Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > A Gay Man Defends Himself

Forum Quick Jump

548 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

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

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/4/2003 11:45 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
GB: 1. How certain are you that the New Testament is infallible in its ethical teachings?

There are reasons why I'm not going to go through Greg's list. Lists like that have a point of view, and determine to a large degree anything that is done with them--and his was "leading." I will remark on this first one though.

As to the "ethical teachings", especially the "ethical" part, I find that I have BOTH a category called "ethics" that I recognize as being misleadingly surfacy, and I also have a category called "ethics" that I recognize as being deeper. so I just want to say: "It depends."

But, turning to DLW, this is his remark:

quote:
Your definition of self-control seems derivative from the traditions of Eastern Catholic church. I think Ike and I, both don't accept that tradition as authoritative.

Are these just a jumble of words? You speak of "Your definition of self-control" but my "definition" is just the text itself.

And in going to the text itself, the the infallible New Testament, divinely inspired, and which express the word of God in human language and constitute a coherent whole, and to which we are to listen with a spirit of obedience as a a personal dialogue between each one of us and Christ. Admittedly, this view of Scripture is addopted from that same tradition of the Eastern Catholic church that you "dissed."

quote:
As Orthodox Christians we are to look everywhere in Scripture for a personal application. We are to ask not just "What does it mean?" but "What does it mean to me?" Scripture is a personal dialogue between the Savior and myself - Christ speaking to me, and me answering. That is the fourth criterion in our Bible reading. (Ware) www.orthodoxeurope.org/theospirit/000005.php

But dissing it is not sufficient debate tactic to dismiss the verses that I posted.

quote:

But I see the crux of the matter to be the same as what the Dessert Fathers hand to us, and in the Scripture passages that talk about it. Here are the NIV verses that came up when "passion" was entered.

Romans 7:5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.

1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Galatians 5:24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

1 Thessalonians 4:5 not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God;

Titus 2:12 It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live selfcontrolled, upright and godly lives in this present age,

Titus 3:3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.

These scripture passages have something to say to us.

(And, as I said above, "I don't think that any studies of particularies of makeup, or of hormones don't matter.")

========================================================

DLW, I also posted something very early on this thread that makes a point, another point that doesn't seem to be recognized in all the sorts of discussion about this topic, BUT which plays out as central. here it is.

quote:
G.K.Chesterton

The determinist does not believe in appealing to the will, but he does believe in changing the environment. He must not say to the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” because the sinner cannot help it.

The determinist does not believe in appealing to the will ... He must not say to the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” because the sinner cannot help it.

BUT THAT IS FALSE. No matter what, the person has a choice of what to do.

To that end I posted the possition that there is really, in actuality, no such a thing as a homosexual until a person makes a choice to be involved in and to pursue the route suggested to themn by temptation. Prior to that the are just a person, and not a "condition."

CHESTERTON: "whatever is totally lacking of a place for the Will and Acts" is evidence of where Determinism is violating its curfew. SIN ALWAYS INVOLVES DECISION. Sin involves a subtle sliding into an abyss; but it always involves choice.

And CHOICE and SELF-CONTROL go together.

It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live selfcontrolled, upright and godly lives in this present age... (Titus 2:12)

PoW

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/04/2003 4:53:22 PM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 6/4/2003 12:10 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

quote:
GB: 1. How certain are you that the New Testament is infallible in its ethical teachings?

As to the "ethical teachings", especially the "ethical" part, I find that I have BOTH a category called "ethics" that I recognize as being misleadingly surfacy, and I also have a category called "ethics" that I recognize as being deeper. so I just want to say: "It depends."

So you will tell us which meaning you are referring to when you write?

quote:

quote:
DLW:Your definition of self-control seems derivative from the traditions of Eastern Catholic church. I think Ike and I, both don't accept that tradition as authoritative.

Are these just a jumble of words? You speak of "Your definition of self-control" but my "definition" is just the text itself.

Confusing. So this is the definition of self-control that was intended by the Bible? How could they imply so much nuance when the very concept of constitutional homosexuality was not present in the world-views of the writers of the Bible?

quote:
And in going to the text itself, the the infallible New Testament, divinely inspired, and which express the word of God in human language and constitute a coherent whole, and to which we are to listen with a spirit of obedience as a a personal dialogue between each one of us and Christ.

You know I don't really care for how you visually manipulate me with all your bolds and underlines. I know you believe very strongly what you do, and these devices do substitute for the intonation and gestures we usually use to signal when we really mean something, but it doesn't acheive that effect with me...

quote:
Admittedly, this view of Scripture is addopted from that same tradition of the Eastern Catholic church that you "dissed."

Look, I'm just saying that Ike and I don't ascribe to this tradition the same level of authority over our Christian walks as you do. I am happy to learn more about it from you, but you shouldn't expect for me to buy into it lock stock and barrel right away at least...

quote:

quote:
As Orthodox Christians we are to look everywhere in Scripture for a personal application. We are to ask not just "What does it mean?" but "What does it mean to me?" Scripture is a personal dialogue between the Savior and myself - Christ speaking to me, and me answering. That is the fourth criterion in our Bible reading. (Ware) www.orthodoxeurope.org/theospirit/000005.php

But dissing it is not sufficient debate tactic to dismiss the verses that I posted.

Then how about hermeneutics? The people who wrote the Bible didn't have a clue about the role of endocrinology in the formation of an individuals sexuality and so their definitions of self-control couldn't have been as nuanced as you set them out to be. As such, we are left with the Eastern Orthodox's traditions and their inherently conservative resistance to change in their teachings/traditions.

quote:

quote:

But I see the crux of the matter to be the same as what the Dessert Fathers hand to us, and in the Scripture passages that talk about it. Here are the NIV verses that came up when "passion" was entered.

Romans 7:5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.

1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Galatians 5:24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.

1 Thessalonians 4:5 not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God;

Titus 2:12 It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live selfcontrolled, upright and godly lives in this present age,

Titus 3:3 At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.

These scripture passages have something to say to us.

Absolutely, but what they do not do is dictate what our answers to the ecclesiastical problem of order regarding homosexuality should be.

quote:

(And, as I said above, "I don't think that any studies of particularies of makeup, or of hormones don't matter.")

Yes, and when we interpret the cosmologies of the Bible, archaeology and geology don't matter either? Part of the problem of order is deciding which aspects of the sinfulness of the world do we take as given and which are more subject for us to be able to change. In this determination the process that determines our sexualities does matter very much indeed!!!

quote:

DLW, I also posted something very early on this thread that makes a point, another point that doesn't seem to be recognized in all the sorts of discussion about this topic, BUT which plays out as central. here it is.

quote:
G.K.Chesterton

The determinist does not believe in appealing to the will, but he does believe in changing the environment. He must not say to the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” because the sinner cannot help it.

The determinist does not believe in appealing to the will ... He must not say to the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” because the sinner cannot help it.

BUT THAT IS FALSE. No matter what, the person has a choice of what to do.

Gee, which one of us is the OVTheist and which one of us fell in love with Reformed-style Calvinism? This does not characterize my position which by no means accepts sexual determinism and an acceptance of the myriad life-styles that exist in our world. When I refer to sexuality as being determined that is just part of the issue, it is not the whole. Constitutional homosexuals are still responsible for how they experience their sexualities.

quote:
To that end I posted the possition that there is really, in actuality, no such a thing as a homosexual until a person makes a choice to be involved in and to pursue the route suggested to themn by temptation. Prior to that the are just a person, and not a "condition."

Then we are using different definitions. I do not experience sexual titillation from the sight of male flesh like I do with the sight of female flesh. Now I suppose that I could derive some sexual pleasure from oral sex from another male as I could from a female, but my preference would clearly be with the latter and I choose to not engage in such acts with either group based on my religious views regarding sexuality and its purpose. I have not done heterosexual acts, as of yet(You know what I mean), so would I be a heterosexual under your definitions?

quote:

CHESTERTON: "whatever is totally lacking of a place for the Will and Acts" is evidence of where Determinism is violating its curfew. SIN ALWAYS INVOLVES DECISION. Sin involves a subtle sliding into an abyss; but it always involves choice.

And CHOICE and SELF-CONTROL go together.

And, regardless of what our sexualities are, we make choices about them. No-one is denying that. We don't choose the hormonal balances that determine the ways in which we feel sexually attracted to others.

quote:

It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live selfcontrolled, upright and godly lives in this present age... (Titus 2:12)

Yes, and our area of contention is whether or not homosexual marriages may serve to help constitutional homosexuals say "No" to ungodliness and worldy passions....

I think you are making too big of a deal out of us not understanding your position. I think we understand it pretty well. We just, as a result of our deliberations, have different answers to the problem of ecclesiastical order re:homosexuality.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Edited by - DLW on 06/04/2003 8:29:39 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/4/2003 6:43 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
PoW: my "definition" is just the text itself.

DLW: Confusing. So this is the definition of self-control that was intended by the Bible? How could they imply so much nuance when the very concept of constitutional homosexuality was not present in the world-views of the writers of the Bible?

The "Free-Church" tradition relies on individual, independant interpretation. It does NOT view Scripture is an incarnation of the Word--God speaking to us. (as does: Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran and Catholic traditions) When you ask, "how could THEY..." which verse's writer do you have in mind: Romans 7:5, 1 Corinthians 7:9, Galatians 5:24, 1 Thessalonians 4:5, Titus 2:12, and Titus 3:3?

A high view, a Catholic view of scripture is this: "the infallible New Testament, divinely inspired, and which expresses the word of God in human language and constitute a coherent whole, and to which we are to listen with a spirit of obedience as a personal dialogue between each one of us and Christ.

Scripture is a coherent whole regarding salvation IN Christ. It is not a resource for mining nuevo-ethical constructions.

The verses listed above do not specifically mention hormonal orientation. Rather, what they TELL US ABOUT is the very goal of our destiny in Christ. ("to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires", "to say 'No' to...worldly passions...live selfcontrolled"). The passions ARE specifically mentioned that is a critical area! And that is integrally linked to our participation in the divine nature of Christ by the Spirit: "so that we may become partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4)

As Robert Rakestraw (Bethel Seminary) writes: Peter writes in his second epistle that our Lord's "divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness," so that through his promises we "may participate in [literally, "become sharers (koinonoi) of"] the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires" (2 Pet. 1:4).

This linkage between "partaking of the divine nature" and "escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires" is tight. The transformation by the Spirit, the partaking of the divine nature, is not "nuanced" by hormones.

"Nuance" is not the point. Transformation IS.

When you ask "How could they imply so much nuance when ... was not present in the world-views of the writers of the Bible?" you are not seeing the forest for the trees, buy have become lost in one single particular. (I'm surprised at you, DLW.) You "nuance" that one particular; but did you then totally leave behind and not pay attention to what the Scriptures said???

____________________________________________________

quote:
You know I don't really care for how you visually manipulate me with all your bolds and underlines. I know you believe very strongly what you do, and these devices do substitute for the intonation and gestures we usually use to signal when we really mean something, but it doesn't acheive that effect with me...

The "bold" were taken from the LINKed source, and filled in with non-bold words. (You are being a control freak when you object to and want to change how someone else posts; and perhaps presumptive when you second-guess why.) Lighten up. (And realize quickly that I teach "visual.")

BUT, are you going to deal with the content; or just complain.

____________________________________________________

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------
As Orthodox Christians we are to look everywhere in Scripture for a personal application. We are to ask not just "What does it mean?" but "What does it mean to me?" Scripture is a personal dialogue between the Savior and myself - Christ speaking to me, and me answering. That is the fourth criterion in our Bible reading. (Ware) http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/theospirit/000005.php
---------------------------------------------------

But dissing it is not sufficient debate tactic to dismiss the verses that I posted.

Then how about hermeneutics? The people who wrote the Bible didn't have a clue about the role of endocrinology in the formation of an individuals sexuality and so their definitions of self-control couldn't have been as nuanced as you set them out to be. As such, we are left with the Eastern Orthodox's traditions and their inherently conservative resistance to change in their teachings/traditions.

Which verse are you talking about, DLW?

"Then how about hermeneutics," INDEED!!!!!!!

The inspired writers of Scripture were entirely expert in "becom[ing] sharers (koinonoi) of" the divine nature and escap[ing] the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." (2 Pet. 1:4). Their hermeneutics in reading the Scriptures they had, and writing the ones they gave us rested in that. (Its in Genesis and in Revelation, and pervades the inbetween.)

quote:
(Romans 7:5, 1 Corinthians 7:9, Galatians 5:24, 1 Thessalonians 4:5, Titus 2:12, and Titus 3:3)

------------------------------------------------------
These scripture passages have something to say to us.
-------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely, but what they do not do is dictate what our answers to the ecclesiastical problem of order regarding homosexuality should be.

You are staring at one single tree, and missing what those scriptures are saying. If you are looking for lockstep instructions, then you are missing the point.

The "ecclesiastical problem", or rather the definition of what is the ecclesia, is really that of being "IN Christ." And it ONLY exists by the Spirit's work in us as Christ's Body.

"...our answers to the ecclesiastical problem of order regarding homosexuality" is YOUR OWN construction.

____________________________________________________

quote:
Part of the problem of order is deciding which aspects of the sinfulness of the world do we take as given and which are more subject for us to be able to change. In this determination the process that determines our sexualities does matter very much indeed!!!

I read you here willing to encorporate some sinfulness/leven into the otherwise transforming participation in the divine nature. (Bells go off!) YOUR "problem of order" only succeeds in giving your own human rationalism the role reserved for the Holy Spirit, and the Word.

____________________________________________________

quote:
G.K.Chesterton: The determinist does not believe in appealing to the will, but he does believe in changing the environment. He must not say to the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” because the sinner cannot help it.

PoW, repeating: The determinist does not believe in appealing to the will ... He must not say to the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” because the sinner cannot help it.

BUT THAT IS FALSE. No matter what, the person has a choice of what to do.

DLW: This does not characterize my position which by no means accepts sexual determinism and an acceptance of the myriad life-styles that exist in our world. When I refer to sexuality as being determined that is just part of the issue, it is not the whole. Constitutional homosexuals are still responsible for how they experience their sexualities.

That's interesting. Lets hold on to that one.

quote:
PoW: To that end I posted the possition that there is really, in actuality, no such a thing as a homosexual until a person makes a choice to be involved in and to pursue the route suggested to themn by temptation. Prior to that the are just a person, and not a "condition."

DLW: Then we are using different definitions.

You say, "Constitutional homosexuals are still responsible for how they experience their sexualities."

NOW, pay close attention to what I said: "...makes a choice to be involved in and to pursue the route suggested to them by temptation." Note the several steps involved. Temptation suggests, and then a "choice to be involved" follows. After that comes action, but sin is already in the door. But any physical responses that you were talking about are even before all that.

Are we "using different definitions?"

quote:
And, regardless of what our sexualities are, we make choices about them. No-one is denying that. We don't choose the hormonal balances that determine the ways in which we feel sexually attracted to others.

So? The choices follow the "hormonal balances" and THEREFORE do NOT "determine", they only potentially affect it. That is proven by the fact that a "straight" Christian expereinces "sexual attraction to others" differently (with self-control) than someone "worldly." Proven. ("...become sharers the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." (2 Pet. 1:4))

quote:
Titus 2:12 "It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live selfcontrolled, upright and godly lives in this present age..."

DLW: Yes, and our area of contention is whether or not homosexual marriages may serve to help constitutional homosexuals say "No" to ungodliness and worldy passions....

DLW: I think you are making too big of a deal out of us not understanding your position. I think we understand it pretty well. We just, as a result of our deliberations, have different answers to the problem of ecclesiastical order re:homosexuality.

PoW: You say, "I think we understand your position pretty well..." But you didn't seem to understand. You seemed significantly OFF.

PoW: You say, "We just, as a result of our deliberations, have different answers to the problem of ecclesiastical order re:homosexuality." But the differences seem bigger than that. You frame it as a "problem of ecclesiastical order" while 2 Peter frames it differently.

I see not different answers to the same question. I'm afraid that there are two different questions -- one Biblical and one Rationalist.

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/04/2003 11:52:10 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 6/4/2003 7:24 PM (GMT -6)

Hi DLW,

I appreciate your taking the time to post this information. What it seems to me the fallacy your friend is engaging in is to argue from a particular to a general. That is, all the of the scenarios he described deal with highly abnormal cases. Hermaphroditism or ambiguous genitalia is certainly a tragic thing. And it seems to me that it is a very different thing from sodomy or the so-called "homosexual orientation."

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 06/05/2003 12:26:50 AM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 6/5/2003 5:01 AM (GMT -6)

Pow give me a little while to respond to you.

quote:

Hi DLW,

I appreciate your taking the time to post this information. What it seems to me the fallacy your friend is engaging in is to argue from a particular to a general. That is, all the of the scenarios he described deal with highly abnormal cases. Hermaphroditism or ambiguous genitalia is certainly a tragic thing. And it seems to me that it is a very different thing from sodomy or the so-called "homosexual orientation."

Hi John,
I'd like your feedback on my response to your prayer in the Problem of Evil link sometime.

My friend was building the case that our sexualities are determined prior to birth by virtue of considering all of the evidence and all of the possible extreme cases of how our sexualities can develop.

I believe we first were attuned to the role of hormones when in Germany, after WWII, a disproportionately high number of constitutional homosexuals were born. It seems the stress of the bombings affected pregnant mothers and made it so that the hormonal system was less likely to switch over as it was supposed to.

I will try and get some of the research of the other researchers he mentioned to show that a lot of research has been done on the development of human sexuality.

My premise is simple, we must take this research seriously, but since as Christians, we do believe in natural evil that does not imply that we endorse all forms of sexuality as "natural".

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Edited by - DLW on 06/05/2003 10:01:51 AM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 6/5/2003 6:27 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

quote:
PoW: my "definition" is just the text itself.

DLW: Confusing. So this is the definition of self-control that was intended by the Bible? How could they imply so much nuance when the very concept of constitutional homosexuality was not present in the world-views of the writers of the Bible?

The "Free-Church" tradition relies on individual, independant interpretation. It does NOT view Scripture is an incarnation of the Word--God speaking to us. (as does: Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran and Catholic traditions) When you ask, "how could THEY..." which verse's writer do you have in mind: Romans 7:5, 1 Corinthians 7:9, Galatians 5:24, 1 Thessalonians 4:5, Titus 2:12, and Titus 3:3?

All of the above, none of the writers understood about how human sexuality is affected by developments that take place prior to birth.

quote:

A high view, a Catholic view of scripture is this: "the infallible New Testament, divinely inspired, and which expresses the word of God in human language and constitute a coherent whole, and to which we are to listen with a spirit of obedience as a personal dialogue between each one of us and Christ.

Scripture is a coherent whole regarding salvation IN Christ. It is not a resource for mining nuevo-ethical constructions.

Yes, but in determining our answers to the ecclesiastical problem of order re:homosexuality, our salvation is not at stake. Now, for us to do as liberal theologians and just accomodate ourselves to the popular views of our time may constitute a rejection of the radical message of Christ, but that is not what I am doing. I am not accomodating myself to gay-rights activists, I am dealing with the facts surrounding homosexuality from a Biblical Christian perspective to the best of my ability.

quote:
The verses listed above do not specifically mention hormonal orientation. Rather, what they TELL US ABOUT is the very goal of our destiny in Christ. ("to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires", "to say 'No' to...worldly passions...live selfcontrolled"). The passions ARE specifically mentioned that is a critical area! And that is integrally linked to our participation in the divine nature of Christ by the Spirit: "so that we may become partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4)

Yes, but our differences revolve around what is meant by self-controlled. I think foregoing anal-intercourse as a constitutional homosexual and being monogamous wrt other forms of intimacy, would be an act of self-control, just as being celibate and then faithful to one's spouse is an act of self-control for a heterosexual.

quote:
As Robert Rakestraw (Bethel Seminary) writes: Peter writes in his second epistle that our Lord's "divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness," so that through his promises we "may participate in [literally, "become sharers (koinonoi) of"] the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires" (2 Pet. 1:4).

This linkage between "partaking of the divine nature" and "escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires" is tight. The transformation by the Spirit, the partaking of the divine nature, is not "nuanced" by hormones.

"Nuance" is not the point. Transformation IS.

What the goal of that transformation is our area of dispute. I am not contesting that there are evil desires among both homosexuals and heterosexuals that need to be escaped from. The question is whether or not monogamous marriages between constitutional homosexuals that hold to the Christian ideal in all other respects may serve to keep them from being corrupted by their evil desires.

quote:
When you ask "How could they imply so much nuance when ... was not present in the world-views of the writers of the Bible?" you are not seeing the forest for the trees, buy have become lost in one single particular. (I'm surprised at you, DLW.) You "nuance" that one particular; but did you then totally leave behind and not pay attention to what the Scriptures said???

No compreno!

quote:

quote:
You know I don't really care for how you visually manipulate me with all your bolds and underlines. I know you believe very strongly what you do, and these devices do substitute for the intonation and gestures we usually use to signal when we really mean something, but it doesn't acheive that effect with me...

The "bold" were taken from the LINKed source, and filled in with non-bold words. (You are being a control freak when you object to and want to change how someone else posts; and perhaps presumptive when you second-guess why.) Lighten up. (And realize quickly that I teach "visual.")

BUT, are you going to deal with the content; or just complain.

I'm sorry I was not being a control freak, but just being honest with how I react to some of your habits in posting. I thought it would be instructive for you to hear my reactions.

quote:

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------
As Orthodox Christians we are to look everywhere in Scripture for a personal application. We are to ask not just "What does it mean?" but "What does it mean to me?" Scripture is a personal dialogue between the Savior and myself - Christ speaking to me, and me answering. That is the fourth criterion in our Bible reading. (Ware) http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/theospirit/000005.php
---------------------------------------------------

But dissing it is not sufficient debate tactic to dismiss the verses that I posted.

Then how about hermeneutics? The people who wrote the Bible didn't have a clue about the role of endocrinology in the formation of an individuals sexuality and so their definitions of self-control couldn't have been as nuanced as you set them out to be. As such, we are left with the Eastern Orthodox's traditions and their inherently conservative resistance to change in their teachings/traditions.

Which verse are you talking about, DLW?

"Then how about hermeneutics," INDEED!!!!!!!

The inspired writers of Scripture were entirely expert in "becom[ing] sharers (koinonoi) of" the divine nature and escap[ing] the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." (2 Pet. 1:4). Their hermeneutics in reading the Scriptures they had, and writing the ones they gave us rested in that. (Its in Genesis and in Revelation, and pervades the inbetween.)

Um, no compreno! So you are saying that because Peter, Paul and John were disciplined in their sexuality the Eastern Orthodox tradition of interpreting the meaning of what they wrote is infallible? They didn't have to hermeneutically analyze what they wrote, we do.

quote:

quote:
(Romans 7:5, 1 Corinthians 7:9, Galatians 5:24, 1 Thessalonians 4:5, Titus 2:12, and Titus 3:3)

------------------------------------------------------
These scripture passages have something to say to us.
-------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely, but what they do not do is dictate what our answers to the ecclesiastical problem of order regarding homosexuality should be.

You are staring at one single tree, and missing what those scriptures are saying. If you are looking for lockstep instructions, then you are missing the point.

The "ecclesiastical problem", or rather the definition of what is the ecclesia, is really that of being "IN Christ." And it ONLY exists by the Spirit's work in us as Christ's Body.

"...our answers to the ecclesiastical problem of order regarding homosexuality" is YOUR OWN construction.

There are ethical situations not fully anticipated in scripture, for which exegesis is necessary but not determinate. As such, we develop traditions, which change over time and are fallible due to our imperfect knowledge. Consider Galileo: The problem was not with Religion per-say, but that the ecclesiastical leadership was giving too much weight or clinging too hard to Aristotelean Science, which Augustine had adopted as the best view of science available for his time.

I consider it wrong to claim as being in Christ when one is really talking about one's adopted answer to ecclesiastical problem of order. I did not construct the reality of the problem of order, I just point it out to demythologize the way others make claims to power on the basis of their access to "Truths".

quote:

quote:
Part of the problem of order is deciding which aspects of the sinfulness of the world do we take as given and which are more subject for us to be able to change. In this determination the process that determines our sexualities does matter very much indeed!!!

I read you here willing to encorporate some sinfulness/leven into the otherwise transforming participation in the divine nature. (Bells go off!) YOUR "problem of order" only succeeds in giving your own human rationalism the role reserved for the Holy Spirit, and the Word.

Well the word doesn't touch upon all the conceivable concrete instances where the Church needs to make judgement calls as to what is right conduct and the Holy Spirit clearly does not negate our ability to get sidetracked on wrong answers as is illustrated by the institutionalisation of anti-semitism within the Christian Church over such a long period of time.

quote:
quote:
G.K.Chesterton: The determinist does not believe in appealing to the will, but he does believe in changing the environment. He must not say to the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” because the sinner cannot help it.

PoW, repeating: The determinist does not believe in appealing to the will ... He must not say to the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” because the sinner cannot help it.

BUT THAT IS FALSE. No matter what, the person has a choice of what to do.

DLW: This does not characterize my position which by no means accepts sexual determinism and an acceptance of the myriad life-styles that exist in our world. When I refer to sexuality as being determined that is just part of the issue, it is not the whole. Constitutional homosexuals are still responsible for how they experience their sexualities.

That's interesting. Lets hold on to that one.

okay!

quote:
quote:
PoW: To that end I posted the possition that there is really, in actuality, no such a thing as a homosexual until a person makes a choice to be involved in and to pursue the route suggested to themn by temptation. Prior to that the are just a person, and not a "condition."

DLW: Then we are using different definitions.

You say, "Constitutional homosexuals are still responsible for how they experience their sexualities."

NOW, pay close attention to what I said: "...makes a choice to be involved in and to pursue the route suggested to them by temptation." Note the several steps involved. Temptation suggests, and then a "choice to be involved" follows. After that comes action, but sin is already in the door. But any physical responses that you were talking about are even before all that.

Are we "using different definitions?"

Yes, because when I refer to homosexual/heterosexual, I am referring to how we are tempted. As a heterosexual, I have the institution of marriage where I can experience my sexuality more fully and not be tempted so much from the evils of the world. The question is whether or not an analogous institution will be helpful for a Constitutional homosexual since they can't just heal themselves and become heterosexuals, or it isn't terribly likely.

I am skipping some stuff that seems repetitive to get down to your final statement.

quote:

PoW: You say, "I think we understand your position pretty well..." But you didn't seem to understand. You seemed significantly OFF.

PoW: You say, "We just, as a result of our deliberations, have different answers to the problem of ecclesiastical order re:homosexuality." But the differences seem bigger than that. You frame it as a "problem of ecclesiastical order" while 2 Peter frames it differently.

I see not different answers to the same question. I'm afraid that there are two different questions -- one Biblical and one Rationalist.

My predilection is against saying that my beliefs regarding the concrete ways in which the Church should cope with the issue at hand are Biblical.

I characterize what I am doing with trying to reconcile my understanding of what the Bible teaches with best understanding of the nature of homosexuality.

My presupposition is that you and the Eastern Orthodox church are doing the same, but making claims to authority by obfuscating the fallible nature of this decision-making process and claiming that your answer is Biblical. It is Biblical in that you do lay claim to the Bible, but you interpret Scripture with understandings of what is Self-Control that stem from your fallible traditions.

I have been willing to consider your traditions, but have decided not to accept them. So don't call me a rationalist for denying you the authority you demand. Humanism started off as a Christian movement that undermined claims to authority done in the name of Christianity, but which abused Scriptures to make a narrow interpretation of it, on an unessential matter, be considered as authoritative and essential for the purpose of salvation.

There is little wonder that such abuses sparked the growth of secularism in Europe and helped undermine Christianity there. That is why a focus on the problem of order gear itself at promoting the need for us to give authority over our lives to ecclesiastical authorities, but to also encourage growth in spiritual maturity among Christians, whereby we do not need to treat our received answers to the ecclesiastical problems of order as infallible and not subject to change.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Edited by - DLW on 06/05/2003 1:04:58 PM

Christian
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78

Posted 6/5/2003 8:00 AM (GMT -6)

DLW said, "Bull-shit!!" Is this necessary DLW?

Perhaps you should consider conducting this conversation via personal emails with PotonWheel. I, for one, do not care to read your expletives. It is a known fact that expletives in writing do little other than to alienate the audience. I do not agree with your world viewpoint and see that you enjoy dominating threads and often appoint yourself as speaker for the whole (you make comments such as "we" speaking for all persons on this topic board when Iconoclast seems to be the only one in agreement with you) with disregard to the whole. It appears to me that on this topic board you are in the minority with your beliefs (homosexuality, abortion, ) and resemble a blindfolded man angrily swinging at a rotating pinata that he cannot seem to break.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 6/5/2003 8:03 AM (GMT -6)

I'm sorry. I'll go back and delete that expression.

It is not a matter of agreeing with my world-view. But rather coming to terms with the importance of endocrinology in the development of human sexuality and recognizing that scripture does not give the end-all-be-all answer to how we Christians should relate to homosexuals.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Edited by - DLW on 06/05/2003 1:14:32 PM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 6/5/2003 8:38 AM (GMT -6)

I would like to repeat my earlier request that Christian introduce her(him)self some more prior to getting rather involved with these links.

No offense,
dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 6/5/2003 10:31 AM (GMT -6)

DLW: I thought I'd give you a general response that will end my involvement in this post considering I find the whole homosexual issue overdone here with nothing new beign said.
I do not need statistics because I start with whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality. After much research I am convinced it does. If it didn't I still would think it is wrong. Regardless, I find your use of "extreme" case studies pointless. One does not argues from extremes to make a point but the common. One can prove just about anything one wants to in the weird and off beat.
Having said thus, I find the whole attitude of allowing celibete homosexuals to live together inane and a condoning of sin. What's next? Allowing penophiles to live with children in abstanation? Sin is sin and we all have our weak areas. To say that something is sin and then to allow people to live together but without commiting the sin (wink wink) is to sin against God. Why not just let alcholics live with booze but not drink. Or those in love with porn to have the magazines around but not read them.
Your attitude comes from the perception (which I do not agree with) in many parts of the Christian community that because we have "persecuted" homosexuals we owe them a greater tolerance and simpathy. While we owe all sinners love, we do a great diservice to homosexuals by adopting your "brand" of "theycan'thelpit" theology. Far better to encourage them to struggle within their sin like the rest of us, giving it to God when they are weak.
I believe we all are "wired" toward a particular sin, that we all have some sin of great weakness. But condoning any sin only drags us further down. Your attitude only compounds the pain of homosexuals by driving the wedge between them and God further.

Edited by - honorman on 06/05/2003 3:33:44 PM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 6/5/2003 10:58 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

DLW: I thought I'd give you a general response that will end my involvement in this post considering I find the whole homosexual issue overdone here with nothing new beign said.
I do not need statistics because I start with whether or not the Bible condemns homosexuality. After much research I am convinced it does. If it didn't I still would think it is wrong. Regardless, I find your use of "extreme" case studies pointless. One does not argues from extremes to make a point but the common. One can prove just about anything one wants to in the weird and off beat.
Having said thus, I find the whole attitude of allowing celibete homosexuals to live together inane and a condoning of sin. What's next? Allowing penophiles to live with children in abstanation? Sin is sin and we all have our weak areas. To say that something is sin and then to allow people to live together but without commiting the sin (wink wink) is to sin against God. Why not just let alcholics live with booze but not drink. Or those in love with porn to have the magazines around but not read them.
Your attitude comes from the perception (which I do not agree with) in many parts of the Christian community that because we have "persecuted" homosexuals we owe them a greater tolerance and simpathy. While we owe all sinners love, we do a great diservice to homosexuals by adopting your "brand" of "theycan'thelpit" theology. Far better to encourage them to struggle within their sin like the rest of us, giving it to God when they are weak.
I believe we all are "wired" toward a particular sin, that we all have some sin of great weakness. But condoning any sin only drags us further down. Your attitude only compounds the pain of homosexuals by driving the wedge between them and God further.

quick response:yes, nothing new is being said. But some things are worth repeating like how the Bible condemns homosexual acts, not homosexuals since the concept of homosexuality was not part of their world-view.
We are born into sinful situations and indeed are wired for numerous sorts of sins. But being wired for something, doesn't make that wiredness a sin. We understand now better the process that wires us to be attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex, much better than we did before. Just as people are born with genetic flaws, so are people born with a hormonal balance other than that befitting their sex. Both cases are tragic and examples of natural evil, but the person born like that is not at fault.

The area of dispute on this thread is how we take this into account in how we seek to develop habits/institutions that will keep homosexuals from falling into a very sinful lifestyle and, very importantly, how do we get them to put themselves in the community of the Church and accept its governance over their sexuality. It also is of relevance since it bears on understanding the intrinsic difficulty of overcoming an attraction to people of the same sex for constitutional homosexuals.

That is all.
dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Edited by - DLW on 06/05/2003 4:01:28 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/5/2003 11:22 AM (GMT -6)

Yeah!

What Honorman said!

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 6/5/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6)

Oh Yeah,

What Iconoclast said!

and then what Jesus did..., he weeped.
dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Edited by - DLW on 06/05/2003 4:46:17 PM

Christian
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78

Posted 6/5/2003 7:23 PM (GMT -6)

I don't care to get caught up in this particular topic but I read Honorman's recent comments and wanted to put in my 2 cents that I thought his comments were EXTREMELY well written (said). The Spirit was obviously speaking through you (honorman) as you were writing. Praise the Lord for the courage of those who uphold the truth even when their own fellow Christians call them judgmental for doing so.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/6/2003 3:59 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Oh Yeah,

What Iconoclast said!

and then what Jesus did..., he weeped. dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Edited by - DLW on 06/05/2003 4:46:17 PM

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

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

Christian: thanks for your very kind words. I tried to show that homosexuality is either sin in the Bible or not. If it is, we have to oppose it (though lovely), not give it a back door. I also tried to show that too many times people overcomplicate something that is not that hard to understand, in the name of some notion of "love." Finally, making certain sins special, deserving of special treatment does nothing more than hinder effective repentance and restoration of the person to God. We all have our weaknesses, things that derail us. Homosexuals are not unique in this regard, evermind if it wasn't a part of their "worldview" back then.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 6/6/2003 11:29 AM (GMT -6)

I hope to post links to scientific works on the evidence for the constitutionality of some homosexuality.

I hope that we can be opened minded enough to check them out.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/6/2003 5:09 PM (GMT -6)

"Background!"

Background is an issue.

The "Background" is that this World and everything in it, both sensible and intelligible are created by God. And DLW knows that too. DLW admits that while there may be "evidence for the constitutionality of some homosexuality" that it is a result of the fall, and therefore less than God's good plan. That he admits. But there is something else that escapes his attention, over and over again. I'll let Moody Bible Radio make the point for me this time. Let's see him try and accuse them of being "foreigners" and "Eastern Orthodox Christians. (I don't hold Moody's orthodoxy against him!!!)

I wrote:

quote:
Today I was thinking about Ephesians 4: 13

12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until[u/] we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. 14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.

"..until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." ANYTHING that leads to the fullness of Christ, no matter how hard, is worth it. In whatever state God allows, He also promises to work side-by-side with us. And God is faithful in every instance.

As the Church we also have to work side-by-side with everyone who is weak, or even just challenged. (Don't assume that everyone with this 'challenge' is weak. Neither encourage them to sin, saying that it is OK, that this is some hidden sacrament.)

Moody Radio, a few days ago, about 3 PM when I was on the freeway going to pick up my kids, had a DJ who intersperced quotes between song-sets. One was by Moody -- a typical "three kinds of Christians" -- but not one that I could find quoted on the internet. (which has many copies of one quote). The point was that from the one Gospel of John three stages of Spiritual maturity are illustrated.

Moving Children of God through those stages is the singular work of the Church.

D.L. Moody and The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, Bartholomew I. would agree!!!!

Here, at long last, is Moody's response:

quote:
Greetings from WMBI!

Judy used this quote on her afternoon show. It's from a book called They Found The Secret, by V. Raymond Edman.

"It seems to me we have got about three classes of Christians: the first class, in the 3rd chapter of John, were those who had got to Calvary and there got life. They believed on the Son and were saved, and there they rested satisfied. They did not seek anything higher. Then in the 4th chapter of John we come to a better class of Christians. There it was a well of living water bubbling up. There are a few of these, but they are not a hundredth part of the first class. But the best class is in the 7th chapter of John: 'Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." That is the kind of Christian we ought to be...

"A great many think because they have been filled once, they are going to be full for all time after; but, O, my friends, we are leaky vessels, and have to be kept right under the fountain all the time in order to keep full. If we are going to be used by God we have to be very humble. A man that lives close to God will be the humbles of men. I heard a man say that God always chooses the vessel that is close at hand. Let us keep near Him."

THAT is the "background" against which everything else must be considered. THAT is, as Christ says to us through the Scriptures saying to us:

quote:
"...mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ..."

BECOMING THAT IT THE ONLY GOAL. IT IS THE ONLY BACKGROUND AGAINST WHICH EVERYTHING ELSE HAS MEANING.

Merely getting by without conflict is shortsighted. It is not true.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 6/7/2003 8:34 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

"Background!"

Background is an issue.

The "Background" is that this World and everything in it, both sensible and intelligible are created by God. And DLW knows that too. DLW admits that while there may be "evidence for the constitutionality of some homosexuality" that it is a result of the fall, and therefore less than God's good plan. That he admits. But there is something else that escapes his attention, over and over again. I'll let Moody Bible Radio make the point for me this time. Let's see him try and accuse them of being "foreigners" and "Eastern Orthodox Christians. (I don't hold Moody's orthodoxy against him!!!)

Are we going to have to debate Evolution on this link as well? Our knowledge of the world does change with time. I.e., we do know a lot more about endocrinology and dna than was known in biblical times. My point is that because we are dealing with a "natural" evil and our knowledge is incomplete regarding it, this makes our answers to the ecclesiastical problem of order re:homosexuality fallible and subject to some changes.

Below you use terms like "fullness of Christ", encourage them to sin, which I again restate biblically is "homosexual acts". We often have thorns in our flesh that will never be removed in this lifetime, like alcoholism or schizophrenia and constitutional homosexuality. The question is what sorts of institutions should the Church endorse to guide constitutional homosexuals in right conduct. We have different answers to that question. But I do not say the Church should condone anal intercourse between male homosexuals. They should not become one like a married male and female become. And apart from the religious reasons, there are some good practical reasons why this should not be done(I remember reading about how gay-porn people were trying to sensationalize oral sex acts so as to encourage them as alternatives to anal sex.). So I think they can practice some self-restraint.

I don't intend to dissect the rest. A lot of it seems to me to be casuistry. I am not getting by without conflict, just redefining my beliefs to fit what is the status quo "liberal" viewpoints. If you will reread my account of my dialogue with my gay-activist friends, there was very very much conflict between us and they didn't like my position at all based on its reasonableness and how it undermined their campaign to paint their opposition as non-thinking homophobic brutes.

So if the river don't seem to you to be flowing, I will have to be thankful that such judgments are not left up only to you.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 6/7/2003 2:36 PM (GMT -6)

And I hope you can be open enough to recognize in all matters it speaks on, the Bible comes first...

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 6/8/2003 5:39 AM (GMT -6)

Yes, but we must interpret the Bible and you are misinterpreting the Bible to think that it refers to homosexuality instead of homosexual acts.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 6/8/2003 6:34 AM (GMT -6)

Wrong again, DLW, but thats okay. God forgives our preconceptions. I suggest you read scripture without them...

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 6/8/2003 6:38 AM (GMT -6)

Actually the Bible condemns sin, have we forgotten that?

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 6/8/2003 7:00 AM (GMT -6)

"What is being depicted to individuals is a 'user-friendly' God who will smile benignly down upon their lifestyles of choice, as they continue to live as they like."

Greg Laurie, The Great Compromise

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/8/2003 9:53 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
dlw

Yes, but we must interpret the Bible and you are misinterpreting the Bible to think that it refers to homosexuality instead of homosexual acts.

Dave, I think that you confuse even yourself.

honorman does not take issue with someone having temptations towards the same gender ("homosexuality"), only with the sin of acting on those temptaions ("homosexual acts"). But you first defend the former and then expect those who agree to not "condemn" the person to let you 'sliiiiiide' in just a bit of the later.

We aren't fooled that easily.

And if you doubt that honorman would embrace the former...just ask him.

548 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:43 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual