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
hope
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 3/26/2002 3:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | Trosie how can you drop out if this discussion with a P.S. like that?
Hope
1 Corinthians 13:13 "And now these three remain: faith,hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/26/2002 8:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Seymour: But we should be warned by all of the silly things which have been preached on as sin in the past. There are witches which need burning, masterbation, even using an umbrella which was once thought of as a sin because it thwarted God's will.
Doc: Fair enough. But I’m talking only about explicit stuff in the New Testament.
Empiress: I see those texts [on homosexuality] as needing to be understood in their cultural context...the belief that homosexuality was a consciously chosen behavior in rebellion, degrading to the human person and "natural" way God had created people. In that sense, it's simply a misreading of homosexuality. This is why I made the point about divorce...we have to understand the culture to understand what is really being preached against.
Doc: Thanks Empiress. This is helpful, for it locates the point of difference between parties (viz. is or is not sin). I agree everything must be read in its cultural context, but my present view of inspiration doesn’t allow me to say "it’s simply a misreading of homosexuality." Typically, the differences of opinion on this particular topic is not a difference Of THE HEART, but of differing governing beliefs. (The problem is that usually people get heated and judgement over the differences before they ever locate the governing belief that divides them. It takes calm, rational, empathetic dialogue – such as we’re having – to get to this point).
Trosie: The bible NOWHERE talks about burning witches.
Doc: I’m afraid you’re wrong about this one Trosie.
Empiress (pointing out Trosie's mistake) This is, like so much of the Bible, is a perfect example that demonstrates the way people pick and choose what they will enforce, follow, believe, adhere to, or take seriously in the Bible.
Doc: I grant your point that we all are very selective in choosing what we believe in the Bible (usually without noticing it). One value of open conversation with those who disagree with you is discovering just how selective one’s reading is! Semeia’s earlier posting about the divorce and remarriage issue is a great case in point. But having said this, Christians typically regard all the levitical moral codes of the OT as being particular to Israel and thus done away with in Christ. Hence, while conceding there are good universal principles of behavior in the OT, I’m only interested in the particular ethics of the New Testament.
Empiress: If the Bible is criticizing the homosexuality as practiced and understood in its day I think we can all agree it is justified in condemning it.
Doc: Two points. First, there were monogomous homosexual lovers in the ancient world. Plato even recommended forming military units of homosexual lovers because they’d defend each other more valiantly (this is the first recorded advice about "gays-in-the-military" we know of).
Second, you may nevertheless have a point. I just noticed that in Romans 1 Paul says that the offenders engaged in homosexual acts as part of God’s curse. This has to imply that they weren’t homosexual naturally. It was something they engaged in AS A RESULT of God giving them over. The CAUSE of this "giving over" was their idolatry.
POW: You are merely preaching mutual-self-atuallization as if it were an equal of the command to "take up your cross and follow me." Happiness on earth is its own reward. Seek those that are one foot in heaven -- like monasticism and monastic-marriage.
Doc: POW, I liked your post about marriage as sacrament very much. But aren’t you just assuming that homosexual love must only be about "mutual-self-actualization"? Could a homosexual couple ever have a "monastic-marriage"?
Empiress. I am saying that homosexuality is fundamentally different, it is in a different category because it is not chosen, is biological in origin, and is amoral.
Doc: As trosie pointed out, other sinful tendencies are not chosen and are biological in origin. The crux hangs upon "is amoral" for it doesn’t hurt people. Opponents, of course, would argue that it IS moral and DOES hurt people, though perhaps not in ways that can be measured here and now.
Seymour: The Bible dedicates the whole book of The Song of Songs to two young unmarried kids who have lots and lots of sex! I wouldn’t make too much of this, however.
Doc: I’ve always assumed the couple in this book were married when they had their sex. Am I mistaken?
Seymour: THERE ARE OVER 400 VERSES IN THE BIBLE THAT PREACH AGAINST GREED.
Doc: NOW you’re playing my song. BRAVO. Greed IS the number one killer!!!! Idolatry (which is usually closely related) is next. Not honoring father and mother is right up there as well.
Trosie: We need to major in the majors. The major here is LOVE.
Doc: I don’t think we can ever exhaust the significance of this one single simple truth. Nor can we ever live it out enough.
peace
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/26/2002 11:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
POW: You are merely preaching mutual-self-atuallization as if it were an equal of the command to "take up your cross and follow me." Happiness on earth is its own reward. Seek those that are one foot in heaven -- like monasticism and monastic-marriage.
Doc: POW, I liked your post about marriage as sacrament very much. But aren¹t you just assuming that homosexual love must only be about "mutual-self-actualization"? Could a homosexual couple ever have a "monastic-marriage"?
Doc. The answer to your question about "monastic-marriage", the answer is NO. As to your first question. NO, I'm not assuming that that is all there is to the relationship. It was just what I'd seen given before in justification of its morality.
Back to "monastic-marriage"
1) Not to be cute, but if they were monks they would not have sex.
2) Re-read the article again. Two things in it are: the aspect of the reuniting of what was separated in the fall; and 2) the acetical aspect of the nuptial partners' participation in the relationship. Read that second one carefully. Identify what about marriage is acetical. Just as fasting (of whatever sort) is necesarry for Spritual growth, both monasticism and marriage furnish the environment necessary.
One might find a number of profitable things in a relationship that you might be thinking of. But the secual relationship is still a "passion" that is outside of the acetical nature of discipleship. Both celebacy and marriage (I've done both) DO.
I'm certain. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Seymour
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 3/26/2002 12:44 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Seymour: The Bible dedicates the whole book of The Song of Songs to two young unmarried kids who have lots and lots of sex! I wouldn’t make too much of this, however.
Doc: I’ve always assumed the couple in this book were married when they had their sex. Am I mistaken?
I should be fair and say that it is a point on which there is not a consensus. However those who insist that the couple was married usually have a particular view of what Christian morality MUST be and therefore the Bible cannot say anything different and they have an ax to grind on the topic.
But the most responsible scholars concede that it makes more sense for these two kids to be unmarried lovers. Why would they have to sneak out to meet each other to have sex if they were married? Check out Michael V. Fox’s The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. He gives the best defence for why these kids are unmarried sex-crazed hormone raging teenagers. (Good news for Christian teens today don’t you think? Now this is the Good News!!!).
quote:
Seymour: THERE ARE OVER 400 VERSES IN THE BIBLE THAT PREACH AGAINST GREED.
Doc: NOW you’re playing my song. BRAVO. Greed IS the number one killer!!!! Idolatry (which is usually closely related) is next. Not honoring father and mother is right up there as well.
So come on get on my corporations thread! We have to be consistent in how we deal with principalities. If you are arguing that Christians should not get involved with politics then it follows that we shouldn’t get involved with corporations. But if corporations are okay than it follows that governments would be as well.
EMILY: “Oh, earth, you’re too wonderful for anybody to realize you. Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it?--every, every minute?”
STAGE MANAGER: “No. The saints and poets, maybe--they do some.”
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/27/2002 2:07 PM (GMT -6) | | * If the S of Songs celebrates premarital sex, then it is completely inconsistent with the rest of the canon which uniformly prohibits it -- in rather strong terms. If one holds to the consistency of Scripture, this is a strong argument favoring the couple being married.
* I'd like to get on the corporation thread Seymour, but one only has so much time to spare on the board. I'll try to check it out, however, if I have time after keeping up on the three threads I've already committed to.
Like ya
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
rb1963b
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 3/27/2002 2:19 PM (GMT -6) | | "But the most responsible scholars"
Oh I love it when people use this logical fallacy! I think that it is "Appeal to authority"!
Hmmm, running off to have a private encounter, what married couple with young children couldn't relate to this?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/27/2002 2:43 PM (GMT -6) | | I bought a scanner, and finally figured it out.
THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE HOT-BUTTON.
What I'm going to put up as a quote, using the smallest characters available, is from a discussion of Baptism. The reason I'll post it is that it follows up on the idea that Doc asked, regarding cultural virtues such as (and specifically then) actualization. Several virtues are listed. But as it develops, it says: such seemingly positive and even Christian notions as "freedom" and "liberation," "love," "happiness," "success," "achievement," "growth," "self-fulfillment"-notions which truly shape modern man and modern society, their motivations and their ideologies-can in fact be deviated from their real significance and become vehicles of . . .
Like I said; I'm not trying to be hot-button.
It goes on: The truth about "modern man" is that whether a law-abiding conformist or a rebellious non-conformist, he is first of all a being full of pride, shaped by pride, worshiping pride and placing pride at the very top of his values.
The idea develops as: to reject an entire "worldview" made up of pride and self-affirmation, of that pride which has truly taken human life from God and made it into darkness, death and hell.
In the section, on the renunciation of Satan that precedes Baptismal Liturgy, no single sin is issolated out. But the whole is rejected. Even what is considered a cultural virtue.
quote:
The terrible truth is that the overwhelming majority of Christians simply do not see the presence and action of Satan in the world and, therefore, feel no need to renounce "his works and his service." They do not discern the obvious idolatry that permeates the ideas and the values by which men live today and that shapes, determines and enslaves their lives much more than the overt idolatry of ancient paganism. They are blind to the fact that the "demonic" consists primarily in falsification and counterfeit, in deviating even positive values from their true meaning, in presenting black as white and vice versa, in a subtle and vicious lie and confusion. They do not understand that such seemingly positive and even Christian notions as "freedom" and "liberation," "love," "happiness," "success," "achievement," "growth," "self-fulfillment"-notions which truly shape modern man and modern society, their motivations and their ideologies-can in fact be deviated from their real significance and become vehicles of the "demonic."
And the essence of the demonic is always pride, pompa diaboli. The truth about "modern man" is that whether a law-abiding conformist or a rebellious non-conformist, he is first of all a being full of pride, shaped by pride, worshiping pride and placing pride at the very top of his values.
To renounce Satan thus is not to reject a mythological being in whose existence one does not even believe. It is to reject an entire "worldview" made up of pride and self-affirmation, of that pride which has truly taken human life from God and made it into darkness, death and hell. And one can be sure that Satan will not forget this renunciation, this rejection, this challenge. "Breathe and spit upon .him!" A war is declared! A fight begins whose real issue is either eternal life or eternal damnation. For this is what Christianity is about! This is what our choice ultimately means!
This might be my last on this thread. This wraps up what was started, and is here for Docs question.
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 03/27/2002 7:46:12 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/27/2002 4:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc
One) How do Christians ever know sin is sin if its never preached? (And here I'm not just talking about sexual sin, but any sort of sin). It doesn't seem to me that its always intuitively obvious to us. The Bible does spell out for us the sorts of thoughts and behaviors that God deems sin. What do we do with these?
Iconoclast
One way to define sin is the discrepency between God’s Ideal and us. We “miss the mark” of God’s Ideal. Both in ourselves (blind, homosexual, and so on) and in our behavior (gossiping, greedy and so on). One we might say we are NOT culpable for and one we might say we ARE culpable for.
There are two potential “values” to “convicting” someone of their sin:
Category One) To help them become aware of their need to center their life in Christ.
Category Two) To change some specific behavior for the betterment of the person and the community.
In my view preaching about sin is only appropriate and effective for category One. And the way to do this is to preach God’s full ideal. Only when we comprehend God’s full ideal do we all realize how far we are from that ideal and therefore become open to fully centering our life on Christ. This is why Jesus preached the way he did about sin – lust is the same as adultery and so on.
I say this because our common understanding of “preaching about SIN” means that we are preaching authoritatively that this SIN results in us going to hell. We are coming across using Authority. Serious stuff. And we CANNOT preach authoritatively about that except also as a sinner. Which is not a problem when addressing Category One. To preach about a specific sin (with the exception of the sin of Judgement) using the same “authority approach” implicitly invokes self-righteousness or self-abnegation. It invokes our Judger. Both the preacher and the hearer. It is like telling someone not to think of the color blue. Once our Judger is invoked either positively (I am OK on that one!) or negatively (I am NOT OK on that one) then we are no longer about the business of seeking God’s will we are in self-justification. This is the whole problem to begin with. We all think that being OK is about being good. And we judge this for ourselves based fundamentally on our own definition of good and evil.
Being OK is NOT about being good. It is ONLY about having Jesus be lord of our life.
Now, does the Bible have any practical advice on how to live life to the fullest? Yes. The whole purpose of the law is twofold: to show us concretely that we fall short and need God AND to give us practical advice on how to live life to the fullest.
So, can we preach about the principles God has revealed to us in the Bible about how to live life to the fullest. Sure. But only in this light! Now, we are not preaching authoritatively about eternal life and death, we are exploring what God revealed in the Bible in conjunction with what God reveals to us in many other ways. Once in Christ we have been given the keys to the kingdom. It is ours to explore and create anew (what we bind…) It is a complex adaptive system. The principles and “rules” (in the CAS sense) are vast and complex. Notice the “Laws” in the Bible. They are generalizations, they are contextual, they are culture dependent. In short they are highly “nuanced”. The Pharisees continually tried to pin Jesus down on this rule or that rule. Jesus simply always gave a more clever answer to a cleverly laid trap. When Jesus was asked in a positive way about the Law – what are the most important “rules”? - Jesus simply said to Love God … and to Love Your Neighbor … that everything follows from that. Which is really not a rule at all: it is the whole point.
Preaching for the purpose of Category Two requires a non-authoritative, factual, evidence-based, logical approach to determining and communicating what behaviors are most effective in a particular situation in order give the most powerful effect to Loving God and Loving Our Neighbor. (General advice with epistemological humility.)
If you accept this then the next question is:
Given the following fact what are the key principles that serve the goal (Love God, Love your Neighbor) most effectively:
Homosexuality is determined before the age of five. People are fundamentally born that way similar to being born blind or being born heterosexual. It is not a choice.
We already know (according to Paul) that for heterosexuals it is “better”, if one is given to it, to remain celibate. So, I think we can assume the same for homosexuals. But what if you are not given to being celibate? What is the most loving thing then?
Doc
Two) For those who want argue that homosexuality (at least in a life-long monogamous form -- is this a mistaken assumption?) is not sin, what do make of I Cor. 6:9; I Tim 1:10 and Rom. 1:23-27.
Iconoclast
It depends on what you mean by “sin” when you ask this question. It depends on how you categorize different types of sin and the “rules” you associate with each category.
SinType1: Sin that WITHOUT Jesus as Lord of our life will lead to death.
SinType2: Sin that WITH Jesus as Lord of our life will not lead to death.
SinType3: Sin that leads to Jesus NOT being Lord of our life.
Claim1: SinType1 encompasses ALL sin.
Claim2: SinType2 and SinType3 together encompass ALL sin.
An example of SinType2 is a person who is remarried after divorcing for the “wrong” reasons. I think we all agree that this is not God’s ideal and I think we also all agree that it does not lead to death WITH Jesus as Lord of our life. We all seem to agree that this sin is best dealt with by choosing not to even see it.
SinType3 is any sin that is “dominating” a person. It is any sin that is crushing the growing life of Jesus within us. Like Category One above this type of sin requires an “Authority approach”. It requires unilateral action on our part to help this person – even to the point of disfellowship. It is as though they are drowning in front of us.
When I read the passages you mention I see examples of SinType3. These are sins that either show clearly that a person does not really even have Jesus as Lord of their life or sins that are rapidly crushing that Life out. In fact, I would argue that the sins listed are really about people who have clearly chosen NOT to have Jesus be Lord of their life. In other words – it is NOT about what sins we are committing it is about whether Jesus is Lord of our Life or not.
Lets look at these passages:
Rom. 1:23-27
And they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural., and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
In this passage it seems clear that the people being talked about forsook God first and then God just quit trying to help them out. The result was that God “gave them up to degrading passions”. I read this as God no longer limited the damage that their passions caused in them. The RESULT of forsaking God for these particular folks was total and complete out-of-control passions in their sexual drive. It does not say that their homosexual orientation from birth and the monogamous, loving, committed relationship they then chose caused them to forsake God.
I Cor 6:9
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, mail prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.
Here we should focus for just a second on “drunkard”. It doesn’t say, “someone who drinks responsibly”. So, clearly this must mean someone who is alcoholic and is getting their Life from their drinking. Someone who has chosen to allow alcohol to be the Lord of their life – to dominate them. You cannot serve two masters. We certainly don’t think that this says that getting drunk from time to time means we will not inherit the Kingdom of God. It has to do with whether Jesus is really Lord of your life or not.
I would argue that all of the sins listed here are of this nature. They ALL fundamentally have to do with where we are getting our Life from. We can’t choose to be a “fornicator” (someone who IS a sexual predator) AND choose to have Jesus as Lord of our life. One will win out or the other. We will either become defined as a child of God or a fornicator.
“Adulterer” is exactly the same. If it were not, then we would have to say that someone who is remarried after a divorce for the “wrong” reasons is one of these “Adulterers” who will not inherit the kingdom of God. But we do not say that. We all know that “Adulterer” in this context means someone who is seeking Life from having affairs with people other than their current spouse.
Doc, you would know better on the actual greek for the word “sodomite” but if we just take the translation at face value then this term fits perfectly with all the others. A “sodomite” is simply someone who is behaving like the people of Sodom did. Total and complete out-of-control passions: raping and killing any human that comes in sight.
Is this anything like a person born with a homosexual orientation that has accepted Jesus into their life and chosen a committed, loving, monogamous relationship?
Does any of this really have anything to say about the nature of someone who has a homosexual orientation from the age of 5? Or does it rather have something to say about what happens to us when Jesus is NOT lord of our life?
I Tim 1:8-11
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father and mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
This verse really carries the point home. The law is indeed good when used legitimately. Its use is to show us that we need Jesus as Lord of our Life.
Timothy contrast the innocent versus the lawless and disobedient – the godless and sinful – the unholy and profane. We know that “innocent” does NOT mean sinless. None of us are sinless. He is making the distinction between SinType2 and SinType3. He is presupposing that the innocent are those who have Jesus as Lord of their Life.
Just for a second imagine if the list was…murderers, fornicators, someone who is remarried after a divorce for the “wrong” reasons, slave traders, liars, perjurers…
It just doesn’t fit.
Neither does a person who was given a homosexual orientation who has Jesus as Lord of their life and is in a monogamous committed relationship.
And isn’t a monogamous commitment (marriage) a powerful mechanism for channeling our God given bodily passions into a relationship that teaches us what it means to love another human being? And isn’t that the whole point?
Matthew 22:23
The same day some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question saying “Teacher, Moses said, ‘if a man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. The second did the same, so all the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman herself died. In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her.”
Jesus answered them, ”You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Marriage between male and female is totally an earthly thing. It is one of the Four Mandates that God gave us to cope with a fallen world. It is a structure that is meant for us. Not us for the structure. When we are oriented toward the structure then it serves us. When we are not oriented toward the structure it does not serve us. We are destined to love one another much, much more than the love we come to know in a committed relationship here on earth.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd
Edited by - Iconoclast on 03/27/2002 10:02:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/27/2002 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | For Iconoclast and Doc:
To make clear where there is disagreement...
It is popular to say things like what Iconoclast has here: "to remain celibate. So, I think we can assume the same for homosexuals. But what if you are not given to being celibate?"
Rather, the issue is not whether one is "given" to do anything. As a side-comment, I was celibate for twenty-nine years. I was NEVER "given" to it. Never. But it was a "fast."
Maybe everyone in this debate needs to be more straight on what fasts are before continuing. it seemed that perhaps (or perhaps he was drawing info out of me for the debates sake) Doc might have confused "monasticism" for moral behavior. (There is NO "monastic" homosexual behavior.)
Icon seemed to say that if being celibate was hard for someone with a homosexual orientation, then...well...um... But being "given" to sexuality does not change anything. The ONLY thing that has changed is the perspective of what our life on this earth is for. Morality is not the goal. So if by God’s Ideal it is meant, "freedom" and "liberation," "love," "happiness," "success," "achievement," "growth," "self-fulfillment", then we have set up a standard -- using God's name -- that is autonomous from God. When we say, "center their life in Christ" do we mean a set of "Christ-like behaviors" or do we mean participation, by the Holy Spirit, in the Divine Energies of Christ -- a personal relationship. Such a relationship requires dying. Dying.
What is this Christianity about?
quote:
Genesis 3
The Fall of Man
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
Such "good" things, and such a noble cause. Easily explained, rationalized--or not even requiring that.
But that is not the fast.
Iconoclast said: "Marriage between male and female is totally an earthly thing."
I already posted to the effect that this statement falls short. While marriage is only until death. Marriage is part of the parousia. it is part of the FULLNESS of the Kingdom -- and as such is a sacrament. No sexual relationship among homosexuals is that. Earthly and "heavenly" are not disjunct -- at least not any longer.
I wonder whether the following is really just disingenuous!
"...a person who was given a homosexual orientation who has Jesus as Lord of their life and is in a monogamous committed relationship."
First, how much of the time will many of us say they completely have "Jesus as Lord of their life"? If not, comparisons will not prove to 'sanctify.'
Second, it again treats what should be a relationship of dying with Christ and being raised with him as if moral behavior and affirmation were salvific. Who says that "a monogamous committed relationship" IS a form of obedience to the precepts, testimonies, decrees, law, commands, and statutes (Psm 119) of God?
Who says that such a relationship is up to the standard of surrender and transformation that is salvific?
quote:
Romans 5:2 ...we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
quote:
Romans 6: 1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
quote:
Romans ^: 11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
A NOT here...Don't just read "grace" to mean a juridical concept of 'unmerited favor', because grace is the energistic power of God really working in us -- His Spirit working directly with us, in us, through us. Its neither an abstraction nor a pie-in-the-sky futurama someday. Grace is not 'virtual reality.' It is the 'thin-place' C. S. Lewis spoke of, and where the eschaton/fulness of the Kingdom breaks through NOW with what will be in its completeness THEN.
quote:
Romans 6: 17But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
quote:
Romans 6: 22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
For once, DON'T read this 'juridically!' Read it instead 'Ontologically!
The gift of God is eternal life. . .eternal life breaking into your life NOW.
That is neither "just" a promise; nor is it just natural consequences of civil behavior.
And just like the good-behavior of the apple eating, it is, in the end and always, the RELATIONAL aspect that is key. Relational to God. Only.
I'm going to close with just one more quote from Romans -- but it is a theme throughout the book. I'm going to avoid the NIV for this one too, because, the translation "sinful nature" is heretical. God created our "nature" good! (Gen.) But, without subscribing to any sort of Gnostic dualism, we can us "flesh" to describe a flesh-centeredness, devoid of the unity of the psychosomatic whole of our God given nature.
quote:
Romans 8: (NASB) 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
I "fasted" for twenty-nine years. It was not always easy. But at forty-four, rather than look back and wonder whether i should have involved myself in more 'experiences', or enriching challenges and fulfillments. . . IN CHRIST I know better. I thank God for the centeredness, and the knowledge I have of HIS SUFFICIENCY. Not a sufficiency of intermediaries. (Not "my God shall supply all the drugs that you need.) Personally, HE is all I need.
HE is all we are promised in the end too. And His Body of course. And we have that, in partial fullness and full presence NOW too. (And that does not require sex.)
Brothers, friends. Thank you for letting me speak my piece.
PotOnWheel | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/27/2002 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | [IN response to my question: How do Christians ever know sin is sin if its never preached?
Iconoclast In my view preaching about sin is only appropriate and effective for category One. And the way to do this is to preach God’s full ideal. Only when we comprehend God’s full ideal do we all realize how far we are from that ideal and therefore become open to fully centering our life on Christ.
Doc: I see your point Icon, and I think I agree with you. My question arose from Semeia's story about a couple who walked out when a "sin-list" from Scripture was read because they were offended. But if the goal was not to isolate (hence judge, hence try to fix, hence feel deceptively self-justified by contrast with) one particular sin, but rather to show our separation from God, then the preacher shouldn't feel bad about this. Right? Undoubtedly there is more to "the story" of this couple walking out -- e.g. a history in the Church of isolating homosexuality, or presuppositions on the part of the couple that this is what this preacher was up to, or something of the sort. But the reader of Scripture can't be held responsible for that, can she?
Icon: we CANNOT preach authoritatively about that (sin) except also as a sinner. Which is not a problem when addressing Category One. To preach about a specific sin (with the exception of the sin of Judgement) using the same “authority approach” implicitly invokes self-righteousness or self-abnegation. It invokes our Judger. Both the preacher and the hearer.
Doc: I think I'm in agreement here -- especially since I just finished chapter two of Ethics again.
Icon: We all think that being OK is about being good. And we judge this for ourselves based fundamentally on our own definition of good and evil.
Doc: I think Bonhoeffers reading of Genesis 3, especially his stuff on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is about the best thing I've ever read on this chapter. He brings out the profundity of this portion of Scripture, and the whole motif that follows from it, in the most enlightening way. He really shows how Jesus' ministry can only be understood as the "cure" for the problem of "our knowledge of good and evil." His engagements with the Pharisees -- the "good" people of the day -- shows this most clearly. What is most amazing, however, is how totally antithetical this is to the "normal religious mindset."
What I'm not clear yet on -- and this is perhaps a topic for another thread -- is how one who truly desires to live out of the restored union with God (not the knowledge of good and evil) can nevertheless KNOW the will of God in each concrete situation. Bonhoeffer rules out operating strictly out of practical or pragmatic ethical principles (this is yet in the sphere of the knowledge of good and evil), but also "divine inspiration." But what then?
Icon: Being OK is NOT about being good. It is ONLY about having Jesus be lord of our life.
Doc: Amen and amen. If being "good" was it, we wouldn't need Jesus. And the Pharisees would be our heroes.
we preach about the principles God has revealed to us in the Bible about how to live life to the fullest... Now, we are not preaching authoritatively about eternal life and death, we are exploring what God revealed in the Bible in conjunction with what God reveals to us in many other ways.
Doc: These "other ways" is what I'm interested in. Bonhoeffer leaves it epistemologically ambiguous.
Icon: Once in Christ we have been given the keys to the kingdom. It is ours to explore and create anew (what we bind…) It is a complex adaptive system. The principles and “rules” (in the CAS sense) are vast and complex.
Doc: I'm intrigued but concerned with this. (By the way, Hidden Order is a great book). The concern relates to the possible epistemological no-mans land. Is there any way for the body of Christ to resolve issues in this vast and complex adaptive system we call life? We can say, with Bonhoeffer, "follow the will of God." But what is the CASH VALUE of this if we don't know HOW to clearly discern the will of God? (I'll immediately add that having it written out in detail won't solve the problem, for a) you can't anticipate every detail in a CAS; b) if it was written out, it would be digested as another piece of "good" knowledge in the "knowledge of good and evil scheme" and c) we'd STILL have to interpret what is written, which tends to evoke differences of opinions. So my question is genuine... I don't have an answer in my back pocket).
Icon: The Pharisees continually tried to pin Jesus down on this rule or that rule. Jesus simply always gave a more clever answer to a cleverly laid trap. When Jesus was asked in a positive way about the Law – what are the most important “rules”? - Jesus simply said to Love God … and to Love Your Neighbor … that everything follows from that. Which is really not a rule at all: it is the whole point.
Doc: I WONDER if this isn't the totality of what can be said. LOVE. The one goal is to love like God loves. I WONDER, if we endeavor to do this, is everything else just about application? But then again, we humans are seriously fallen and often don't know -- intuitively or otherwise -- what is good for us or others. We can't just trust our private judgement. But then what?
Icon: Preaching for the purpose of Category Two (refining behavior) requires a non-authoritative, factual, evidence-based, logical approach to determining and communicating what behaviors are most effective in a particular situation in order give the most powerful effect to Loving God and Loving Our Neighbor. (General advice with epistemological humility.)
Doc: So you're recommendation is to a) LOVE; b) preach general sins as evidence of our seperation from God (category 1) and c) confront specifics only in relational contexts, in a non-authoritative, evidenced based way. Right?
Finally: I appreciate your exegetical material Icon. The only possible flaw I see in it is that one could plausibly argue (many scholars DO argue) that "sodomy" in I Cor 6 and I Tim 1 refers to homosexuality as such (viz. not just the obsessive sexuality of Sodom and Gommorah) and that it, like drunkeness, is an addiction that destroys people, though the effects aren't readily visible. (Recall that ancients had no concept of intoxication damaging the brain, liver or kidneys.) As such, it would fall under category 3, not 2. The loving thing to do would be to engage in a "stop action."
THIS, I take it, is the core issue.
But suppose, for the sake of argument, that arsenokotai (gk for "sodomy" or "homosexuality" ... lit. translation of the Septuagant of the Levitical passage condeming homosexuality) DOES refer to homosexuality as such. Would it change your estimation of whether or not monogomous homosexual relationships should be accepted in the same category of remarried people?
Here we arrive at the issue of what authority the New Testament is to have on our thinking. Given your model of the world as CAS and (as I read you) of Scripture principles evolving as the CAS evolves, might one not simply conclude that the understanding of the NT was simply wrong?
What I'm getting at is that the differences between those who accept monogomous homosexual relations as viable for Christians and those who don't may come down to
a) different exegesis of the relevant passages; and
b) different understandings of how these passages apply today (predicated on different understandings of the authority of the NT).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Thanks for the thoughtful exhange.
Blessings
Greg
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 3/27/2002 9:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon:
I took an Apologetics class, and the first thing that I learned was that Apologetics is for Christians and non-Christians alike. We should be apologizing to both and not assume that it is simply for the "sinners". I tend to take a similar view on evangelism. We should not be conserned with the state of the relationship with God (or lack thereof), but instead simply preach the Gospel of JC to all the nations. By doing this, we don't have to worry about weather we are judging those around us, but instead preach the Gospel to all indiscriminately. Apologetically speaking, we also need to be open to what the other is saying. You never know when God will try to speak to you through the Athiest that you are trying to Apologize to.
MrI. :| | | Back to Top | | |
|
stollerusa
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 3/31/2002 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | "Would Jesus take a stand against homosexuality? Or would he go to their houses and have dinner?"
This goes back to page 1. In my opinion, this is not a fair logical statement.
Logically speaking, Jesus could very well preach against whatever sin exists; and go to a sinner's home to dine with him/her.
http://www.prismnet.com/~stoller/toc.htm
Roland
Roland J. Stoller | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/31/2002 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | POW, I just wanted you to know that I affirm everything you stated in your last post -- about "fasting", about "marriage as a sacrament," and "grace as empowerment," etc.... But it only "resolves" the issue we're concerned with if you presuppose (as I'm certain you do) that monogomous homosexual relationships are more sinful than (say) the adultery involved in remarriages. Put otherwise, couldn't everything you just said be argued JUST AS FORCEFULLY against ANY remarriage as you are doing against ANY form of homosexuality?
Just wondering
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
rb1963b
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 4/1/2002 2:20 PM (GMT -6) | | If a person is divorced under the following conditions:
a: abandonment by a non-christian spouse,
b: adultery by the other spouse,
c: death,
IF THEY REMARRY THEY ARE NOT SINNING. They are not bound under such conditions.
Homosexuality IS sin, no matter what the reason man comes up with. It is just as much sin as touching the arc of the covenant was for the guy that tried to keep it from falling off of the cart, no matter what his intentions were, what God says, God means, unless he rescends the order, to which he has NOT recended this!
Gen. 19 is explicit on the sinfulness of homosexuality, so sinful that God destroyed those cities.
What is going on on this forum is gross, it is the acceptance of sinful behavior at the expense of children in the congregation that it is being accepted in.
I believe that God will soon put an end to it, and I pray for those that teach that it is a healthy thing to be accepting of those that justify this unhealthy, unholy union.
Using the mote and beam to justify NOT JUDGING PEOPLE who perform UNGODLY ACTS is a copout. What God is telling us not to do in those passages is to be hypocrites, i.e. not telling someone that they are sinning when they are doing the exact same thing we are doing. Read Romans 2:1,3. That is what is being said. 1 Cor. 5:12,13 tells us to judge sexual sinners by putting them out from the body. Of course this would mean that there would be no more tithe from them, now wouldn't it? A little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/1/2002 2:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc: So you're recommendation is to a) LOVE; b) preach general sins as evidence of our seperation from God (category 1) and c) confront specifics only in relational contexts, in a non-authoritative, evidenced based way. Right?
Iconoclast: Yes. Nice summary.
Doc:
Finally: I appreciate your exegetical material Icon. The only possible flaw I see in it is that one could plausibly argue (many scholars DO argue) that "sodomy" in I Cor 6 and I Tim 1 refers to homosexuality as such (viz. not just the obsessive sexuality of Sodom and Gommorah) and that it, like drunkeness, is an addiction that destroys people, though the effects aren't readily visible. (Recall that ancients had no concept of intoxication damaging the brain, liver or kidneys.) As such, it would fall under category 3, not 2. The loving thing to do would be to engage in a "stop action."
THIS, I take it, is the core issue.
Iconoclast:
Thanks Doc. If this is indeed the core issue then that would be good. Because now we are dealing with a factual question. It is a question that the Church can ultimately come to agreement on, just as we did with the question of divorce and remarriage.
My sense is that we ultimately resolved the question of divorce and remarriage the way we did because we discerned over time that the “fruits” of people who were divorced and remarried were good. That remarriage after divorce is a stable life-affirming pattern that helps those in it become more alive – it does not here and now lead to death. Of course the only way this can be discerned is concretely. We have to actually know people in this situation and not foreclose judgement in order to determine the factual question.
The factual question is: what fruit does it bear?
Doc:
But suppose, for the sake of argument, that arsenokotai (gk for "sodomy" or "homosexuality" ... lit. translation of the Septuagant of the Levitical passage condeming homosexuality) DOES refer to homosexuality as such. Would it change your estimation of whether or not monogomous homosexual relationships should be accepted in the same category of remarried people?
Here we arrive at the issue of what authority the New Testament is to have on our thinking. Given your model of the world as CAS and (as I read you) of Scripture principles evolving as the CAS evolves, might one not simply conclude that the understanding of the NT was simply wrong?
Iconoclast:
It does not necessarily mean that their understanding was wrong. Their understanding is a specific concrete situation that they all understood well. We only have access to their language (their ‘sign’, their ‘anchor’) of what situation / “pattern of forces” they are referring to. Judgement can ONLY happen in a valid way in a concrete situation. So, we may now have a reasonable generalization that they came to, but it is NEVER completely authoritative for any concrete situation we have.
For example. If I believed that what the NT author was talking about was “homosexuality as such” then that would tell me that this is a situation where the forces are very difficult to keep in balance. Therefore, in general, and to the best of our current knowledge an “abstinence” solution would usually be best and is probably a pre-requisite for a period of time before one can learn to manage the forces appropriately. What I hope you hear here is a similar “pattern solution” to alcoholism: abstinence is usually the best solution although I know alcoholics who abstained for a period of time and now drink responsibly.
What is behind this thinking is that in my mind the New Testament is totally authoritative in its claim that Jesus has overcome our knowledge of good and evil. That we now ‘judge all things’ for ourselves in Christ. The New Testament when it talks about specifics regarding how they judged things for themselves is an example of how to apply this new pattern of seeking God’s will in all things for ourselves. It is an example of what it concretely looks like to live in unity. I read St. Paul not as some rule giver or interpreter but rather as a man who is seeking to live in unity with God. ALL the situations that he pronounces some ‘judgement’ on are concrete situations and we must seek to understand from this perspective knowing that we don’t have the full 3-D view of the concrete situations he was actually in. What is POWERFUL about St. Paul’s writings is NOT the set of pronouncements on good and bad that he makes but rather the fact that this is our best role model of what it looks like to live in unity by one the biggest Pharisees there was! The ultimate fallen Man, Paul, now living in unity.
Doc:
What I'm getting at is that the differences between those who accept monogomous homosexual relations as viable for Christians and those who don't may come down to
a) different exegesis of the relevant passages; and
b) different understandings of how these passages apply today (predicated on different understandings of the authority of the NT).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Iconoclast:
No. I think those who accept and those who don’t are primarily split into the camps of those who have experienced monogamous homosexual couples who clearly have the spirit of God living and working in them and those who haven’t. Those who have for themselves ‘seen’ that the forces can be resolved in a life-giving pattern and those who have not yet seen this for themselves.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
rb1963b
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 4/1/2002 4:25 PM (GMT -6) | | ANY who are engaged in homosexual activity, monogomous or not ARE NOT DISPLAYING GOD IN THEIR LIVES. 2 Cor. 11:14, Matt 7:15, Acts 20:29.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 4/1/2002 5:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Interesting. Through reading the arguments and postings on both sides of the debate I personally find that I remain unmoved from where my beliefs began at the beginning of this thread. I wonder if that would mean that the debate is successful? I'm assuming that the purpose of discussing this issue is to try to convert the opposing camp to our side? I just thought I'd give my feedback from an observers perspective:
Mr. I:quote:
"I tend to take a similar view on evangelism. We should not be conserned with the state of the relationship with God (or lack thereof), but instead simply preach the Gospel of JC to all the nations. By doing this, we don't have to worry about weather we are judging those around us, but instead preach the Gospel to all indiscriminately.
Amen! The emphasis should be put on preaching the word to ALL, both believers and nonbelievers alike. We must trust the Holy Spirit to take it from there.
Like StrollerUSA put it: "Logically speaking, Jesus could very well preach against whatever sin exists; and go to a sinner's home to dine with him/her."
Doc:quote:
What I'm getting at is that the differences between those who accept monogomous homosexual relations as viable for Christians and those who don't may come down to
a) different exegesis of the relevant passages; and
b) different understandings of how these passages apply today (predicated on different understandings of the authority of the NT).
To this I agree!
Iconoclast:quote:
No. I think those who accept and those who don’t are primarily split into the camps of those who have experienced monogamous homosexual couples who clearly have the spirit of God living and working in them and those who haven’t. Those who have for themselves ‘seen’ that the forces can be resolved in a life-giving pattern and those who have not yet seen this for themselves.
To this I disagree. Seems a little weak.
RB1963b:quote:
It is just as much sin as touching the arc of the covenant was for the guy that tried to keep it from falling off of the cart, no matter what his intentions were, what God says, God means, unless he rescends the order, to which he has NOT recended this!
Strong point!
POW:quote:
Romans 8: (NASB) 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
This verse reminds me of part of a sermon I heard recently regarding our natural life (which includes our biological nature and our mind) being in enmity with the spiritual life.
I'm wondering if this thread will go anywhere in influencing either side?
Blessings,
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/1/2002 6:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc asked:
quote:
POW, I just wanted you to know that I affirm everything you stated in your last post -- about "fasting", about "marriage as a sacrament," and "grace as empowerment," etc.... But it only "resolves" the issue we're concerned with if you presuppose (as I'm certain you do) that monogomous homosexual relationships are more sinful than (say) the adultery involved in remarriages. Put otherwise, couldn't everything you just said be argued JUST AS FORCEFULLY against ANY remarriage as you are doing against ANY form of homosexuality?
Just wondering
Doc
I was pretty much developing the "strong defense" role. It has been comnon here to read the virtues of monogamous homosexuality; and the virtue of same has been put forth in its defense. I was clarifying where such virtue would have to lie. And it is a contradiction: "monastic homosexuality." Strange to my Protestant ears, "monastic nuptials" are a sacrament. (The first is strange to my protestant ears, but the sacrament part is foreigh to my eardrums too.)
"Attacks" are another matter. I wan't doing that.
But where someone desires to "live Godly in Jesus Christ" I would suggest avoiding sin. Homosexuality is sin. Such a sezual relationship needs to stop, for the sake of the individuals.
The point of being a Christian ISN'T morality. (I'll be watching that Bonhoeffer thread; even while I continue to try to find my book.) The race that is to be run is: to grown in his likeness, even as we were created in his image.
I'm NOT one for saying that remarried people should break up. No.
I'm not in the job to decide; but I guess remarriage might be sin. But once done, then you have to make the best of it.
But sin isn't as strong as the Lord. Jesus is good at resurrections!
And, marriage, dedicated to the Lord, is still a form of monasticiam.
The same just can't be said about monogomous-homosexuality.
(Those who would say otherwise, do not understand the issue. And need to go up and re-read.)
That's about as clear as mud -- right? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/1/2002 6:15 PM (GMT -6) | | From the time that my brother-in-law was ordained as deacon in the Church, were his wife to die he would not remarry. And now that he is a priest that is still true.
Priests can marry (Eastern Orthodox); but for quite other reasons, Bishops don't (WAY to big a job--just would not be fair to a wife, or to kids. Very unwise.)
My brother-in-law's marriage IS his MONASTICISM. Marriage, because it is with those of the unlike sex, is naturally HARD! Women (or at least my wife) have it the hardest (or at least my wife does), because they/she has ME! I/we just don't fit the way they (women) know things to best be. What a "fast" THAT is.
That is monasticism.
But it is not just "suffering." It is conforming to the inward unity in Christ in the process of enduring and dealing constructively with the outward mega-diversity that is marriage.
PotsOnthecouchWhereever... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/1/2002 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW
I'm NOT one for saying that remarried people should break up. No.
I'm not in the job to decide; but I guess remarriage might be sin. But once done, then you have to make the best of it.
But sin isn't as strong as the Lord. Jesus is good at resurrections!
And, marriage, dedicated to the Lord, is still a form of monasticiam.
The same just can't be said about monogomous-homosexuality.
Iconoclast
I'm lost.
From www.dictionary.com:
mo·nas·ti·cism n.
The monastic life or system, especially as practiced in a monastery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
monasticism
\Mo*nas"ti*cism\, n. The monastic life, system, or condition. --Milman.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
monasticism
n : asceticism practiced in a monastery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is marriage, dedicated to the Lord, still a form of monasticism?
As far as I know monks do not have sex.
The key question here however is not what is "ideal". It is quite simply: is it possible for a practicing monogamous homosexual to have the spirit of Jesus living in them in such a way as they are being transformed into the likeness of Him. Are they saved?
If not - what is your evidence?
If you come across a practicing homosexual who to the best of your ability to discern DOES have the spirit of the Living God within them. What does that mean?
Do you decide based on your understanding of scripture that your "discerner" must be broken in this instance?
Do you "excommunicate" them?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/1/2002 6:40 PM (GMT -6) | | trosie:
Iconoclast:
quote:
No. I think those who accept and those who don’t are primarily split into the camps of those who have experienced monogamous homosexual couples who clearly have the spirit of God living and working in them and those who haven’t. Those who have for themselves ‘seen’ that the forces can be resolved in a life-giving pattern and those who have not yet seen this for themselves.
To this I disagree. Seems a little weak.
Iconoclast:
I don't understand what you mean.
If you have NOT experienced a homosexual couple who you can clearly see have the spirit of the living God dwelling in them then that is evidence for my point being accurate.
If you HAVE experienced a homosexual couple who you can clearly see have the spirit of God living in them then I would ask: what does this mean to you?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 4/2/2002 1:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:quote:
I don't understand what you mean.
If you have NOT experienced a homosexual couple who you can clearly see have the spirit of the living God dwelling in them then that is evidence for my point being accurate.
If you HAVE experienced a homosexual couple who you can clearly see have the spirit of God living in them then I would ask: what does this mean to you?
I am SO thankful you are challenging what I wrote. I was laying in bed feeling that perhaps the way I stated my response to what you wrote might not be understood or it might come off as an insult (which is NOT what I was trying to achieve)
When I said "weak" I was referring to the fact that your response to the Doc hadn't changed my mind on the Doc's conclusion of the issue of whether one believes monogamous homosexuality to be a sin or not coming down to one's exegesis of the passages and how they believe these passages apply today.
Whether a monogamous homosexual relationship is sin or not DOES NOT have anything to do with whether these people have the Spirit of God living within them. We are ALL sinners yet I believe that if we accept Christ into our hearts the Spirit resides within.
Here's the bottom line for me: The issue of whether one believes homosexuality to be a sin gets down to how one interprets the bible. I wonder if this debate is a no win? That was my point in giving my critique in my last post. I interpret the passages one way hence agree with the passages that support my view. Others, who have a different belief about this issue, will see the same passages as not applying today... Doesn't it seem to get down to how one interprets the passages and their relevance today?
Thank you so much for challenging what I wrote, Iconoclast! 
Blessings to you,
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/2/2002 1:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon. The use of a dictionary just didn't work for you. Go back up a few pages to what I was refering to. Please.
For seventeen hundred years (1700) Marriage has been regarded in these terms. As long as the doctrine of the Holy Spirit has been on paper. (Basil the Great, the great Cappadocian Father is who I'm thinking of with regard to marriage. And HE wrote De Spiritu, which gave us the dogma that the Spirit is God too.)
Go read the quotes from Evdokimov.
As to your second question, it might as well be "what if two people, not married (one is married) monogomously have consistant sex and "have the spirit of Jesus living in them in such a way as they are being transformed into the likeness of Him."
Can you "living in them in such a way as they are being transformed into the likeness of Him" and continue to sin. Maybe a bit of both simultaneously. You and I sin, as case-in-point.
But one goal is to stop sinning. Not to build a fence around it, and water it.
The third question, "Are they saved?" is a third question.
YOU and I are not "SAVED" yet either! We are BEING SAVED, as neither you nor I have "finished the race."
You and I disagree. Fine. But the least you could do, friend, is go read what I was refering to until you understand what is being presented. Its 1700 years old. Dont' just throw an a-historical dictionary.com at it! | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 4/2/2002 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | POW:quote:
But one goal is to stop sinning. Not to build a fence around it, and water it.
I wonder if this is the underlying issue at stake? Perhaps people who are trying to call homosexual monogomous relationships NOT sin are doing so because as long as the person remains in the relationship they are continuing in this particular sin?
I agree we are all in the transformation process and will be in that until our race is finished. This reminds me of the verses:
Romans 6: 1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
It seems to get down to the exegesis of the bible passages
trosie
Edited by - trosie on 04/02/2002 09:57:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/2/2002 6:30 PM (GMT -6) | | PoW
You and I disagree. Fine. But the least you could do, friend, is go read what I was refering to until you understand what is being presented. Its 1700 years old. Dont' just throw an a-historical dictionary.com at it!
Iconoclast
I am not sure we do disagree. I really don’t understand what you are saying. I was actually hoping you would give me a nice short summary that cleared up all my confusion without me having to work very hard. Sorry about that.
PoW
As to your second question, it might as well be "what if two people, not married (one is married) monogomously have consistant sex and "have the spirit of Jesus living in them in such a way as they are being transformed into the likeness of Him."
Iconoclast
Not at all. It is exactly: What if two people are married, one of which was divorced and NOT for the reason’s rb stated above? Jesus says this is sin. It is adultery. As the body of Christ what do we do? What action do we take? Do we “disfellowship” this couple as Paul seems to suggest that we do with all sexual sin as rb states?
What sin IN THE OTHER PERSON do we take strong action to STOP?
trosie
Here's the bottom line for me: The issue of whether one believes homosexuality to be a sin gets down to how one interprets the bible. I wonder if this debate is a no win? That was my point in giving my critique in my last post. I interpret the passages one way hence agree with the passages that support my view. Others, who have a different belief about this issue, will see the same passages as not applying today... Doesn't it seem to get down to how one interprets the passages and their relevance today?
Iconoclast
I am NOT arguing that homosexuality is NOT a sin. I am not even interested in this question. To me it is like trying to argue about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. I agree that in the abstract this question will get down to how one interprets the passages and their relevance.
My only question is, “what ACTION do we as the body of Christ take regarding a monogamous homosexual couple?”
My assertion is that the current default action of most organized religion today is hypocritical and NOT helpful. The current default action is to “disfellowship” any practicing homosexual.
My evidence that this is hypocritical is that the Church does NOT disfellowship not-for-the-right-reason divorced and remarried couples. The Church USED to do this based on the same basic logic they use today for homosexual couples: the logic of “living in sin”. Why did the Church change its stance on this issue?
I think the evidence is compelling that it did NOT change its stance based on a more refined reading of scripture. I argue that the Church ACTUALLY changed its stance because churchgoers EXPERIENCED remarried people and came to a different judgement based on this actual experience. From there, I argue, that the Church then changed its reading of scripture. “Hey, ya can’t unscramble eggs. We should just take people and situations where they are at.” And suddenly all sorts of passages came to light to support this position.
I directly experienced this debate and the final conclusions in one church early in my life. It nearly split the congregation. I thought this was an isolated experience until I read that this happened all over the place years ago.
Today, we know many people who were abused by the Church’s prior position on divorce and remarriage. Today, we judge that the Church was wrong to take this position. What will the majority of people in the Church say about our current position regarding homosexual couples 50 years from now? Is it possible that they will judge us for this position?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"being weird is rarely a total waste of time" - Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
| 103 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:48 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|