 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Donald Hogue
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 8/7/2001 4:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | since homosexual orientation/identity and marriage and ordination are tearing at churches and denominations, what does "open theism" offer as a resource to soften this vitriolic argument and tear down this wall?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/7/2001 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | From my own perspective, I know of no churches that homosexuality is "tearing" up. I do know the more liberal denominations are having problems with it, but I think that is mainly because those in the higher up are leaving the biblical teaching on scripture and a lot of the "ordinary" folk disagree. As such, I think any church should split up when a section of the church forsakes biblical teaching. But that wouldn't have to do with what any church has to offer homosexuals but rather how each church deals with it.
Open theism as it differs from classical theism deals more with the nature of God, some of God's attributes and how we relate to God and how God relates to us. I would hope that since many of us are "persecuted" and labeled heretics because of these beliefs that we would be more sensitive to homosexuals who have be hurt by those who either do not understand them, or are hateful towards them. Regardless, the church should offer what it should offer all: love, caring and concern. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 8/7/2001 11:55 PM (GMT -6) | | The open view offers hope for those struggling with gay sex which other views are unable to offer.
According to the open view the future is not completely settled. It is partly open. Because the future is not settled anyone who has been involved in the gay deathstyle does not need to dispair that God made them that way from eternity past. They can have victory over their temptations through Christ because He makes a way of escape (1 Cor 10:13). They do not have to sin because of some arbitrary decree of God.
In the Beloved,
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Edited by - chance on 08/08/2001 04:58:37 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/8/2001 5:59 AM (GMT -6) | | A great point, Chance! I hadn't thought of it in that way...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Donald Hogue
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 8/8/2001 11:12 AM (GMT -6) | | What if one's orientation is part of the "settled" decision of God? Are one's genes part of the "settled" decision? If one is genetically formed for "orientation," as is claimed by the glbt folks, what would that mean for ministry to and with glbt folks.
The open view offers hope for those struggling with gay sex which other views are unable to offer.
According to the open view the future is not completely settled. It is partly open. Because the future is not settled anyone who has been involved in the gay deathstyle does not need to dispair that God made them that way from eternity past. They can have victory over their temptations through Christ because He makes a way of escape (1 Cor 10:13). They do not have to sin because of some arbitrary decree of God.
In the Beloved,
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Edited by - chance on 08/08/2001 04:58:37 AM
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/8/2001 1:39 PM (GMT -6) | | I could not see how a holy God would "settle" someone to be gay, if being gay is indeed sinful. One could make the same argument for those who say they were born with murderous tendencies or tendencies to torture or just about anything. God does not "settle" people to be a certain way if that way is against his character. People make a choose, regardless of what tendencies they believe they are born with. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/9/2001 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | For an alternative perspective on this issue check out "Homosexuality and the Bible" by Walter Wink at the link below:
www.melwhite.org/biblesays.html
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - ModesofThought on 08/09/2001 3:31:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/9/2001 3:01 PM (GMT -6) | | To be frank, I find anything endorsed by Mel White to be suspect. He does not preach the gospel, he preaches the gospel of homosexuality. When one's total message is about your sexual preference, one should be sususpious.
In any case, I found Wink's article weak. He assumed Paul did or did not have information that he considered relevant to the discussion, as if Paul were the only one doing the condemning (perhaps the Holy Spirit, in inspiring the scriptures, did not have such information handy). He simply dismisses other scriptures because he believes they are ambigious and then declares that the Bible has no sexual ethic (such a thing would have made me laugh, if it didn't saddened me. Truly a scholar co-oped by our times). Very weak.
In his Book "The Straight And The Narrow," Thomas Schmidt makes the powerful argument that even if the Bible never mentioned or condemned homosexuality, it would still be wrong given the place marriage (and sex within marriage...and given that marriage is defined as one male and one female) holds in scripture. When what is not exalted by God is exalted to the place where what is exalted by God is, what God exalted is debased (I hope that came out right!). Christians should recognize this and preach the truth in love. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/11/2001 4:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
To be frank, I find anything endorsed by Mel White to be suspect. He does not preach the gospel, he preaches the gospel of homosexuality. When one's total message is about your sexual preference, one should be sususpious.
In any case, I found Wink's article weak. He assumed Paul did or did not have information that he considered relevant to the discussion, as if Paul were the only one doing the condemning (perhaps the Holy Spirit, in inspiring the scriptures, did not have such information handy). He simply dismisses other scriptures because he believes they are ambigious and then declares that the Bible has no sexual ethic (such a thing would have made me laugh, if it didn't saddened me. Truly a scholar co-oped by our times). Very weak.
In his Book "The Straight And The Narrow," Thomas Schmidt makes the powerful argument that even if the Bible never mentioned or condemned homosexuality, it would still be wrong given the place marriage (and sex within marriage...and given that marriage is defined as one male and one female) holds in scripture. When what is not exalted by God is exalted to the place where what is exalted by God is, what God exalted is debased (I hope that came out right!). Christians should recognize this and preach the truth in love. John 17:3 Harold
1. Your opinion about Mel White is irrelevant since this article was not written explicitly for that purpose but has been published previously elsewhere.
2. Walter Wink is a well recognized and respected Christian thinker. In fact he agrues FOR a warfare world view himself in his "Powers" book series. This shows that he is anything but a scholar co-opted by our times. He is ridiculed by the liberals for "remythologizing" reality. He is a honest, rigorous and thoughtful scholar. I would't have referred to an article I truly believed to be lame duck.
3. What in the world is the "gospel of homosexuality"? I did not see that term used in the article anywhere.
4. What DID Paul know about the current controversy regarding psychological and genetic issues? Wink is clearly right about that. Not sure what your point is.
5. What you believe is quite irrlelvant if you cannot support it from Scripture. Wink shows that the "sexual ethics" of the Bible changed dramatically from time to time. Do you really think you can challenge this on biblical grounds?
6. Which forms of marraige shall we recognize? Leverite, polygamy, etc.? At the very least Wink demonstrates clearly that we tend to judge for ourselves ANYWAY and he shows that that in fact is what God is calling us to do. Now let' just do that more consistently and fairly. WE DO differ in opinion with the Bible on 16 points of issue and agree with it on only 4. That was key to Winks article and you seem to have overlooked it, and frankly it seems you dismissed the argument before it even got a chance at a fair reading. Wink does not claim to be right, he just raises some important issues about the struggle we are having with homosexuality. The article deserves more careful attention, I think.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 8/11/2001 8:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, Modes. This question is just a quick one for right here, but I feel important. Actually, it's based on something someone else talked about in another thread that I had been thinking about. Wink, in the article says:
quote:
No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up," or "exchanging" their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, "leaving," "giving up" or "exchanging" their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them.
In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were "straight," and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed that everyone was straight. He had no concept of homosexual orientation. The idea was not available in his world. There are people that are genuinely homosexual by nature (whether genetically or as a result of upbringing no one really knows, and it is irrelevant). For such a person it would be acting contrary to nature to have sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex.
So I want to ask a question that I asked before. Doesn't this SAY something about Scripture itself? Obviously, if we take Wink's argument as valid, Paul was quite ignorant of something that he was attempting to make a "GOD-statement" (one endorsed by God) on. The reason for this ignorance was that he simply had not been exposed to the information that we have NOW. Actually, we could just as well say that he was wrong, perhaps, in some areas. If we admit this here, one what basis can we seriously say that Paul could NOT have been wrong about the "Adam/Eve" thing that he KEEPS refering to in male/female relationships? In answering seeker, (I think that's her/his name) Doc said that he believed that the Adam/Eve thing was true because Jesus was the Son of God and Jesus believed in verity of Scripture and Scriptural claims. But if Jesus was truly human and NOT some superman walking the earth, couldn't he have been wrong on this as well. I've often wondered if Jesus, had he heard Paul's discussion of homosexuality, would have DENOUNCED or ENDORSED what Paul's understanding as valid. Bottom line: if Paul can be essentially WRONG on doctrine due to incomplete information, why cannot we say the same thing about OTHER things, like male/female relationships..and the BASIS of that analysis?
PS: I just wanted to do this really quick. I'll talk about the article later. Thanks 
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - Mephi2K on 08/11/2001 1:18:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/11/2001 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | The Bible is not data. Raising it to such a height that it can be used with force to countermand everything else is "bibiliolotry." That is because Scripture is not a Person of the Trinity. The Church, through the Spirit formed Holy Scripture. Scripture LIVES in the Church. But Scripture is NOT the Paraclete. Look how in Jerusalem the Council said: "it seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit..." The Holy Spirit is the Paraclete. The Son is the Word.
Looking all around I see so much where persons construct a position and THEN go try and MAKE scripture agree with that position. The EDF/OV debate on the BGC site literally detailed that, in at least one article! Who do we think we are?
The conciliar unity of the Church is the SIGN of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church guided by the Holy Spirit is the "interior" authority that beings freedom, and not the "exterior" authority that brings law and punishment. But just the same the authority rests with the Holy Spirit--NOT with the Bible. The "Word" is the Son of God--not Scripture. Scripture is neither the second nor the third Person. And it is not data.
The New York art of the 60's is often referred to as the "Cult of the New." Modern. The Now! Progressive, and "externally" revolutionary. Aren't we tempted to innovate, to come up with some individual reading on issues that press?
It is to miss the mark (sin?) to ignore the witness of the Spirit over the 2000 years of promised guidance. What does the Church say? Again, not the external politic, but the never absent interior witness. How do those who were closest to God frame issues--entirely independent of how we might think they must be framed? Is there really something new under the Sun? Seems that the idea of what a Theologian is nowadays is very different from what it has been. (Who moved?)
Here is a paragraph I'd like to challenge all would-be theologians with. (The Orthodox Church has counted only three so far in its 200o year history.): quote:
The patristic saying, "The theologian is one who knows how to pray" explains quite well the two meanings of the word "Orthodox." It means correct, right doctrine but also true worship or praise. Authentic theology is always a form of prayer, transcending into theological terms the direct experience of God, the source of unity. This is why the Fathers would read the Bible in the same way as they consumed the Eucharist, seeking above all the presence of Christ and communion with him.
As to the issue of the homosexually-challenged (I know a conservative Elder in a church who is.) and what this particular article says, I an ignorant. But I would challenge those reading it to ask whether its author holds all believers to the same "interior" standards at the mystics revealed were applicable to BOTH monks and married Christians. (Interior chastity, etc.) If not, if that theologizing is not done in prayer and worship, if it is not born out of direct experience of God and is merely theorizing and using logic to go where one individually has already intended to arrive--that is missing the mark.
A challenge for us all, through out the ages.
PotOnWheel
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 08/11/2001 5:24:39 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/11/2001 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Since the computer had a glitch and double posted...here is a thought. When one of us hit "Catechumen" I quipped that the next ranking could be "Illumined" (Baptism & Chrismation were called illumination in the early church.) But MAYBE, whereas Paul admonishes that not all should desire to be teachers, the level above Catechumen should be "Penitent." That, like its predecessor "navel gazing" would remind us of our weaknesses and dependency--required equipment for one handling the Scriptures.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 08/11/2001 4:23:56 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/11/2001 9:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes: I will do my best to answer you.
One, regardless of whether something is published elsewhere, it does have a relevance where you read it and who endorses it because given that person's reputation or "where they are coming from," one can get an idea of where an article is coming from. So I believe it does have relevance. For instance: I am reading "Potter's Freedom," by James White. All the endorsements in the book are by reformed theologians, pastors, etc. That tells me something and has relevance. It tells me that it is extremely reformed and, by not having a theologian who is not reformed endorse it, it shows that those who do not agree with it probably won't believe it is as strong in defending the reformed position as those who endorse it.
Two, sorry but I disagree with you. Wink assumes that current theories on homosexuals being born that way and that this is "normal" to them are undisputed fact, when this is hardly the case, particularly when one checks out the "facts" that many of these theories are based on. Regardless, let's say he is right and they are born that way. There are also those who would argue that there are people born to murder, that there genes make them that way. Why should we condemn them, if they were "born that way?" We need to simply evaulate this what the Bible says, not whether or not Paul was aware or unaware of different things. He is allowing himself to be swayed by current threads instead of staying true to biblical principles. Sorry, I have read other things by him and, unfortunately I believe he is totally wrong in this area. Good theologians are human and can be wrong. To be honest Modes, I truly thought you were bringing up this article to spur discussion, not that article was right. If you feel offended by that, I apologized. But I thought the article was extremely weak.
Three, the comment, "the gospel of homosexuality," was not a comment about the article, but about Mel White. When one elevates a certain area of one's life above all else in importance, as White seems to have done, then it becomes blow all out of proportion. His mother said in an interview something to the effect that its sad when something that isn't central because so central to one's life (I am, of course, paraphasing her...I cannot, offhand, remember her exact quote).
Four, Mephi's comment in this area is more than enough, but I would like to add one thing: was what Paul wrote inspired by God? IF so, was God ignorant about the homosexuals he was comdemning? Should we trust Paul about other things is he was wrong in this area? I truly believe what you are saying (and Wink) strikes to the core of the inspiration of scripture. Should we accept Paul's doctrinal statements and not his moral statements? Where does one draw the line?
Well, it is late, I haven't been able to sleep because of a medical procedure and I should be getting to bed. I will try to answer your other questions...later. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/11/2001 10:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes: I would suggest that you check out the book I cited. Before critiquing homsexuality, Schimdt (can't get it right) rightly points out that God was far more condemning of the sexual sins of the church such as adultery than he was of homosexuality and that the church has way overemphasised homosexuality as a sin.
Anyway, what would God have us do? Love the homosexual as we do anyone else. But I do not believe he would have us condone them, because God planned sex to be between male and female in marriage. I think one is hard pressed regardless of how one interprets the Bible to find adequate reason for any way otherwise. Even if one somehow does away with the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality that doesn't neccesarily make it right. The Bible, for instance, doesn't condemn drug use, yet most of us know it is wrong. Why? Because it is not a healthy, uplifting or edifying practice. So one doesn't just evaluate something strictly by the overt statements of scripture, but also by basic principles in scripture. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/11/2001 10:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Pot: who do we think we are? I think we are Christians trying to figure out the truth God gave us. That's why we debate. The scriptures (for many of us) are God's truth in written form. Thats why many of us work so hard at it. We are human, we try.
If you are talking about the unity of Orthodox church, I would say what unity. I have talked with those who want to have talks with the Catholic church and those who say those who want such talks are not truly Orthodox. The Orthodox church isn't any more unified and then any of the rest of us.
Finally (and I promise I'll go to bed now), they only adknowledge three theologians in 2000 years. What do they think THEY'RE doing? Isn't that just a tad exclusivistic I would wager a safe bet that all their theologians just happen to be Orthodox).
One should always pause before speaking on godly matters, but one should also be willing to risk failure in speaking what one believes the truth. I truly believe God would much rather us risk and fail then be safe and say nothing. John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 8/12/2001 12:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Is the fact that I find gay sex repugnant relevant to the discussion? should it be considered as one of the reasons why I reject the gay deathstyle as OK in the church?
Also, do you think that God is behind this reaction of mine to gay sex (that I find it repugnant)? Did God design man with an inbred disgust for gay sex?
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/12/2001 10:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Harold:
Very fair remarks.
I TRIED to ask "who do *WE* think we are?" -- which would include me. I'm old enough to have scoured my Bible over during the "Late Great Planet Earth" thing, and the Charismatic Movement, and so I do consider myself target to what I wrote. So, YES, that means I confess to having been guilty of "construct(ing) a position and THEN go try and MAKE scripture agree with that position." But I APPLAUD YOU for "trying to figure out the truth God gave us." I agree with my whole heart and head that "The scriptures are God's truth in written form. Labor on dude!
Yes, there is lack of unity all over the church. But there is unity too. The unity is in the Spirit -- the inner authority -- and not external. A whole thing could be sketched out about how the Christolgical/historical and the Pneumatological/eschatological dimensions of the church relate (a Pheumatologically conditioned Christology) -- usually called in my Baptist College days as local church and universal church, which unfortunately divided them rather than integrating them. But there is definitely a lack of unity. The Reformed denomination I'm part of had a split over women in office, and was promptly cut off from communion and pulpit supply by several other Reformed denominations--it REALLY hurt in the families and small towns that got rent by it!!! Reformed/Presbyterians make a huge issue over "rightness of belief." The RCC and the EO are close enough that pretty much only two issues divide them--the place of the pope being one.
As to that unusual comment I threw in to get everyone's attention, about only three being given the name "theologian"...it refers not to what we Evangelicals would first think it does. It does not have to do with ideas or reputation. Rather St. John is a "theologian" because he SAW Jesus (in the book of Revelations, I'm going to presume). Gregory the Theologian is another. St. Symeon the New Theologian, a mystic, is the third. Symeon is getting lots of attention of late more broadly than just the Orthodox. The RCC too, and others. I bought a book on him called "Man and the Environment." The qualitative aspect meant in the term theologian would then follow in the direction of Paul's being "caught up" to the third heaven. Knowing God, as opposed to knowing about him. To be a theologian then, to pull from the above post, it is: "a form of prayer, transcending into theological terms the direct experience of God..." Symeon, in his life's work, took on the secular humanisistic heresy that was slipping in from the Scholastic West that one could not *experience* God directly (Barlaam) -- Symeon taught Christian faith AS experience. And contra to versus bureaucratic authority Symeon saw the Spirit alone is the ultimate criterion of truth and the only final authority.
*I* pale at even the merest comparison.
So relax, Harold, maybe "exclusivistic" isn't the word when everyone BUT those three are omitted. Anybody going to try and vote St. John the Theologian out?
Now, I fully agree with you on the last thing you said. So here is a second hearing of something worth repeating!: "One should always pause before speaking on godly matters, but one should also be willing to risk failure in speaking what one believes the truth. I truly believe God would much rather us risk and fail then be safe and say nothing." Amen!
I pray that you will do well in your recovery.
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/12/2001 2:19 PM (GMT -6) | | POW: I actually wasn't as "tense" as I sounded (I think not getting enough sleep the past three days for medical reasons may have had something to do with it), and I did enjoy a lot of what you said (and the truth behind it). But my feelings are this: the idea of "unity", particularly when as stated by Catholic and Orthodox believers usually ends up being a trump card to pull on Protestant believers to show that they are the "true" church and they know the truth because the church interprets it for them. And if we Protestants would just see that everything would be okay. But the truth is that Catholics and Orthodox churches are just as divided in their own ways (Catholics theologically, Orthodoxs culterally) as we Protestants. So I find such statements can be tiresome and beside the point, usually. I think I was more reacting to that then your statement, which in retrospect was well done and thought provoking. I do apologize if there were any hard feelings. Thanks! John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/12/2001 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Time is very short so just a few thoughts:
1. I have not stated my opinion about this issue as of yet.
2. I referred to Wink because I thought his agruments to be a needed contribution to the conversation thus far.
3. Chance, your (and my!) homophobic feelings on this are, frankly, irrelevant. I suspect that a gay man would find the idea of having sex with a woman equally repugnant. Discernment is required to recognize whether something is of God, or you just wish/assume it was. The question for me is to what extent will I stand by and watch people pretend that the issues around homosexuality (and more importantly, sexuallity in general!!) are neat and clean with regard to the Bible.
4. Two important issues are at stake here, in my mind:
a. What is the third use of the law and when and how does it apply? Related to this will be the question of walking by the Spirit (and thereby the spirit of the law) rather than the Law (or the letter of the law, which has been shown to be dead).
b. What do these biblical teachings (re: Spirit/Law or spirit/letter or even "strong"/"weak") about application of truth in our lives have to say about what we should expect to settle by straight up appeal to Scripture?
5.Even if we grant Wink's perspective, I do not think that this necessarily calls into question the inspiration of Scripture or even its infallibility. God got done what needed to be done in that time and in that place through Paul (and others, elsewhere). We now are responsible to go before God and see what is the Word of God for our time and our place. As Wink clearly shows, whether we agree with this methodologically or not, we DO THIS in practice. How many of you can say that you uphold the WHOLE list of Biblical sexual mores Wink talked about in his article? Are we okay with such hypocrasy? Will you be obedient and marry you dead brother's wife AND propogate? Or will you explain this away by some appeal to cultural changes and what not...? Pretty straight forward challenge really. What intrigues me about Wink's article is its clean and clear logic. Are we satisfied with our hypocrasy because gays represent only 10% or whatever of us? Let' at least be honest about this stuff! Again, I have not set my own position out here, I am just trying to work through the logic of the arguments being used...jus' call me "mini-meph"
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
Edited by - Modesofthought on 08/12/2001 10:17:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/12/2001 5:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the kind thoughts and words, writerdad. Since I'm a big tangent here this will be short. That Evdokimov quote (in bold) was probably pretty compacted in French or Russian before translation into English. To strip it to the bones it doesn't look bad: "It means correct, right doctrine but also. . .the direct experience of God, the source of unity. " Meaning, being actually led by the Spirit is the source of unity, and not just correct doctrine (not to discount what is already canonized as that leading). Thankfully that evades the externalized "idea of 'unity'" we both agree is....whatever.
This is interesting........back to the main contributors!
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/12/2001 6:59 PM (GMT -6) | | I am interested in taking a look at something that is around what Chance is talking about (Modes, just because someone is repulsed by homosexuality doesn't mean they are homophobic... if one is repulsed by shopping, does that make them a shopphobic...homophobic, what an overused and misused word!).
To start, I assume that those who claim to be Christian and are serious about it, want to do things that give God glory. Make God proud. Reflect well on God.
Which brings me to the subject at hand: does it? I think that the word homosexual allows people to not look at what is entailed in homosexuality in the same way that the word abortion gives people an out in not looking at what happens to a fetus. So I am curious: does a homosexual sex act give glory to God? I think it is a fair question to ask, if christians are going to condone it: I am interested to know if others truly think that man on man sex is glorfying to God? Should anal sex be on the same level as sexual intercourse bewteen men and women? I am sure that Modes will think I am being homophobic, but I think it is valid to know that common sense tells us that they are not on the level and I think this is an area that people have lost. Everything must be "explained." But, you know, some things are not natural and therefore are wrong. Men on men do not "fit" together, their bodies are not made for such things. I believe that is common sense. Anyway, I have been pondering the subject these past couple days because it seems to me that one should look hard at what one is accepting, if one condones such things. As christians we live to glorfiy God. Does such acts do that? John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/12/2001 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | POW: on the subject we are discussing, I think you hit on something I have been pondering and I have come to this conclusion: theology without an experience of God seems to not be life changing. John 17:3 Harold
Edited by - writerdad on 08/13/2001 12:08:52 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 8/12/2001 7:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes: while not trying to start an argument, I must profess that I DO believe that the issues of homosexuality in the Bible is pretty "neat and clean." I believe it is condemned by scripture and is a sin. Having said that, I urge you to proceed with your investigation, that is if you can stand by and watch me pretend (just a light joke). In disagreement>>>John 17:3 Harold
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/12/2001 7:43 PM (GMT -6) | | "Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK
"...theology without an experience of God seems to not be life changing." writerdad
"Lord, let Thy servant now depart in peace according to thy word, for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people, a light to enlighten the Gentiles and to the glory of Thy people Israel. St. Symeon (Lk. 2:29-31)
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 8/13/2001 9:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Harold, I have not cast the stones you are dodging...additionally, I will continue to pursue this issue as you urged, but probably not here.
POW: I appreciate your spirit of peacemaking here!
"simple faith is beautiful, simplistic judgment demonic." | | Back to Top | | |
| 28 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:46 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 |
|
|