 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > A Gay Man Defends Himself | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/4/2003 1:14 AM (GMT -6) |   | 2 Peter 1:20 "...knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. 21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit."
Greg wrote: "how much should our personal revelations/experiences (like Peter's vision) and/or our perception of the Holy Spirit's moving (like Peter's perception in Acts 10) affect our INTERPRETATION and APPLICATION of Scripture?"
PoW: As Peter, the Apostle wrote, "no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation."
Here's those you can consult with!
www.bgcworld.org/states/state_10.htm | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/4/2003 4:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Case closed.
LOL
catalystresources.org/issues/222dodd.html
From the above article:
quote:
In this larger co-text Paul gives multiple indications of what is included in the scope of the catch-all term “sexual immorality” (porneia—cf. Gal 5:19; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3), including incest (5:1) and involvement with prostitutes (6:13-20). In 6:9-10 the list is expanded to include adultery, and passive and active homoeroticism. But we find in 7:2 the most revealing passage about what Paul considers porneia: “on account of porneia let each man have his own wife, and each woman have her own husband.” Paul here sets “sexual immorality” against the broader biblical framework of marriage as the proper context for sexual expression. Appeal to Gen 2:24 is to the point since Paul cites this very scriptural tradition in 6:16 as an explanation of the marital-sexual bonding between man and woman: “The two shall become one flesh.” It is this marital expression of sexuality that Paul sets at the rhetorical climax of this section (1 Corinthians 7), building up to this solution after thoroughly portraying the plight of improper sexual expression in the previous two chapters. Thus homoeroticism is not singled out as somehow worse than other forms of porneia, but merely as one other example of it. For Paul, sex is for marriage, which by biblical definition is consummated by sexual intercourse between one man and one woman.
quote:
Paul stands in line with a long ethical tradition of Judaism that condemned all homosexual practice (as Scroggs is well aware [66-98]), and Scroggs himself acknowledges that Paul identifies with this OT tradition as echoed in his coinage of the lexeme arsenokoitai.
The first time arsenokoitai is ever seen in Greek literature is in Paul's use of it in his letter to the Corinthians. It's believed he coined the word, going back to Leviticus to come up with "male-bed".
I reread Leviticus 18 last night. Nothing in there about temples or rituals. God lays out the sexual sanctions to his chosen people before they enter the land, verses 1-18 concern sex with relatives, verse 19 menstruation, verse 20 adultery, verse 21 child sacrifice, verse 22 man with man, verse 23 beastiality. He is not dealing with ritual sex or temple sex in this chapter.
quote:
Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves.
Yahweh gave a sexual culture to his people so they won't adapt to the sexual culture of the caananites.
Peter and the others did the same for Paul as he headed off to the Gentiles:
quote:
29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
_________________________
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/4/2003 9:44 AM (GMT -6) | | POW
Marriage is a SACRAMENT, a means of grace, an eschatological reality.
Iconoclast
Funny, I thought it was a commitment to be faithfully in union with another person until death.
Marriage is neither a sacrament, a means of grace nor an eschatological reality.
A sacrament is a rite. Marriage is a commitment.
I have no idea what "marriage is a means of grace" even means.
Marriage is clearly not eschatological as we are not married in heaven. What does it even have to do with eschatology.
POW, you seem to idolize marriage as something that it just is not in my opinion.
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 | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/4/2003 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
POW
Marriage is a SACRAMENT, a means of grace, an eschatological reality.
Iconoclast
Funny, I thought it was a commitment to be faithfully in union with another person until death.
Marriage is neither a sacrament, a means of grace nor an eschatological reality.
A sacrament is a rite. Marriage is a commitment.
I have no idea what "marriage is a means of grace" even means.
Marriage is clearly not eschatological as we are not married in heaven. What does it even have to do with eschatology.
POW, you seem to idolize marriage as something that it just is not in my opinion.
thanks,
Iconoclast
Icon made a pretty lame retort to the SAME coment on a previous page. I responded, in specifics. Looks like he didn't bother to read it! Shame.
quote:
Icon
Marriage is neither a sacrament, a means of grace nor an eschatological reality.
A sacrament is a rite. Marriage is a commitment.
Dictionary.com on "sacrament": "a means of or visible form of grace"
Dictionary.com on "rite": "prescribed or customary form for conducting a religious or other solemn ceremony -- act or series of acts"
Sacraments are a "form" or a "means" of grace.
Rites are just the outward form.
OCA.org on "sacrament": The Church may be defined as the new life in Christ. It is man's life lived by the Holy Spirit in union with God. All aspects of the new life of the Church participate in the mystery of salvation. In Christ and the Holy Spirit everything which is sinful and dead becomes holy and alive by the power of God the Father. And so in Christ and the Holy Spirit everything in the Church becomes a sacrament, an element of the mystery of the Kingdom of God as it is already being experienced in the life of this world.
. . .
The Church as the gift of life eternal is by its very nature, in its fullness and entirety, a mystical and sacramental reality. It is the life of the Kingdom of God given already to those who believe. And thus, within the Church, everything we do -- our prayers, blessings, good works, thoughts, actions -- everything participates in the life which has no end. In this sense everything which is in the Church and of the Church is a sacrament of the Kingdom of God.
THAT IS A WONDERFUL DEFINITION OF A SACRAMENT, A WONDERFUL EXPLANATION.
OCA.org on "marriage": Marriage was not invented or instituted by Christ. The Lord, however, gave a very specific meaning and significance to human marriage. Following the Old Testament Law, but going beyond its formal precepts in his messianic perfection, Jesus taught the uniqueness of human marriage as the most perfect natural expression of God's love for men, and of his own love for the Church.
According to Christ, in order for the love of a man and woman to be that which God has: perfectly created it to be, it must be unique, indestructible, unending and divine. The Lord himself has not only given this teaching, but he also gives the power to fulfill it in the sacrament of Christian marriage in the Church.
In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God.
Icon: "Marriage is (not) a means of grace...
Response: See above!
quote:
POW
Marriage is a SACRAMENT, a means of grace, an eschatological reality.
Iconoclast
Funny, I thought it was a commitment to be faithfully in union with another person until death.
Marriage is NOT MERELY the commitment, the commitment to "be" something. It is also what the marriage itslef contains and is. And THAT has the potential and the calling to be sacramental.
Iconoclast: I have no idea what "marriage is a means of grace" even means.
PoW: I hope that you do now, having read what is above. And I hope that you did read it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/4/2003 12:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Icon: Marriage is neither a . . . nor an eschatological reality.
NOTE THAT "ESCHATOLOGICAL" ENDS IN "AL" AND IS AN ADVERB. THAT MEANS THAT IS REFERS TO SOMETHING BEING
From page six of this thread (last page):
quote:
POW, I certainly agree with you that marriage is not an accomodation to culture (I think it is an acommodation to how we ended up being wired – God saw that it was not good for man to be alone), but I am confused by what you mean about it being an “eschatological reality.” Jesus' words here seem to be at odds with what you are saying - am I misunderstanding what you mean by “eschatological”?
thanks,
Iconoclast
PoW: I'll play that back by you again, Icon. Look closely!
es·cha·tol·o·gy n.
2. A belief or a doctrine concerning the ultimate or final things, such as death, the destiny of humanity
AND
es·chato·logi·cal adj.
PoW: I gave you the ADJECTIVE! (You expressed concern that: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." But what is meant is the 'now' plenitude or participation in that for which all is created for.) So when someone declares that marriage is "eschatological" THAT MEANS that is has aspects of -- participates in -- the "ultimate destiny" of the "age to come." The Eucharist IS ALSO Exchatological. Calvin knew this and preached it. Roman Catholics know this, as do Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox! What's that mean. Repeating ... things "eschatological" are those things that "participate in the ultimate destiny of the age to come."
Look at this:
So when someone declares that marriage is "eschatological" THAT MEANS that is has aspects of -- participates in -- the "ultimate destiny" of the "age to come." The Eucharist IS ALSO Exchatological. . . . What's that mean. Repeating ... things "eschatological" are those things that "participate in the ultimate destiny of the age to come."
To be "eschatological" means that the thing has aspects of, or participates in, the "ultimate destiny" of the "age to come."
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/04/2003 5:50:30 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/5/2003 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
2.
There has been occasions (on this board) where those arguing that homosexual union should be accepted (as Godly) where the device of arguement has been to frame the argument so that those coming on it have only two choices: accept homosexual union as Godly OR damn those who pracitice homosexual acts as being completely unloved by God and unembracible by Christians. That is a horrible way to develop consideration of this topic. It is, to use the contemporary term (in the news), a use of HUMAN SHIELDS! It bates those involved to condemn those the Gospel requires us to love. It is divisive. It produces casualties where none are necessary.
NO HUMAN SHEILDS!
We must not condemn the person. Rather, before God we must each pray as the Liturgy leads:
. . . I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. . . . have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance. . . .
We must not condemn.
Neither should we lead others into the trap of having to make an "either/or" decision between the person and the sin!
WHAT FOLLOWS ARE TWO POST BY GREG FROM THIS THREAD. Then I will pull out portions so that they can stand by themsleves. For ALL of them I'll comment that one should NOT be surprised that the "the Living God, Who came into the world to save sinners..." should, as Greg says: "move among 'unclean' people"; "transform their life"; "work in gay believers lives"; of "are revolutionized their lives by the power of the Spirit." The Living God, Who came into the world to save sinners" does those things!!!
But in no case is the exceptional mercy of God in our lives and endorcement of the sins we commit. If it were, the litugical prayer above would terminate with the part about God's mercy, and not also contain the part about "forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance."
If Greg doubts this, let him consult his collegues: http://www.bgcworld.org/states/state_10.htm
BTW -- What DOES the BGC say about this. (I've posted the CRC.)
quote:
Here's what I'm wondering. I've only had very limited exposure to gay Christians, but I've read a number of people who have felt compelled to rethink their scriptural interpretations and eventually acknowledge that monogomous life-long covenantal gay relationships are blessed by God by their experience of how God moves in gay Christians lives. . Gil Alexander Moegerle (formerly with Focus on the Family); Peggy Campolo (wife of Tony); evangelists Evelyn and Dennis Schave; Sylvia Pennington (former AG preacher who wrote, But Lord, They're Gay!, to give just a few examples. My question, I guess, is this:
What does one make of the life-transforming work that God seems to carry out in many gay people's lives (while not transforming them into heterosexuals)? What should one make of the apparent Spirit-filled annointing that some gay churches seem to experience? Is it all illusion? Is it demonic? Are gay testimonies of how Jesus transformed their life all lies? Or is the Holy Spirit deciding to move among "unclean" people, despite centuries old religious convictions on the part of "clean" people that it cannot be so?
What weight should our own experiences with God (e.g. visions) and our PERCEPTION of God moving have on a) how we interpret the Bible and b) how we assess where God is moving? Honestly, I'm just asking this out loud.
Doc
and
quote:
GregBoyd Thanks for the non-blasting (but there may still be plenty of thread to cover... we'll see).
Yes, of course we live by the scriptural criteria. But the question is: how much should our personal revelations/experiences (like Peter's vision) and/or our perception of the Holy Spirit's moving (like Peter's perception in Acts 10) affect our INTERPRETATION and APPLICATION of Scripture? I mean, the Bible Peter believed in certainly did forbid eating "unclean" animals!!! (Leviticus). It was the vision + the perceived move of the Holy Spirit that led Peter, and then others, to REINTERPRETE and REAPPLY the Scripture. The whole theology of Jesus abrogating the Jewish ceremonial codes -- indeed, the whole distinction between the "moral" law and the "ceremonial" and "sacrificial" law -- is the result of re-reading the Bible in the light of God's acceptance of the Gentiles. It isn't clear in the text itself!
The contemporary parallel I'm raising is that a number of people believe it has been revealed to them that God accepts gay people who are naturaly orientationed that way and claim they see the power of God wonderfully working in gay believers lives -- while leaving them gay. And many gay believers testify that their lives are revolutionized by the power of the Spirit. They have a love for Christ and for others they never dreamed of. In the light of the experience of gay people and of others witnessing the lives of gay people, many have felt forced to reconsider the meaning of malakoi and [/]arsen koiti (I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10) , the application of Romans 1, the universality and moral nature of the Levitical prohibitions (18, 20), and the unexceptional nature of the Genesis heterosexual mandate, at least in a fallen world.
My question is, is this reconsideration valid? Is the meaning of malakoi and arsen koiti more undeniable than the testimony of Christ impacting the lives of gay people and experiences of those who say God is telling them they are accepted? And if one concludes that the interpretation of these terms and verses IS undeniable, what do you make of the testimonies? Are the people deceived? Are they lying? Is it a demonic illusion?
Thinking out loud
Doc
Pulled out QUOTES from Greg Boyd's out-loud-thinking:
- acknowledge that monogomous life-long covenantal gay relationships are blessed by God
- by their experience of how God moves in gay Christians lives.
- does one make of the life-transforming work that God seems to carry out in many gay people's lives
- Are gay testimonies of how Jesus transformed their life all lies?
- is the Holy Spirit deciding to move among "unclean" people[
- a number of people believe it has been revealed to them that God accepts gay people who are naturaly orientationed that way and claim they see the power of God wonderfully working in gay believers lives -- while leaving them gay
- many gay believers testify that their lives are revolutionized by the power of the Spirit. They have a love for Christ and for others they never dreamed of.
COMMENTS (in bold):
1. ...acknowledge that monogomous life-long covenantal gay relationships are blessed by God
Not proven on this thread. Christian community and brotherhood IS "blessed by God." Homosexual activity IS NOT
2. ...by their experience of how God moves in gay Christians lives.
As in the above PRAYER, we chould not be astonished that God is merciful and saves sinners. And am I so glad!!!
3. ...does one make of the life-transforming work that God seems to carry out in many gay people's lives
Answer, that God is merciful and saves. We ALL need that. And we should ALL pray as in that prayer, "of whom I am first."
4. Are gay testimonies of how Jesus transformed their life all lies?
Obviously not. But these are NOT testimonies of straight Christians who say that they Spirit led them to become 'gay', and elaborating on how that is blessed. Poitn being, they testify to the salavation of God (merciful in the case of all of us), and not to the salvific properties of homosexuality.
5. ...is the Holy Spirit deciding to move among "unclean" people
YES. AMEN!!! ("of whom I am first.")
6. ...a number of people believe it has been revealed to them that God accepts gay people who are naturaly orientationed that way and claim they see the power of God wonderfully working in gay believers lives -- while leaving them gay
Again, God can move mountains. ("...of whom I am first.") But that does not mean that sin ceases to be sin. God also saves lots of various 'kinds' of sinners. But we are all wrong if we *decide* that we have permission to conclude that it is God's choice and true desire that the sinner continue in sin. Paul says forcefully to the opposite: "May it never be."
7. many gay believers testify that their lives are revolutionized by the power of the Spirit. They have a love for Christ and for others they never dreamed of.
I NOTICE in how this is said, being literal, that what "revolutionized" them was the "power of the Spirit." As results, "They have a love for Christ and for others they never dreamed of." Wow. Wonderful. Great. But that does not mean that homosexual acts are not sin.
Greg, "thinking outloud" is nice. But you also need to do so in the company of the other ministers, both BGC and others. You like to prod others in their thinking. You ALSO need (EXPECIALLY BECAUSE YOU ARE AN "ORD-AINED" MINISTER) to open yourself up to the input, and challenge, and discipline of those who are also in your "ORD."
[/list]Note: Ord means, as you know, "place." One is "ordained" to a place--not to a universiality. And, in fact, it is NEVER the person that is of themselves ordained. It is the combination of (1) the person and (2) the place. A presbyter/elder/minister serves the Gospel ministry of a bishop (arch-pastor). Bishops are answerable to each other, and to their flock. No one goes it alone.[/list]
Don't go this alone, Greg. (You took an oath not to.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/5/2003 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Greg
Yes, of course we live by the scriptural criteria. . . . The whole theology of Jesus abrogating the Jewish ceremonial codes -- indeed, the whole distinction between the "moral" law and the "ceremonial" and "sacrificial" law -- is the result of re-reading the Bible in the light of God's acceptance of the Gentiles. It isn't clear in the text itself!
This just seems like a really bad reading of scripture. Or really bad logic.
What is clear in Scripture is that Salvation was never through one's own power. Not one's bloodline's power. That was revealed clearly to Abraham (in the sacrific of Issac). Both the Law AND the Prophets, AND the Psalms reveal that the codes are not enough. The evidence is plenty. That is true, and it IS clear in the text itself!
It isn't a "re-reading (of) the Bible in the light of God's acceptance of the Gentiles." The Prophet Peter read from spoke of the universiality of salvation. Peter didn't change scripture. He preached its fulfillment.
Greg said: "The whole theology of Jesus abrogating the Jewish ceremonial codes."
PoW: But Jesus Gospel did NOT abrogate the Jewish worship, that is ours today too. THAT follows to us today in the worship of the Church. One can, if one chooses, get sidetracked into focussing on just one particular code. But the symbolism may ring true through that symbol even still. Cerimony and sacrifice did not pass away -- THEY WERE FULFILLED. And insofar as they are present in Christ's Body (e.g., the 'sacrifice' of ooour offerings in token of our offering our whole selves back to God in worship and praise) they continue today.
"Scripture" in Greg's quote above appears to refer just to the text; quantifiable, data-fiable. And answers: "...of course we live by the scriptural criteria." BUT, the Word, in both Orthodox and Protestant belief is more than just the words. It is the power and authority and presence of the Word himself. THAT is what I meant by "Scripture" in the post he is responding to. And my POINT was that the Spirit through Scripture ("scriptural" refering to the meassage that had been growing through history) does NOT CONTRADICT like a weathervane.
Again, there is NO "re-reading the Bible in the light of God's acceptance of the Gentiles."
Genesis declares:
"And Jehovah said, Shall I hide from Abraham that which I do; seeing that Abraham had surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?"
and
"thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee."
And this is fulfilled in Symeon's prayer:
"Now lettest thou thy servant depart, Lord, According to thy word, in peace; For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples; A light for revelation to the Gentiles, And the glory of thy people Israel."
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/05/2003 3:49:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/5/2003 5:08 PM (GMT -6) | | POW
Icon made a pretty lame retort to the SAME coment on a previous page. I responded, in specifics. Looks like he didn't bother to read it! Shame.
Iconoclast
I read it. It just made no sense to me. Nor does what you are saying here. You seem to be talking in such big generalities and “penumbras” of meaning that it has no meaning at all as far as I can tell. For example:
POW
POW quoting somebody:
In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God.
Iconoclast
What?!?! This is directly at odds with what Jesus said about NOT marrying or being given in marriage in heaven but being like the angels.
Did I say that you “idolize” marriage? I really mean that you “idealize” marriage into something that it is not. Jesus isn’t trying to make marriage into something it isn’t – Jesus uses marriage as an analogy – a metaphor – so that we can get some partial glimpse about what true union with God actually looks like. It seems to me that you and your sources have the metaphorical mapping exactly backward. A metaphor maps something from a source domain into a target domain. When you use a metaphor it only goes one way.
When someone says that their marriage is at crossroads they are trying to say something meaningful about their marriage NOT something meaningful about two roads that cross. Likewise, when Jesus says He wants us to be His bride He is saying something meaningful about the kind of relationship He wants – He is not trying to say something meaningful about marriage in general.
POW
To be "eschatological" means that the thing has aspects of, or participates in, the "ultimate destiny" of the "age to come."
Iconoclast
This is such a huge generalization that it is meaningless. By this definition just about everything could be considered “eschatological” since just about everything can be construed to have at least some aspect related to the “ultimate destiny” of the “age to come” (whatever that means).
Be specific. What specific aspects of marriage participate in the “ultimate destiny” of the “age to come” and what exactly does that mean?
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 4/5/2003 5:12 PM (GMT -6) | | POW
Point being, they testify to the salavation of God (merciful in the case of all of us), and not to the salvific properties of homosexuality.
Iconoclast
Are you trying to suggest that heterosexuality has "salvific properties"? And what exactly are "salvific properties"? Can you provide some examples?
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 4/5/2003 5:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika
quote:
Case closed.
LOL
Iconoclast
Surely you are not trying to suggest that the meaning of arsenokoites IS unmistakable.
Laika
The first time arsenokoitai is ever seen in Greek literature is in Paul's use of it in his letter to the Corinthians. It's believed he coined the word, going back to Leviticus to come up with "male-bed".
Iconoclast
Paul is talking to gentiles not Jews. These gentiles would have no reason to know the Levitical law - remember that it was decided that they did not need to follow the Mosaical law (for the most part). Why would Paul coin a new term that was based on an obscure reference to something in the Levitical law which the gentiles knew nothing about? Paul was exhorting them about specific behaviors that would lead to their eternal death - why in the world would he be obscure about this?!?! Paul was clearly using an idiom of the day - something he KNEW his audience clearly understood. Would you exhort your child to refraing from "curtain-ironing" - you know - the "iron curtain" - where one builds up a wall in which they hide what they are truly going through and sink into an abyss of self-deceit?
When we finally see this term used in Greek literature many years later it is clearly referring to male-child rape.
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 04/05/2003 10:48:16 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/5/2003 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | POW
quote:
Greg
Yes, of course we live by the scriptural criteria. . . . The whole theology of Jesus abrogating the Jewish ceremonial codes -- indeed, the whole distinction between the "moral" law and the "ceremonial" and "sacrificial" law -- is the result of re-reading the Bible in the light of God's acceptance of the Gentiles. It isn't clear in the text itself!
This just seems like a really bad reading of scripture. Or really bad logic.
Iconoclast
POW, could you please be explicit with what you are hearing Greg say here. From my perspective it is like Greg says, "Apples taste good" and you respond with, "I just had an orange the other day and I didn't like it."
What I hear Greg saying is that OUR interpretation of scripture changes based upon OUR experiences and OUR further understanding.
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 04/05/2003 10:37:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/5/2003 6:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika
Peter and the others did the same for Paul as he headed off to the Gentiles:
quote:
29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Iconoclast
The actual word used here is porneia. “Sexual immorality” is clearly a horribly wrong translation of this word. Porneia is sexual immorality but sexual immorality is not necessarily porneia. Red is a color but a color is not necessarily red.
Here is an excerpt from the following link: http://members.aol.com/johnprh/marriage.html
quote:
Mark 7:21-22
"From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly." NAB
Notice that both "unchastity" [porneia] and "adultery" are prohibited. Therefore, from these passages we can see that porneia does not mean adultery as that would be redundant.
Seems like this is a strong argument that porneia can’t in general mean “sexual immorality” – unless, of course, you want to argue that adultery is not sexual immorality.
Laika, perhaps you could do some research on this word (www.google.com) and tell us what the range of scholarly opinion is on its exact meaning.
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 4/5/2003 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | OK, couldn’t help myself. Here is another excerpt from that same website:
Another important usage of the term porneia is found in Acts 15.
Acts 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 unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell." RSV
These prohibitions come from the deeply rooted Jewish tradition that is found in Leviticus chapters 17 and 18. Examining this context also gives us more insight into what is meant by unchastity, or porneia in the Greek. Consider the following as to how it relates to the four prohibitions in Acts 15:28-29, (1) from the sacrifice to idols, (2) from blood, (3) what is strangled [because therefore the blood would still be in it] and (4) from unchastity or *porneia*.
Leviticus 17:7
"No longer shall they offer their sacrifices to the satyrs to whom they used to render their wanton worship. This shall be an everlasting ordinance for them and their descendants."
Leviticus 17:12-14
"That is why I have told the Israelites: No one among you, not even a resident alien, may partake of blood.
... You shall not partake of the blood of any meat. Since the life of every living body is its blood, anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off.
Leviticus 17:15
"Everyone, whether a native or an alien, who eats of an animal that died of itself or was killed by a wild beast, shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening, and then he will be clean."
Leviticus 18:1-6
" ... Speak to the Israelites and tell them: I, the LORD, am your God.
You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt ... My decrees you shall carry out, and my statutes you shall take care to follow. ... Keep, then, my statutes and decrees, for the man who carries them out will find life through them. ...
‘None of you shall approach a close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the LORD.’ "
In fact chapter 18 goes on for 18 verses detailing for the Israelites of how they are to abstain from various types of incest or else they will be cut off from God’s people, cf. verse 29. So, we can see that it was these unlawful incestuous marriages that were being referred to by the word "porneia" and forbidden in Acts 15.
Iconoclast
Now this makes a ton of sense to me. Porneia means incestuous marriages. Of course this is something extremely serious like adultery or murder because it results in serious harm to another person. In this case that would be the off-spring. We all know now that incest leads to errors in the genetic code.
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 4/5/2003 6:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Here is another good excerpt on porneia from http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1997-06/19462.html
============================================
At 5:32 AM -0400 6/25/97, David McKay wrote:
>Ben Loomes wrote:
>> What basis is there for translating the word "PORNEIA" as
>> fornication.
>The close relationship between the two words could be a reason.
>Wouldn't "fornication" be derived from PORNEIA, as per Grimm's law?
>My Shorter Oxford says it come from Latin "fornix," but I wonder if that
>comes from the PORNEIA root?
>It is an old fashioned word though.
Yes, it's an old-fashioned word. I find myself thinking, whenever I see it,
of David Frost's report of Richard Nixon asking him casually, prior to one
of his retrospective interviews, "if he had engaged in any interesting
fornication recently."
I'm dubious about how far etymology will carry us toward illumination, but
it can aat least answer one of the questions above: the words PORNEIA and
FORNIX are not related. PORNEIA derives from PORNH, the word for a
low-class prostitute ("courtesans" are termed hETAIRAI, which, since it
involves social and intellectual companionship--or seems to do so in many
instances--, has seemed to me more akin to the Japaneise Geisha); PORNEIA
originally meant consorting with PORNAI. FORNIX means "arch" or "arched
room" of the sort associated particularly with the chambers used by cheap
prostitutes in Rome--wherefore FORNICATIO, the source of our "fornication"
will mean doing what is done in FORNICES and therefore amounts in substance
to the same idea as PORNEIA in Greek.
I think "sexual immorality" may not go too far to convey the Greek PORNEIA;
the problem is, however, that the phrase, "sexual immorality," can hardly
be employed without a heavy cargo of cultural baggage that won't
necessarily (if at all) correspond between the culture of the original
authors and the culture of the reader of a translation. The phrase will
probably imply for any reader of it in a translation of the NT whatever
he/she has been taught or has come to believe to be "sexually immoral."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
==========================================================
Amazing what you can find in minutes on the web. I really liked what Carl said in the last paragraph.
Also, isn't it interesting that both porneia and fornication literally mean consorting with a prostitute? Looks like fornication is actually a very good translation of porneia - unfortunately fornication has lost its original meaning also.
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 04/05/2003 11:36:49 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/6/2003 1:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast
Are you trying to suggest that heterosexuality has "salvific properties"? And what exactly are "salvific properties"? Can you provide some examples?
PoW: No, I didn't say that. I wrote that marriage is a sacrament. And the definition that I provided (about which you simply write: "I read it. It just made no sense to me. ") was:
In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God.
Icon: posted: ...what Jesus said about NOT marrying or being given in marriage in heaven but being like the angels.
PoW: There is not conflict here. The quote I posted said nothing about sex or procreation in marriage. It just says (if you read patiently) that: In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God.
Note the underlined parts. You haven't understood what was written, Icon. If you still can't, then give someone else a chance.
then...
quote:
This just seems like a really bad reading of scripture.
Iconoclast
POW, could you please be explicit with what you are hearing Greg say here.
PoW: I did say. And if it doesn't interest you, then it is for someone else.
What is more important than what "Greg" is saying (or, "...OUR interpretation, OUR experiences, OUR further understanding....") is what the Scriptures say. I ADDRESSED THAT IN THE POST AT THE PAGE'S TOP. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/6/2003 3:17 AM (GMT -6) | | POW (to Icon): You haven't understood what was written, Icon. If you still can't, then give someone else a chance.
Greg: POW, its not like there's a line one has to wait in to post on the board. So Iconoclast isn't taking someone elses "chance" by posting. But, I'll take my "chance" and just register that Icon. is not alone in his bewilderment over your musings on the "non-salvific" nature of homosexuality or on the "eschatological" dimension of marriage.
Now, by way of clarification, you say to Icon: The quote I posted said nothing about sex or procreation in marriage. It just says (if you read patiently) that: In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God.
Now, I still honestly don't know what you mean. But whatever you mean, it seems to go against Jesus' teaching. Here it is:
----------------
Luke 20:27-36: Some Sadducees, those who say there is nonresurrection, came to him and asked him a question, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.
Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; then the second and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. Finally the woman also died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.”
Jesus said to them, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection."
The point seems to be that marriage is related to this life which ends in death. If it were not so, we'd have to worry about the status of couples who married multiple times. Jesus basically says, don't worry about that: it doesn't apply.
How does this affect your sacramental/eschatological view of marriage?
Also, thanks for your earlier counsel to me to "not go it alone." That is, of course, important wisdom. And I don't go it alone. Indeed, that's precisely why must struggle with the experience and interpretations of other Christians, including gay Christians and those who minister closely to them. But, of course, I regularly fellowship, converse and debate with other straight pastors and Christians as well. We are created for community!
Blessings
Greg
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/6/2003 4:59 AM (GMT -6) | | WHAT IS A SACRAMENT? HOW ABOUT IT?
Greg: How does this affect your sacramental/eschatological view of marriage?
quote:
Greg:
I'll take my "chance" and just register that Icon. is not alone in his bewilderment over your musings on the "non-salvific" nature of homosexuality or on the "eschatological" dimension of marriage.
Now, by way of clarification, you say to Icon: The quote I posted said nothing about sex or procreation in marriage. It just says (if you read patiently) that: In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman are given the possibility to become one spirit and one flesh in a way which no human love can provide by itself. In Christian marriage the Holy Spirit is given so that what is begun on earth does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God.
Now, I still honestly don't know what you mean. But whatever you mean, it seems to go against Jesus' teaching. Here it is:
----------------
Luke 20:27-36: Some Sadducees, those who say there is nonresurrection, came to him and asked him a question, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.
Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; then the second and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. Finally the woman also died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.”
Jesus said to them, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection."
The point seems to be that marriage is related to this life which ends in death. If it were not so, we'd have to worry about the status of couples who married multiple times. Jesus basically says, don't worry about that: it doesn't apply.
How does this affect your sacramental/eschatological view of marriage?
Also, thanks for your earlier counsel to me to "not go it alone." That is, of course, important wisdom. And I don't go it alone. Indeed, that's precisely why must struggle with the experience and interpretations of other Christians, including gay Christians and those who minister closely to them. But, of course, I regularly fellowship, converse and debate with other straight pastors and Christians as well. We are created for community!
Blessings
Greg
Greg: I still honestly don't know what you mean.
PoW: Lets see what I mean (and said above, AND underlined)!
.
Greg says: "The point seems to be that marriage is related to this life which ends in death."
PoW: Half right. Yes, "marriage is related to this life." BUT, not everything about this life "ends in death."
One core problem you and Icon seem to have is an inability to read something tht speaks about "sacraments" and understand what is written in front of you. Marriage gives both of you trouble in this respect. But first, lets see again what I underlined!
"In the sacrament..."
- 1. "are given the possibility to become..."
- 2. "what is begun on earth"
- 3. "does not 'part in death'"
- 4. "but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God."
Of marriage it is said, then that, as all sacraments and all things sacramental, that it: "gives the possibility to become" (NOT insures!); "is begun on earth"--implying that something continues; "does not 'part in death'"--implying again that will endure death at least has, and perhaps always has, the "possibility" of enduring death (WE WILL HAVE TO SEE HOW...); AND that "is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God"--implying, again, that what "is fulfilled and continues" begins and grows in fullness before death and resurrection.
Now, let me switch sacraments. In a previous post I paired marriage with the Eucharist (perhaps that was ignored) as a way of opening up comparisons. Lets look at the Eucharist. From there comparisons can be made.
Of marriage, the above claimes that there is something "sacramental" in marriage that "enduring death . . . is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God."
Can that be said of the Church?
Greg will have to answer for himself. Icon too.
Of the Church (If someone is thinking now only of human social institutions, they are way, way off track.), is should be said that it: "is begun on earth...does not "part in death"...but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God."
If that is understood AND EMBRACED, then this can continue. If not...
Shifting now to the "sacrament of sacraments" the Eucharistic assembly, it should also be said the Eucharist, as a realistic-symbol, is participated in "on earth," is in reality a participation IN something "fulfilled and [that] continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God -- and "that" is CHRIST!!!!"
Further, of the service of the Eucharist, can, should, and must be said that it is a "possibility to become" a participant. A "possibility." It is not assured. It can be a curse. There is nothing "magical." No Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Anglican, Lutheran, or any other Christian would or should say that merely taking bread or wine/joice is necessarily a participation IN Christ. It is not magic. BUT, it is a "possibility to become" a participant/member.
Again, Greg asked: How does this affect your sacramental/eschatological view of marriage?
It must be asked, what is "your sacramental/eschatological view of" the Eucharist? And, what is "your sacramental/eschatological view of" the Church?
The Eucharist is sacramental, and thus eschatological in nature.
And, the Church is sacramental, and thus eschatological in nature.
They BOTH, insofar as they are participated in, "are given possibilities to become...on earth...participants...in the Kingdom of God, and that which is participated in...does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly... That is true of the sacrament of the Eucharist, by the Holy Spirit. That is true of the Church, by the Holy Spirit. AND, "by the Holy Spirit" it is true of marriage.
And it is true of any of the sacraments; not limited to: baptism,
chrismation (annointing with the Holy Spirit), holy eucharist, marriage, penance, holy unction (healing), holy orders (monatic vows).
Each of these are BOTH now and on this earth, AND involve and affect things that endure death (IN Christ) and "continue most perfectly in the Kingdom of God."
I opened the issue (just 'thinking') that homosexual union, if someone attempted to raise it to the level of a sacrament (which does belong to marriage) might be considered idolatry. Instead of addressing that, Icon sought instead to try and lower the state of marriage to a merly human and merely earthly and merely terminal thing. But let me both broach the topic AND frame it here.
In the same manner of how marriage is addressed as a sacrament above, the issue of what idolotry is can be broached. I'm "just thinking?. This is not from another source. But I do feel like it is important.
Is it idolotry to take a sacrament and to REPLACE IT with something else? (That does seem to be at least part of the nature of what an "idol" is!)
Is idolotry: "giving honor rightly given to God to something else?" I'll proceed as if that is true; since, that is the best that I can do. Months ago it appeared that someone on this board was saying that: the Lord's Supper was a meal where the objective was to eat until everyone was full. The roots appeared to be common sharing and abundance. Neither is bad. But if that REPLACES the "objectives" -- which are several -- that make up the Eucharist, then I feel like asking "Is that idolotry?" I feel very sure when the topic of the Law is considered. I believe (not just feel) that "Pharisitical legalism" is a REPLACEMENT of a human invention for a Grace that God gave. I beleive that Pharisitical legalism is "idolotry." The Eucharist has, present in it (White, "Protestant Church Architecture", p.40-42): sacrifice, prayer, praise, service of worship, giving and receiving of gifts, recall/remembrance, duty, thanksgiving, sharing, fellowship, commemoration, unity--with eachother, and Christ. As White writes: "It is impossible to exhaust the meaning of the sacrament of holy communion." Some of the medieval accreations might have become idolotrous. But perhaps the reductivistic reinterpretations (replaced by a pizza party, and lacking so many of the aspects White lists) that give me pause do too.
What Icon presented as marriage seems to me to be a "low view of marriage." I trust that in practice and experience, and in hope the view is higher -- I will assume so.
Compared to a low-view, he wants us to open a door in how homosexual union is considered. But the comparison can not be made. Marriage IS what God made it. And, if one attempts to elevate homosexual union to a sacrament, then that may jsut be a form of idolotry.
Marriage is a sacrament. It is not even an abstraction summated by the descriptions repeated above: a ... given ... possibility ... begun on earth, ... fulfilled and continuing most perfectly in the Kingdom of God. Marriage is a sacrament ORDAINED by God. The Bible shows it to predate the Gospel, and be blessed by Christ. Marriage, unlike the law, did not need to be "fulfilled" or revamped with the coming of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It was created "very good." And it remains so!
Take a "high-view" of marriage!
-------------------------------------------------
BTW -- When you write, Greg, "And I don't go it alone.", does that mean only that you "fellowship, converse and debate with" pastors only in para-church and extra-ecclesial settings and forums. Or does it mean, too, that you do so within the settings and forums or your own ordination. (E.g., do you speak about it to Truett and others in the BGC?) Discussions limited to those who make speaches and write books and engage in intellectual inquiry is just a truncated portion of the church, if it is detached from the whole of the ecclesia. (The church is both local and universal, and neither has meaning if detached from the other.) Do you "go it alone" in that respect?
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/06/2003 10:17:30 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/6/2003 1:43 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Iconoclast
Paul is talking to gentiles not Jews.
Which is why he coins a new word and doesn't use one of theirs.
He has to bring them in line with a new (to them) sexual culture.
quote:
When we finally see this term used in Greek literature many years later it is clearly referring to male-child rape.
quote:
Romans 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet
"Men with men" doesn't sound like male-child rape.
"Men with men" in Leviticus 18.
"Men with men" in Romans 1.
_________________________
Edited by - Laika on 04/06/2003 7:17:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/6/2003 2:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika
quote:
Iconoclast
Paul is talking to gentiles not Jews.
Which is why he coins a new word and doesn't use one of theirs.
He has to bring them in line with a new sexual culture.
Iconoclast
That would make total sense if he actually told them what the word meant. Can you show me where Paul describes exactly what he means by this word or points them back to the Levitical law in some way?
Laika
"Men with men" doesn't sound like male-child rape.
"Men with men" in Leviticus 18.
"Men with men" in Romans 1.
Iconoclast
I never said it did in these references. I have already shown how these references are conditioned and thus do not apply to monagomous relationships.
Also, Paul was pretty clear with what he was talking about in Romans 1. So, why didn't he use the same language in 1 Corinthians? Could it have been he was talking about something else?
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 4/6/2003 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | POW
One core problem you and Icon seem to have is an inability to read something tht speaks about "sacraments" and understand what is written in front of you. Marriage gives both of you trouble in this respect. But first, lets see again what I underlined!
"In the sacrament..."
1. "are given the possibility to become..."
2. "what is begun on earth"
3. "does not 'part in death'"
4. "but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly in the Kingdom of God."
Iconoclast
You keep repeating this POW but you don't say exactly WHAT aspect of marriage that you believe is "given the possibility to become..." and so on.
POW
Greg says: "The point seems to be that marriage is related to this life which ends in death."
PoW: Half right. Yes, "marriage is related to this life." BUT, not everything about this life "ends in death."
Iconoclast
Please explain (or say that you can't explain) exactly what it is about marriage that has the possibility of not ending in death.
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 | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/6/2003 2:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Laika
"Men with men" doesn't sound like male-child rape.
"Men with men" in Leviticus 18.
"Men with men" in Romans 1.
Iconoclast
I never said it did in these references. I have already shown how these references are conditioned and thus do not apply to monagomous relationships.
monogamous
No you haven't. Leviticus 18, "don't bed a male", Romans 1, "don't bed a male". These are not "conditioned". They are clear and have a common understanding. "Don't bed an animal" in Leviticus 18 is just as plain. "Don't bed your neighbor's wife" in Leviticus 18 is just as plain. Reduce it to boolean
(male && female) == GOOD
(male && male) != GOOD
Males and Females are complementary in a marriage relationship, anatomically, biologically, psychically, emotionally.....
I'll just wait until the Holy Spirit gives me a burning in my busom about this issue because scripture sure isn't.
_________________________
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/6/2003 3:15 PM (GMT -6) | | POW
Again, Greg asked: How does this affect your sacramental/eschatological view of marriage?
It must be asked, what is "your sacramental/eschatological view of" the Eucharist? And, what is "your sacramental/eschatological view of" the Church?
The Eucharist is sacramental, and thus eschatological in nature.
And, the Church is sacramental, and thus eschatological in nature.
They BOTH, insofar as they are participated in, "are given possibilities to become...on earth...participants...in the Kingdom of God, and that which is participated in...does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues most perfectly... That is true of the sacrament of the Eucharist, by the Holy Spirit. That is true of the Church, by the Holy Spirit. AND, "by the Holy Spirit" it is true of marriage.
And it is true of any of the sacraments; not limited to: baptism,
chrismation (annointing with the Holy Spirit), holy eucharist, marriage, penance, holy unction (healing), holy orders (monatic vows).
Each of these are BOTH now and on this earth, AND involve and affect things that endure death (IN Christ) and "continue most perfectly in the Kingdom of God."
Iconoclast
Are you saying that we "are given the possibilities to become..." STILL married when we go to heaven? If so, how do deal with what Jesus said regarding this?
Are you saying that marriage is a shadow of the true union we will experience with other people in heaven? If so, then won't we experience a deeper union in heaven with people of the "same sex" than we do in marriage here on earth with people of the opposite sex?
Are you saying that marriage is about two souls being knit together? Is this what you mean about it being both a fleshly sort of thing and a spiritual sort of thing?
1 Samuel 18:1-3
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
From www.dictionary.com:
quote:
\Sac"ra*ment\, v. t. To bind by an oath. [Obs.] --Laud.
2. The pledge or token of an oath or solemn covenant; a sacred thing; a mystery. [Obs.]
God sometimes sent a light of fire, and pillar of a cloud . . . and the sacrament of a rainbow, to guide his people through their portion of sorrows. --Jer. Taylor.
POW, would you say then that David and Jonathan had a more sacramental relationship than most heterosexual marriages because their souls were knit together? Is this what you mean by marriage being "eschatological" - that two people's souls may actually be "knit" together and thus they encounter each other in a deeper union - one that "survives" death?
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 04/06/2003 8:18:25 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/6/2003 4:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika
No you haven't. Leviticus 18, "don't bed a male", Romans 1, "don't bed a male". These are not "conditioned".
Iconoclast
Are you suggesting that we should follow the Levitical law? Have you sacrificed any animals lately? Touched anything “unclean”? How about the Sabbath? Have you done any work on the Sabbath lately?
Also, I wrote a whole bunch on Romans 1 – you might want to interact with that directly.
Laika
Reduce it to boolean
(male && female) == GOOD
(male && male) != GOOD
Males and Females are complementary in a marriage relationship, anatomically, biologically, psychically, emotionally.....
Iconoclast
So, are you a Java, C, or C++ programmer? Javascript?
Have you ever heard of Aspect-Oriented programming?
The problem with Object Programming is that Objects are significantly more nuanced in real life than object languages allow for. Your presupposition is that the class Male has a set of standard attributes and that the class Female has a set of standard attributes that are complementary. It turns out this is not true. Male and Female only have standard attributes sets that are complementary for anatomical and biological – the flesh. The psychical, emotional and spiritual attribute sets are more like Aspects in aspect-oriented programming. They typically apply standardly to Male and Female but sometimes do not. When they do not then the logic is conditioned. And surely we would all agree that the psychical, emotional, spiritual should be considered to be at a higher interrupt level than the fleshly. The thusly conditioned logic looks more like this:
if (aMale.wiredForFemaleNaturally()
|| aFemale.wiredForMaleNaturally())
{
____(male && female) == GOOD
____(male && male) != GOOD
____(female && female) != GOOD
}
if (aMale.wiredForMaleNaturally()
|| aFemale.wiredForFemaleNaturally())
{
____(male && female) != GOOD
____(male && male) == GOOD
____(female && female) == GOOD
}
Romans 1 suggests this when it says that they exchanged natural relations for unnatural relations. Humans are more naturally psychical, emotional, spiritual beings than we are fleshly beings – aren’t we?
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 04/06/2003 11:30:47 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/6/2003 5:39 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Iconoclast
POW, would you say then that David and Jonathan had a more sacramental relationship than most heterosexual marriages because their souls were knit together? Is this what you mean by marriage being "eschatological" - that two people's souls may actually be "knit" together and thus they encounter each other in a deeper union - one that "survives" death?
PoW: It appears, Icon, that you are accusing David of being a homosexual. That's vile! Shame on you if you are.
But to answer you, your assumption, as in what is also quoted from you immediatly below, shows gross misreading of scripture.
quote:
Iconoclast
Are you saying that marriage is a shadow of the true union we will experience with other people in heaven? If so, then won't we experience a deeper union in heaven with people of the "same sex" than we do in marriage here on earth with people of the opposite sex?
THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS THIS SCRIPTURE:
Genesis 1:26-31
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, [I have given] every green herb for food: and it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
PoW: But I posted that before. And it didn't make any difference then. Does it make a difference to you know? You seem to be saying that you think that homosexuals are commiting Godly religeous acts.
The TRUE created nature of mankind is "male and female."
BTW -- when Paul in Galatians 3:26-29 says, "For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one [man] in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." he says nothing about our ceasing to be who we are. There will be no sex in heaven. But our gender is so much a part of who we are, and CHRISTIANS believe in the "resurrection of the dead." Part of what make you male and part of what makes Semeia female will be part of us each in the New Jerusalem. The Galatians 3 passage is entirely about upon what basis our salvation is on: "sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus" and "Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." Those are from the beginning and the end of the passage. The middle is a recitation of local and contemporary believes that Paul dismisses as not being slavific: neither being Jew nor Greek saves outside Christ; belonging to the "slave" (Hagar) or the Free "Sarah" without Christ doesn't save--and Paul makes the point that returning to the bondage of the law while claiming to be the produce of the "free" woman is a crazy contradition; and, our point, relying on native pagan vegitation religions (like Baal or Ishtaar) as the "male and female" dieties also does not save. Only Christ saves! That's Paul's point!!!
quote:
Iconoclast
Are you saying that we "are given the possibilities to become..." STILL married when we go to heaven? If so, how do deal with what Jesus said regarding this?
PoW: NO, OBVIOUSLY NOT.
We are Christ's Bride. He is the bridegroom.
Don't fail to see all the times I compared the sacrament of marriage with the sacrament of sacrament by which the Church is constituted as the Body of Christ. Icon. Don't miss that!!! The eucharistic sacrament is a means of the Chruch becoming "one." There is a parallel there to marriage.
LET COMMUNION TEACH YOU SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT IS SACRAMENTAL ABOUT MARRIAGE.
But what you posted above, suggesting that unity based on sameness is somehow what God wants to use is . . .
just plain vile!
The diversity, the union of the variety, is all over the place in God's program.
Reading the Bible you just can't miss it!
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/06/2003 10:47:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/6/2003 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | POW
It appears, Icon, that you are accusing David of being a homosexual. That's vile! Shame on you if you are.
Iconoclast
Nope. Not at all. Shame on me? Are you shaking your index finger at me? Do you do that a lot?
POW
The TRUE created nature of mankind is "male and female."
Iconoclast
WOW – you sure are hanging a lot on that one verse – which is only one view of the creation of male and female by the way. And in either case you seem to be saying that our physical manifestation as male and female is as important as our spiritual nature. I would say that our TRUE created nature is Imago Dei – NOT “male and female.” Jesus seems to make this clear when He says that in heaven we will be like angels. Are angels male and female? Also, have you noticed that Jesus uses feminine references to himself as much as masculine references? When Jesus says that He wanted to gather Jerusalem to him like a hen does her chicks that is a feminine reference.
POW
But what you posted above, suggesting that unity based on sameness is somehow what God wants to use is . . .
just plain vile!
The diversity, the union of the variety, is all over the place in God's program.
Iconoclast
Are you accusing David and Jonathan of being vile?!?! Why that is just a vile thing to do. Fer shame, fer shame, fer shame.
But seriously, what in the world are you talking about? Are we back to that male / female thing? Tell me, aren’t we all supposed to be the bride of Christ? Unity with Christ? Isn’t Jesus male? So, by your logic only females can be the bride of Christ? Was it bad for David and Jonathan to be in love with each other to the extent that their souls were knit together? Doesn’t “knit together” mean union? And no, I am not accusing them of being homosexual (at least not in the flesh – homosexual in the spirit?) Are all men who become the bride of Christ (our souls knit together with Christ) homosexual in the spirit? Ooooohhhh… that thought could drive away more men than even the idea that we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood.
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 | | |
| 548 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:41 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 |
|
|