 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > A Gay Man Defends Himself | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/17/2003 6:08 AM (GMT -6) |   | Icon: "If homosexuals experiencing your words as unloving..." I would expect it would depend on your definition of the word love. I am not one who believes that love is always a feel good kind of thing. Many times we are doing things that are bad for us and don't want to hear about it and, therefore, anything anyone would say against what we are doing would be preceived by us as "unloving." So I find your question more colored by your view of how love could be preceived rather than what a loving Christian would truly do.
I would add, though, that this is not an endorsement (or a condemning) of the post you are responding to. It is simply a pointing out of what I believe is fundmentally wrong with your question.
Edited by - honorman on 03/17/2003 11:10:04 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/17/2003 9:36 AM (GMT -6) | | the Bible tells us what love is by pointing us to Jesus Christ.
1John 3:16 We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.
1John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.
1John 4:9 God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him.
1John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.
1John 4:11 Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another.
1John 4:12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.
Bottom line: We love in a biblical sense to the extent that we look like Christ on the cross. We love by giving up our life for another, even when they hate us, wrong us, and even are the ones killing us. People don't see God, but they are supposed to see him by seeing and experiencing his love in us.
Not only this, but Paul adds that UNLESS THIS HAPPENS, there's nothing else worth happening (I Cor 13:1-4).
So, I would answer honorman on Iconoclast's behalf by saying that, unless a person is convinced by the nature and content of our interaction that we love them and would do anything for them, as they are -- our interaction has been altogether worthless by Kingdom standards. We can express right beliefs and moral convinctions -- but if THIS KIND OF LOVE hasn't been conveyed, we've done nothing worthwhile. Indeed, we've probably done more harm than good. For we have probably fed ourselves with our own righteousness while reenforcing in others mind the expected sterotype of Christians.
The question, "How can we concretely demonstrate outrageous Christ-like love for homosexuals?" is therefore far more important than the questions, " Is homosexuality ever the best option for individuals? What exactly do the three NT passages on the topic mean? etc..." Being right on the latter questions is worthless if we're missing the mark on the first question.
In my own life, I'm not even CLOSE to loving EVEN MY FRIENDS -- let alone strangers, let alone people radically different than me, let alone people hostile to me -- in a Christ-like manner.
But I find that, in times when I AM loving like this, the more academic questions of "what does God think about this or that in a persons life" seem to answer themselves. The very act of loving them sees to help bring God into their life and gives God a chance to move in their life in loving, transformative ways.
I thus don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way.
I know that some readers may be shocked, once again, that a "Christian pastor" would say such a thing. The confession of imperfect love probably doesn't bother anyone... but the confession that the details of my ethics aren't worked out, and that this doesn't bother me, may be unsettling.
But why is THIS? What does it say about the priorities of those who would judge in this way? Shouldn't my lack of love be a greater indication of my being unqualified than the incompleteness of my ethics?
In process,
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 3/17/2003 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | | I think I just found my next profile signature quote:
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
Bingo. This is one of the main reasons I have not been able to post for some time (other than radical time constraints). I simply don't have the ability to maintain a loving mindset long enough for some of these dialogues. I have been recently challenged to get back out here and "practice" and I am considering that.
Thanks for the example, doc. Much appreciated.
"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 | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/17/2003 10:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Here I'm worried about my confession being shocking -- and MODES wants to make it a signature quote. Go figger!!!!
I'm honored Modes. And get back to "practicing"! 
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/17/2003 12:02 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm sure glad Paul had his "ethics" worked out before he decided to write the New Testament. Or perhaps he didn't and we should simply "wing it as we go."
I think the question is not: "is homosexuality the best option for an individual," but rather what lifestyle does God call us to?
Perhaps, Doctor Boyd, given that you don't feel "A certain burden" to preach on certain ethics because your love is imperfect, that perhaps you may reframe from preaching at all, given the logic of such a statement. I mean, I am sure you don't feel you have perfected your view on the issue of free choice, or prophecy, or several of the topics the Bible teaches on. Perhaps we all should reframe from such things, given that only God is perfect and only he can perfectly love. I mean, really, why attempt anything at all? Are we not all destined to fail and reap an "unloving" attitude, given our imperfections? Isn't the best course simply to not take a stand on anything, rather than risk actually being wrong?
I am not shocked by such a statement. It is typical of many pastors today who don't want to "alienate" people, or be cast in an "unloving" light, as if all those who would attempt to love people by actually pointing out that their lifestyle choice may be the reason that their lives are so screwed up are "judgmental, hate-filled Pharisees". Perhaps love is more than making a person "feel" good about where they are but rather getting them to deal with the actual realities of sin and what it is doing to them. Perhaps love may actually hurt just a little. But then, perhaps, that is unloving and there is risk involved in doing something that actually challenges people to look at their lives in a harsh light, rather than in a "God loves you, so don't worry so much about it." The challenge of a Christian is not to be popular, but to be truthful, regardless of the perception of the world at large. We are to follow Christ's example, but Christ was equally harsh on those who needed it, that they may by the rod come back to God. Ruthless love is love that may be perceived as hate because it responds to each situation as it needs, not as the public wishes it to.
As for your statements Doctor Boyd, such statements only give pause, and the need to pray...
Edited by - honorman on 03/17/2003 5:09:54 PM
Edited by - honorman on 03/17/2003 5:17:32 PM
Edited by - honorman on 03/17/2003 5:24:51 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/17/2003 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | SeaN: my point was simply an issue of a heart. I do believe there are homosexuals who find God, and slide back into their sin. But, for a person to believe that their homosexuality is right in the eyes of God, shows a true lack of relationship with God, and therefore I do not believe one can be a Christian at that point. I am not saying they will never backslide, or struggle, only that during that struggle, in their hearts, they know such a thing is wrong to God. I think we agree on the issue...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/17/2003 12:54 PM (GMT -6) | | By the way, it should be noted that while the cross is the ultimate sign of God's love, it isn't God's only statement on love. Paul had a lot of things to say, Jesus' life had a lot to say. So we should not simply confine ourselves to the cross (or someone's interpretation of what it means) in how we live our lives. To do so would render the rest of the New Testament meaningless.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/17/2003 12:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Point taken honorman, As for Dr. Boyd’s input on love, open theism plays a big role in his applying too much of one thing, and not enough of another. A book I highly recommend is Bruce Ware’s, God’s Lesser Glory.
Much thought,
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne | | Back to Top | | |
|
shell
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 280
| Posted 3/17/2003 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg:
quote:
So, I would answer honorman on Iconoclast's behalf by saying that, unless a person is convinced by the nature and content of our interaction that we love them and would do anything for them, as they are -- our interaction has been altogether worthless by Kingdom standards. We can express right beliefs and moral convinctions -- but if THIS KIND OF LOVE hasn't been conveyed, we've done nothing worthwhile. Indeed, we've probably done more harm than good. For we have probably fed ourselves with our own righteousness while reenforcing in others mind the expected sterotype of Christians....
But I find that, in times when I AM loving like this, the more academic questions of "what does God think about this or that in a persons life" seem to answer themselves. The very act of loving them sees to help bring God into their life and gives God a chance to move in their life in loving, transformative ways.
I thus don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way.
I know that some readers may be shocked, once again, that a "Christian pastor" would say such a thing. The confession of imperfect love probably doesn't bother anyone... but the confession that the details of my ethics aren't worked out, and that this doesn't bother me, may be unsettling.
Shell: Shocked? No...just very moved. I was so convicted myself after reading this post....in the very gentle, loving way that the Holy Spirit works. The right beliefs and moral convictions expressed without love truly become weapons that wound deeply. At the forefront of our minds needs to rest the question "am I representing Christ's love through what I am saying and doing?" Everything should be filtered through the state of our heart and mind being centerd on the love of Christ.
(1 Corinthians 13:4-8) Am I being patient in this situation? Kind? Am I being envious, boastful, proud or rude in any way? Am I being self-seeking, was I easily angered, am I keeping a record of wrongs done against me? Am I delighting in evil or rejoicing in the TRUTH? Am I protecting...mmmm(did I protect someone's reputation even though they hurt me?)...trusting? Hoping? And am I persevering? LOVE NEVER FAILS.
This somehow often seems to be preached as secondary to being righteous, or having the correct beliefs, taking the right "stands" on issues. I could just weep at the centrality of this issue. Again.
Thanks Doc.
Shell
ps. Maybe I am not thinking of this correctly... but because life is so complex and we are blinded by our own sin and experiences from our past, and the longer I am in prayer ministry, ministering to hurting people, and am closely connected with individuals that are homosexual it kind of scares me to think of a pastor that thinks he has his ethics completely worked out in detail. I grew up in a legalistic church environment where the denomination as a whole(when I was really young anyway) seemed to have clear lines drawn around every area of life. They certainly thought they had the ethical thing down...but I saw so many people were being damaged by that type of system???? Just questioning this.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/17/2003 4:43 PM (GMT -6) | | footnote: For insights into Doc's personal motives, see honorman's above posted insights. For insights into Doc's theological motives, see Sean's above posted insights. For an alternative perspective, see Doc.
just jabb'n for fun
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/17/2003 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman
We are to follow Christ's example, but Christ was equally harsh on those who needed it, that they may by the rod come back to God.
Iconoclast
Hmmm…I can think of lots of examples where Jesus was harsh on the Pharisees for being judgmental of other people’s sin. But I can’t think of any examples of Jesus being harsh on anyone else.
Oh, I guess there was the time when he was mildly harsh on Martha when she criticized Mary for not doing her share of the work in preparing the food.
Would you say that Jesus was harsh on the woman caught in adultery when He didn’t condemn her but told her to “go and sin no more”? Although, didn’t you post some time ago (under “writerdad”) that “go and sin no more” was probably added to the text? Do you remember your sources for that piece of data?
Who else was Jesus harsh to except to all of us in general when he said in the sermon on the mount that we were all hypocrites and total sinners?
Peter? – “Get behind me Satan”
Judas – when he criticized the woman for pouring fine ointment on the Jesus feet – fine ointment that could have been sold and the money given to the poor.
All I can think of at the moment.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
AlyoshaKaramazov
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 49
| Posted 3/17/2003 7:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman said:
quote:
Isn't the best course simply to not take a stand on anything, rather than risk actually being wrong?
Honorman, it doesn't follow from what Doc said that this is the case.
Honorman also said:
quote:
Perhaps love is more than making a person "feel" good about where they are but rather getting them to deal with the actual realities of sin and what it is doing to them. Perhaps love may actually hurt just a little.
Again, whose position are you attacking? It seemed that doc was just pointing out the priority of Christ-like love among believers, not that he was forbidding ever confronting a person believed to be acting in a sinful way.
Doc said:
quote:
But I find that, in times when I AM loving like this, the more academic questions of "what does God think about this or that in a persons life" seem to answer themselves. The very act of loving them sees to help bring God into their life and gives God a chance to move in their life in loving, transformative ways.
I thus don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way.
Isn't this true? Who could possibly disagree? How many Christians have simply got in someone's face and condemned their actions without "radical Christ-like love"--a bajillion, that's how many. Now, how effective is this in bringing people to God--not very. How many times is it declared not effective because of the person's "hardness of heart" or "moral problem"? Answer: a lot, as this explanation is THE classic evangelical omni-explanation. Now, I'm NOT denying that these factors don't play a role (even decisive roles), I'm just trying to suggest that the morally enlightened (Christians) bear responsibility for how the message is delivered--with love. The other way is easy because it doesn't require the Christian to love the person. Furthermore, loving a person is not equivalent to telling them they're trapped in a sinful lifestyle--it IS that, but it is also MUCH MORE.
Outty,
Tony
"Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."--Paul Simon | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/18/2003 12:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Honorman,
A good place to go for info and links is NARTH:
http://www.narth.com/
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/18/2003 6:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Sean: I wanted to further address a point. My point is not that homosexuals may not be born that way(not that this is an excuse), nor that they will not struggle with their specific sin, or any such thing. In fact, I would be surprised if a homosexual after becoming a Christian didn't fall back into their sin, just as it would be surprising if a alcoholic did not relapse. That isn't my point.
Nor do I think we should not support and be there for them. My point is simply that when one is in relationship with God, one knows what sin is and to believe that homosexuality is somehow pleasing to God, one cannot know God. This is a seperate issue than falling back into sin or struggling with sin...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/18/2003 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | By the way Sean, thanks for the infor...your point is well taken about Doctor Boyd as well...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/18/2003 6:51 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman
My point is simply that when one is in relationship with God, one knows what sin is and to believe that homosexuality is somehow pleasing to God, one cannot know God.
Iconoclast
One may know (to some extent) what sin is for ONESELF. However, it is simply false to think that therefore one can know what sin is for another person.
There are two challenges to this thought you are presenting honorman:
1. It is self-evidently false that the second you enter into a relationship with God you suddenly know everything that is a sin. We all experience growing in learning more and more about areas where we sin.
2. It is false that we can know what sin is for someone else based upon Paul saying that for some to eat meat (meat that was sacrificed to the temple gods) is sin for them because they feel it to be sin and yet it is not sin for Paul to eat meat because he has faith that it is not sin.
Just because you feel so strongly that it is a sin to engage in homosexual sex for yourself does not mean that it is a sin for someone who has faith that it is not a sin. If you were one of those folks who felt strongly that it was a sin to eat meat sacrificed to the temple gods would you tell Paul the same thing as you are telling us right now? And then, how would you deal with Paul's answer about it not being sin because Paul has faith that it is not a sin? Would you tell Paul that since he obviously doesn't know that it IS a sin that Paul must not be in a relationship with God?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 03/18/2003 11:52:31 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 3/18/2003 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Gay Mafia? Instead of booze, they trafficked boys.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47987-2003Mar18.html
http://ww2.bakersfield.com/2003/lords/
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/18/2003 7:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Icon: if a person who is in the clutches of homosexuality becomes a Christian, they are delivered from their sins, by God. Homosexuality is a sin, therefore they are forgiven of it and know they are forgiven. They know what they are delivered from because God has delivered them. Just because YOU don't feel strongly about it, doesn't mean it isn't a sin.
Let's face it, there isn't a person out there who doesn't have some opinion on homosexuality. We all know what it is. You do as well (even if you won't admit it).
By the way, Icon, you don't think Christ was hard on the Pharisees out of love? I certainly do. I believe even at that late stage he was hoping some would respond to his love before it was too late. Therefore, the Pharisees are a prime example of God's love.
Comparing temple meat with homosexuality is comparing apples and oranges. You're taking one that was cultural and trying to equate it with one that is universal. Invalid comparsions.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/19/2003 5:23 PM (GMT -6) | | SeanG
Gay Mafia? Instead of booze, they trafficked boys.
Iconoclast
Sean, this is about as bigoted as it gets. This statement says that to be gay is synonomous with engaging in slavery and child-rape. It is an outrageous accusation.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 03/19/2003 10:31:49 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/19/2003 5:27 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman
You do as well (even if you won't admit it).
Iconoclast
Do you have some evidence for this statement or are you invoking your omniscience. If you think you know this out of your omniscience then I have some bad news for you.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/19/2003 5:44 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman
By the way, Icon, you don't think Christ was hard on the Pharisees out of love? I certainly do. I believe even at that late stage he was hoping some would respond to his love before it was too late. Therefore, the Pharisees are a prime example of God's love.
Iconoclast
I totally agree with you here honorman. Jesus was indeed demonstrating God’s love to the Pharisees. Love sometimes requires a “stop action”. Whenever someone is hurting another person a “stop action” is required. The Pharisees were devastating people (and mostly themselves of course) by their insistence that God was to be found through scrupulous adherence to the letter of the law rather than through loving people where they are at AND teaching others to do the same.
Mat 23:13 - But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Mat 23:15 – Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/19/2003 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/19/2003 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman
In time you will admit the truth, Icon.
Iconoclast
Ahhhh...so it's your omniscience mechanism after all. 
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/19/2003 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman
Comparing temple meat with homosexuality is comparing apples and oranges. You're taking one that was cultural and trying to equate it with one that is universal. Invalid comparsions.
Iconoclast
You are claiming here that there is a universal prohibition against homosexuality. Do you have some evidence for this or are you using your omniscience mechanism again?
1. Clearly we know that some sins are culturally determined. Therefore it is probable that there other variables that condition whether some particular behavior is sin or not. Perhaps, things like physiological conditions. What might be “natural” for some particular physiological condition might be totally “unnatural” for some other physiological condition.
2. We know that Solomon said that there is a time for everything under the sun. Ecc 3:1 - For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven. Clearly this suggests that any particular action is highly conditioned as to whether it is a sin or not. Why, there must be an enormous number of variables that condition whether some behavior is a sin or not.
3. Look what Peter said about the Gentiles needing to keep the Mosaic law in Acts Chapter 15:
quote:
Acts 15:5-11
But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
Act 15:28-29
For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."
Hmmmm…didn’t say anything about homosexuality. Moreover, Peter was very specific here about abstaining from “what has been sacrificed to idols”. Now, this was the exact issue (eating meat sacrificed to idols) that Paul said was only sin to those whose faith was weak! So what up with that? Whatever does NOT proceed from faith IS sin? Whatever DOES proceed from faith is NOT sin?
Yet you are convinced that homosexual behavior is a universal sin for every single person on the planet that is not conditioned by ANYTHING.
Does this verse give you any pause at all?
John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Jesus is giving the Pharisees a really, really hard time here for insisting that they know exactly what sin is.
honorman, shouldn’t this at least cause us to admit some possibility that the prohibition regarding homosexuality may NOT be perfectly universal?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/20/2003 12:19 PM (GMT -6) | | In time, I suppose we will all come to acknowledge the truth. Can't wait. Till then, lets dialogue.
Now Icon, I'm tracking with you. I love the challenges you pose, the clarity with which you pose them, the demeanor with which you pose them, and you're willingness to be an irritating source of cognitive dissonance. Honestly, thanks for hang'in in there.
But now a question: Surely YOU hold to some transcultural moral imperatives. For example, thou shalt love. I would think there are many others, all of which follow from the love command (e.g. murder, adultery). How does one determine what IS and IS NOT culturally relative? Would you say "whatever promotes love and/or produces loving consequences"? If so, are there consequences of any actions that we might not be able to see but which God sees and thus tells us to avoid by behaving in such and such ways?
Blessings
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
| 548 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:19 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 |
|
|