Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Divorce and Remarriage as Adultery

Forum Quick Jump

132 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/27/2003 4:44 PM (GMT -6)

Alan Rhoda

But pointing out inconsistencies is a red herring with respect to the question of whether or not homosexuality (or any other practice) is a sin. If the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, then it is a sin, regardless of whether or not Christians are consistent in their application of Biblical standards vis-a-vis homosexuality and other sins.

Iconoclast

It is not a question of inconsistency Alan, it is a question of appropriate practice. By your logic here every sin mentioned in Leviticus is still really a sin. By your logic ALL sins mentioned in the bible are still sins today. The problem is that we have all agreed to not worry about a bunch of sins mentioned in the bible. My argument is that homosexuality should be one of those sins mentioned in the bible that we should not worry about - just like cloth woven of two kinds of fiber, just like usury (which was also called an abomination), just like eating pork.

Are you okay with this? If not, why not?

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/27/2003 4:53 PM (GMT -6)

Alan Rhoda

Jesus didn't say that there was only one command, but rather that all of the other commands could be subsumed under the commands to love God and to love our neighbor.

Iconoclast

Since all other commands can be subsumed under the command to love God and to love our neighbor - that, if you keep these you keep them all - then it is clear that this command is the only NON-RELATIVE or NON-CONTINGENT or NON-CONDITIONAL command. All other commands are CONDITIONED on ALSO fulfilling this command. Thus, if one kills another but it is a LOVING act then it is not murder. If one kills another and it is an UN-LOVING act then it is murder.

The conditional nature of all other commands can be seen by asking whether keeping the command would be loving or not. If one lies to the nazi in order to hide a Jewish friend then clearly lying in this case is conditioned based on whether it is more loving to lie or not.

Thus, there really is only ONE command. All other commands are RELATIVE to this ONE command. The purpose of all other commands is to fulfill this ONE command.

Paul says it nicely in Galations where he says that there is nothing "unclean" in and of itself. EVERYTHING is dependent on whether it is fulfilling the ONE command or it is not.

Paul also goes after this when he says that love is above all else, AND that whatever we do, if it is not done out of love, then it is worthless. Only ONE command - love one another.

Again, how is it exactly that a loving monogamous gay couple is violating this command?

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 04/27/2003 9:58:35 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/27/2003 4:57 PM (GMT -6)

I can see quite clearly how an Augustinian/Calvinian/determinist and even an Arminian could concede that God creates some people homosexual, given the whole sin-is-a-substance-passed-down-genetically idea typical in classical theism. This idea began with Tertullian and came to the fore through the influence of Augustine's theological innovations via Manicheism; i.e., material is evil, even married sex is sinful, etc. In my opinion this view of sin as something physical has plagued the Western Church ever since. What a loving God, who would condemn people to hell for something the very nature they start out in life with necessitates they become!

"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 04/27/2003 10:02:31 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/27/2003 5:02 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

I can see quite clearly how an Augustinian/Calvinian/determinist and even an Arminian could concede that God creates some people homosexual, given the whole "sin is a substance passed down genetically" idea common to classical theism.

Iconoclast

Are you suggesting that since I hold to the Open View it therefore MUST be true that homosexuality is NOT a sin to begin with?

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

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/27/2003 5:07 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast

Are you suggesting that since I hold to the Open View it therefore MUST be true that homosexuality is NOT a sin to begin with?

John Earp

No. In fact, as an Open Theist myself, and one who finds the Bible to teach plainly that sin is a willful transgression of a known law, I find it more than a bit curious that anyone who agrees with the premises of free will theism would at the same time hold to a physically necessitated view of sin (if in fact that is the view you hold to).

I am simply suggesting that the entire view of sin as a genetically passed down substance of some kind seems foreign to the premises of Open Theism, such as "love must be chosen" (and the obvious converse, hate/evil must be chosen)," etc.

"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 04/27/2003 11:01:37 PM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/27/2003 5:14 PM (GMT -6)

Alan Rhoda

Your statement is factually inaccurate. While research does indicate that there is (often) a genetic component in homosexual orientation, the research very clearly shows that homosexuality is not genetically determined. For example, twin studies on make homosexuality show a 38% positive correlation--indicating that some genetic factor is a work. But if genetics were the whole story, then we should expect a nearly 100% correlation (http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html), which we don't find. Therefore, it is false that homosexuals are "born gay". This is not to say that homosexual orientations are chosen--almost always they are not. What the studies show is that homosexual orientation is partly genetic but mostly environmental. Homosexual orientation is not due to solely to nature, but to the interaction of nature and nurture. Thus, it is false to say that God "makes" people gay.

Iconoclast

I didn't say that it was fully genetic - just "born" that way. I agree that there are environmental influences during fetal development that significantly account for people being born gay. DLW talked about it at length on the other thread. I am comparing being born gay to being born blind. Being born blind is also a mix of genetic and fetal environmental factors.

When the disciples asked Jesus who had sinned, the man born blind or his parents, it seems to me that Jesus repudiated the whole notion that either of them was accountable for this fact. I think it is as true to say that God "makes" the man born blind as it is to say that God "makes" people to be born homosexual. Would you agree?

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/27/2003 5:19 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

No. In fact, as an Open Theist myself, and one who finds the Bible to teach plainly that sin is a willful transgression of a known law, I find it more than a bit curious that anyone who agrees with the premises of free will theism would at the same time hold to a physically necessitated view of sin (if in fact that is the view you hold to).

I am simply suggesting that the entire view of sin as a genetically passed down substance of some kind seems foreign to the premises of Open Theism, such as "love must be chosen (or not)," etc.

Iconoclast

I do not hold to a physically necessitated view of sin. I agree with what you are saying here.

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/27/2003 5:26 PM (GMT -6)

Alan Rhoda

So IF God says that the practice of homosexuality is sinful then to engage in that practice is to fail to love God simply for being contrary to what God commands.

Iconoclast

I don't mean to beat a dead horse but just for clarity I would like to point out that God has said that bearing false witness is a sin. By your logic above it would be to fail to love God to lie to the nazi about your Jewish friend. I think just the opposite. I think it would be to fail to love your Jewish friend and therefore to fail to love God to NOT lie to the nazi regarding your Jewish friend.

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

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 5:57 PM (GMT -6)

This is cynical, or disingenuous, or both? Can anyone tell me?

quote:
Iconoclast

Alan Rhoda

So IF God says that the practice of homosexuality is sinful then to engage in that practice is to fail to love God simply for being contrary to what God commands.

Iconoclast

I don't mean to beat a dead horse but just for clarity I would like to point out that God has said that bearing false witness is a sin. By your logic above it would be to fail to love God to lie to the nazi about your Jewish friend. I think just the opposite. I think it would be to fail to love your Jewish friend and therefore to fail to love God to NOT lie to the nazi regarding your Jewish friend.

thanks,
Iconoclast

Isn't Alan's post genuine, and spoken from a heart desiring to follow God. And isn't Icon's post designed to bate-and-switch, to keep barganing in pursuit of something ostemsibly more preferable. "Bearing false witness" is foisted as though attention to it would undo God's command about homosexuality. Icon has done the same thing repeatedly with adultry and other sins. (But they remain all sins.)

Cynical.

I'm reminded of the difference between sin as an abstraction and the true ontological reality of sin. Sin is not an idea, a crossing of an imaginary line. Sin is departure from Life in God's will. God's will IS life and Life exists in God's will. God's commandments give life--ever since Genesis 1 (where the first commandment was "Let there be light").

Smoke and mirrors is tricky in a fair, dangerous on the road, and deadly when applied to God's commandments. I'd like to see a stop to it!

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/28/2003 06:34:50 AM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/27/2003 6:00 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

It seems to me that the command above was modified by Jesus:

Matt. 5:42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

According to Strong's Dictionary, the word translated "borrow" in the original means "loan with interest." Not being a Greek scholar I of course do not have the authority to speak to this definition.

Iconoclast

Nice argument John. I struggle with this interpretation however mostly because of the context.

Matthew 5:38-44

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, …

In the verses before and after Jesus is interpreting the law even more strictly. He is saying that we should go beyond the base rule to be even more loving toward others. To interpret “borrow” here as RELAXING the law on usury toward a brother seem to go against what Jesus is trying to do here.

Here is one commentary I found through Strong’s http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1051501512-5651.html:

quote:

42. Give to him that asketh thee--The sense of unreasonable asking is here implied (compare Luk 6:30 ).

and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away--Though the word signifies classically "to have money lent to one on security," or "with interest," yet as this was not the original sense of the word, and as usury was forbidden among the Jews ( Exd 22:25 , &c.), it is doubtless simple borrowing which our Lord here means, as indeed the whole strain of the exhortation implies. This shows that such counsels as "Owe no man anything" ( Rom 13:8 ), are not to be taken absolutely; else the Scripture commendations of the righteous for "lending" to his necessitous brother ( Psa 37:36 112:5 Luk 6:37 ) would have no application.

turn not thou away--a graphic expression of unfeeling refusal to relieve a brother in extremity.

Notice the author says that “classically” the word implies interest but NOT the “original sense of the word.”

John, granting (for the sake of continuing to explore Doc’s challenge) that Jesus was overturning usury here, why do you suppose it took us so long to realize this? I think Doc said something like 14 centuries and then only when it was extremely convenient to do so.

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

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 6:22 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
John Earp

I can see quite clearly how an Augustinian/Calvinian/determinist and even an Arminian could concede that God creates some people homosexual, given the whole sin-is-a-substance-passed-down-genetically idea typical in classical theism. This idea began with Tertullian and came to the fore through the influence of Augustine's theological innovations via Manicheism; i.e., material is evil, even married sex is sinful, etc. In my opinion this view of sin as something physical has plagued the Western Church ever since. What a loving God, who would condemn people to hell for something the very nature they start out in life with necessitates they become!

John, I don't buy into the sin-transfered-through-sex view (Augustinian) either. I DO hold to the view that we inherit the EFFECTS of original sin. We inherit death; but we commit our own sins. And, so, I do not hold either to Augustine's view of imputed guilt.

Trying to figure out what might possibily make Icon's possition consistant with itself...as near as I can figure a complete denial of the reality of evil in sin and merely considerining it to be guilt from crossing imaginery lines might do the trick. Hmmmm.....

But, "By Sin came death...."

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 6:30 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
POW

I cut right to the core of the issue underlying his presentation: HUMANISM.

Iconoclast

Is this a way to not have to look at the logic of what I am saying? Are you dismissing my logic in-total by using this device? If so, can you please articulate exactly what you mean by this and how it makes my logical argument invalid?

When you hoist sexual relations between two unmarried people and raise it to the level you do, of being heavenly, THAT is romantic HUMANISM. I beleive that you are educated enought to know what Humaniism is--the kind they teach in English class. Accepting human efforts as sufficient and acceptable to God (not filthy rags) is Humanistic.

What has long been called "Christian love", between Christians of any sex, is heavenly. And when that is exchanged between persons of any "orientation" then it is too. But to take a sin and wrap it in the guild of human accomplishment (mutual, "not hurting anybody", etc.) is just so much more humanistic smokescreen.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 6:38 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
POW (in response to the above). Iconoclast, you are not confused; you are cynical!!!
And it is purely not your business what the Bishop decides to do.

Doc: I don’t know if Iconclast is confused or cynical, but it certainly isn’t clear he’s such from your response POW.

I disagree, Doc.

"Cynical" is what I'm calling such comments like this:

"By your logic shouldn’t your church insist that he repent and cease from continuing in adultery with his second wife?"

THAT is just plain cynical! He is just choosing to play games with words and logical patterns. He is not interested in the people involved. He is not interested in how God is dealing with them. It strongly appears to me that he just wants to use them to make his point. To ME that is "cynical." (His divice strongly resembles the Pharasees who asked Christ whether they should pay taxes to Caesar or not.) I'm not going to "cast pearls to swine" by taking something precious and hallowed and laying it out on a table to be poked at. That seems to be the posture that Icon is taking. It looks like he pretends to be asking for logic, but in so doing fails to recognizing the value of the persons and community involved -- and decides to put himself as their judge. Again, that appears very cynical to me.

Perhaps, Doc, you just wanted me to spell this out. I have tried.

PoW

(I'm not being cynical. I don't think that any of me men and women that I've respected as collegues and parishoners would respond to Icon any differently than I have.)

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/28/2003 06:40:23 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/27/2003 6:38 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast
In the verses before and after Jesus is interpreting the law even more strictly. He is saying that we should go beyond the base rule to be even more loving toward others. To interpret “borrow” here as RELAXING the law on usury toward a brother seem to go against what Jesus is trying to do here.

John replies: I agree Jesus is interpreting the law even more strictly in the Sermon on the Mount. As the OT prohibition against usury was exclusively between Jews and lending with interest to foreigners was in fact permitted by God in Deuteronomy, it does not seem to me that there really is any contradiction between Jesus and Moses here. As the Kingdom of God has nothing to do with nationalism as such (except with forsaking nationalism as salvific), it does not seem to me that Jesus' statement about lending presents a problem here.

For Jesus, the kingdom of God no longer was to equal national Israel--"God is able to raise up from these stones children unto Abraham."

Therefore it seems to me that Jesus is simply stating:

1. If someone begs from you, give him what you are able to.

2. If someone asks a loan from you and you have the means, do so.

For the disciple of Jesus, the issue of repayment, (or the probability thereof) much less interest, would seem superfluous, given the context, as you cite. In other words, as I understand Jesus here, I am not to even worry about repayment, much less interest, if a fellow Christian is in need. Of course, as far as my personal responsibility vis a vis my own debts, Paul's command, "Owe no man anything except love" would be how I believe I should live.

Icon John, granting (for the sake of continuing to explore Doc’s challenge) that Jesus was overturning usury here, why do you suppose it took us so long to realize this? I think Doc said something like 14 centuries and then only when it was extremely convenient to do so.

John replies: I have not researched this particular area of Church history enough to make an educated comment on how well this command of Jesus was obeyed through the centuries (not that it would matter one way or another who did or did not obey this command), but I would hazard a guess that this was not much more consistently obeyed than "love thine enemy," was (especially after the Church became united with the State in the fourth century).

"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 04/27/2003 11:53:17 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 6:47 PM (GMT -6)

Amen to Alan, and Tim

quote:
Alan:

Jesus didn't say that there was only one command, but rather that all of the other commands could be subsumed under the commands to love God and to love our neighbor. Other commands (e.g., don't steal, don't covet, don't take God's name in vain, pray for your enemies, etc.) give content to the two greatest commandments by telling us what loving God and loving our neighbor ought to look like. Now Jesus taught that part of loving God is obeying His commandments (John 14:23-24). So IF God says that the practice of homosexuality is sinful then to engage in that practice is to fail to love God simply for being contrary to what God commands.

quote:
Tim

In not wanting to confuse anyone , said one sinner to the other.

…pointing out inconsistencies is a red herring with respect to the question of whether or not homosexuality (or any other practice) is a sin. If the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, then it is a sin, regardless of whether or not Christians are consistent in their application of Biblical standards vis-a-vis homosexuality and other sins.

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/27/2003 6:48 PM (GMT -6)

PoW:
John, I don't buy into the sin-transfered-through-sex view (Augustinian) either. I DO hold to the view that we inherit the EFFECTS of original sin. We inherit death; but we commit our own sins. And, so, I do not hold either to Augustine's view of imputed guilt.

John: I agree. The reason I brought up the Augustinian understanding of sin as a physical substance was simply because it seems to me that the determinist should logically have no problem whatsoever saying some people are born homosexual. Romans 1, on the other hand, seem quite clear--it is the result of suppressing the truth in righteousness, because they do not wish to retain the knowledge of God in their minds. As a result, "God gives them over to a reprobate mind, to do that which is unnatural."

PoW:
Trying to figure out what might possibily make Icon's possition consistant with itself...as near as I can figure a complete denial of the reality of evil in sin and merely considerining it to be guilt from crossing imaginery lines might do the trick. Hmmmm.....

But, "By Sin came death...."

John: As I'm hearing him, Icon is either saying that:

1. Homosexual sex is not always sinful.

Or,

2. Homosexual sex used to be sinful, but we "know better" now and therefore it is no longer sinful.

I of course disagree with both #1 and #2, unless of course we are talking about someone being sodomized against their will. In that case, the sin would lie with the perpetrator, not the victim.

"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 04/28/2003 12:07:09 AM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 4/27/2003 6:59 PM (GMT -6)

PoW said:

This is cynical, or disingenuous, or both.

Isn't Alan's post genuine, and spoken from a heart desiring to follow God. And isn't Icon's post designed to bate-and-switch, to keep barganing in pursuit of something ostemsibly more preferable. "Bearing false witness" is foisted as though attention to it would undo God's command about homosexuality. Icon has done the same thing repeatedly with adultry and other sins. (But they remain all sins.)

Cynical.

I'm reminded of the difference between sin as an abstraction and the true ontological reality of sin. Sin is not an idea, a crossing of an imaginary line. Sin is departure from Life in God's will. God's will IS life and Life exists in God's will. God's commandments give life--ever since Genesis 1 (where the first commandment was "Let there be light").

Smoke and mirrors is tricky in a fair, dangerous on the road, and deadly when applied to God's commandments. I'd like to see a stop to it!

Translation of what PoW said:

Insult, insult, insult.

Mind read. Ad hominem. Insinuation. Unsubstantiated accusation.

Insult.

Vague rumination.

Implied accusation. Threat.

Semeia:

I'm having a little trouble following your logic here.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/27/2003 7:06 PM (GMT -6)

POW

Isn't Alan's post genuine, and spoken from a heart desiring to follow God. And isn't Icon's post designed to bate-and-switch, to keep barganing in pursuit of something ostensibly more preferable.

Iconoclast

I certainly agree with you about Alan being genuine and speaking from a heart desiring to follow God. I am however a bit confused regarding all your accusations of me. I don’t feel like I am being cynical or disingenous. I am not intending to bait-and-switch. I honestly believe that in trying enforce the “legal view” on others we are at odds with Jesus’ message that we are to be loving one another – that love is above all. I honestly see the condemnation of homosexuals as self-serving legalistic Pharisaism. Jesus hammered the Pharisees on their inconsistent application of the law – “they strain gnats and swallow camels”. I am simply making a scriptural case for how the church today is “straining gnats” by condemning homosexuals and “swallowing camels” by being unloving toward them. The church doesn’t do this for divorce and remarriage, the church doesn’t do this for people who engage in usury, the church doesn’t do this for people who wear cloth woven with two kinds of material. I honestly believe that the church’s stance on this issue is hurting real people by driving them away from the gospel message.

Mat 12:1-7
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath." He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless.

POW

Smoke and mirrors is tricky in a fair, dangerous on the road, and deadly when applied to God's commandments. I'd like to see a stop to it!

Iconoclast

Then, please, refute the logic I have put forth.

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

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/27/2003 7:17 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast said: I certainly agree with you about Alan being genuine and speaking from a heart desiring to follow God.

and,

I honestly see the condemnation of homosexuals as self-serving legalistic Pharisaism.

John replies: You can't have it both ways, Icon. Either Alan (and all of us on the non-affirming side of the homosexual debate) is being genuine and speaking from a heart desiring to follow God, or he is, by your own clear definition, a "self-serving legalistic" Pharisee.

Quite revealing, isn't it, how the self-proclaimed "non-judgmental" crowd can be so totally judgmental against anyone they perceive as stricter than they are?

By saying the law of God is summed up in "love" one is by definition admitting that there are some things which are not loving, and are therefore prohibited. How absolutely judgmental. Hitler was just born to be a dictator; how dare anyone say he should not have done what he did!

"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 04/28/2003 12:28:49 AM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/27/2003 7:19 PM (GMT -6)

POW

He is just choosing to play games with words and logical patterns. He is not interested in the people involved. He is not interested in how God is dealing with them. He highly resembles the Pharasees who asked Christ whether they should pay taxes to Caesar or not. I'm not going to "cast pearls to swine" when he pretends to ask for logic, but is not recognizing the value of the persons and community involved.

Iconoclast

All that I am asking is that the church recognize the value of the persons (homosexuals) involved JUST as it does for divorced and remarried people. Why do you insist on this for your friend, POW, but lock out monogamous gay couples? I am NOT saying that your friend should be excommunicated, FAR FROM IT!! In fact, I think it is outrageous that he can't be a deacon. I am ONLY pointing out that the church is hypocritical on this in practice in ORDER to get the church to really look at the reasons for why it allows divorce and remarried people to be served communion but NOT monogamous gay couples. Clearly, the reasons don't come from any lawful scriptural argument. Far from it. The reasons come from what you just expressed above: "the value of the persons and community involved." In other words, the real reasons come from what it means to love one another. It is time to re-look at what this means regarding monogamous gay couples.

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

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 7:28 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
POW

Isn't Alan's post genuine, and spoken from a heart desiring to follow God. And isn't Icon's post designed to bate-and-switch, to keep barganing in pursuit of something ostensibly more preferable.

Iconoclast

I certainly agree with you about Alan being genuine and speaking from a heart desiring to follow God. I am however a bit confused regarding all your accusations of me. I don’t feel like I am being cynical or disingenous. I am not intending to bait-and-switch. I honestly believe that in trying enforce the “legal view” on others we are at odds with Jesus’ message that we are to be loving one another – that love is above all. I honestly see the condemnation of homosexuals as self-serving legalistic Pharisaism. Jesus hammered the Pharisees on their inconsistent application of the law – “they strain gnats and swallow camels”. I am simply making a scriptural case for how the church today is “straining gnats” by condemning homosexuals and “swallowing camels” by being unloving toward them. The church doesn’t do this for divorce and remarriage, the church doesn’t do this for people who engage in usury, the church doesn’t do this for people who wear cloth woven with two kinds of material. I honestly believe that the church’s stance on this issue is hurting real people by driving them away from the gospel message.

Icon: I honestly believe that in trying enforce the “legal view” on others we are at odds with Jesus’ message that we are to be loving one another – that love is above all.

PoW: John pointed out that obedience to God's commands is grounded in love of God. You are advocating disobeying God's commands, and then adding a human love that you are willing to baptize as divine. John sees your bait-and-switch.

Icon: I honestly see the condemnation of homosexuals as self-serving legalistic Pharisaism. ... condemning homosexuals and “swallowing camels” by being unloving toward them. The church doesn’t do this for divorce and remarriage, the church doesn’t do this for people who engage in usury...

PoW: The church does and always has called people to repentance. And confession of sin is required before participating in Communion.

DID YOU MISS WHAT I POSTED ABOUT PENNANCE.

Icon, you write that "The church doesn’t ... condemn ... divorce. It sure does. It calls it a sin." In mercy it allows remarriage. But the number of marriages IS limited. The church does condemn evils against one's neighbor (usury).

You are allowing homosexual Christians to continue in sin. As with all sin, the words need to be, "Go and sin no more."

You are NOT "making a scriptural case." You are trying to make the Bible say what you want it to.

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/28/2003 06:41:42 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 7:28 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast

Then, please, refute the logic I have put forth.

PoW

You didn't just put forth logic, you also put forth some bad data that need corrected.

So, here goes...

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/27/2003 7:30 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp

You can't have it both ways, Icon. Either Alan (and all of us on the non-affirming side of this issue) is being genuine and speaking from a heart desiring to follow God, or he is, by your definition, a "self-serving legalistic" Pharisee.

Iconoclast

Sure I can. I grant that I myself can be genuine and speaking from a heart desiring to follow God and yet be trapped in some "self-serving legalistic Pharisaical argument".

Ah, I see the problem, you think I said that anyone who condemns homosexuals is a “self-serving legalistic” Pharisee. I actually said, “I honestly see the condemnation of homosexuals as self-serving legalistic Pharisaism.” Notice the difference. The condemnation ITSELF is Pharisaism NOT the person condemning is a Pharisee.

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

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/27/2003 7:34 PM (GMT -6)

I think most Church folks today especially would be highly offended if John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, John, much less JESUS actually began preaching the basic apostolic message, "repent, for the kingdom is at hand!"

Acts 17:30 While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

"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

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/27/2003 7:37 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast

Ah, I see the problem, you think I said that anyone who condemns homosexuals is a “self-serving legalistic” Pharisee. I actually said, “I honestly see the condemnation of homosexuals as self-serving legalistic Pharisaism.” Notice the difference. The condemnation ITSELF is Pharisaism NOT the person condemning is a Pharisee.

John:

Once again we see the act/being dichotomy. So you would say someone can sin without being a sinner? Someone can murder without being a murderer? Lie without being a liar? Sure. Just like someone can love without being loving.

"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 04/28/2003 12:38:35 AM

132 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:49 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