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 7:44 PM (GMT -6)

POW

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."

Iconoclast

Can you fill in that quote of mine. It seems like you are making me say that the church doesn't condemn divorce.

The church condemns usury? You think usury is "evils against one's neighbor". I am confused. I thought usury was charging interest on a loan. Does your church condemn people putting their money in a bank?

Isn't your church allowing your friend to continue in sin according to Jesus definition? Or was that where your church suddenly decided that because of the value of persons and community they would just look aside for a moment? I don't get why your church wouldn't do this same thing for homosexuals? Can a monogamous gay couple do pennance at your church and be okay just like your 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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 4/27/2003 7:46 PM (GMT -6)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 8:11 PM (GMT -6)

As per...

quote:
POW

The IMAGE of marriage as that showing forth the relationship of Christ and the Church is also HIGHLY significant.

Iconoclast

Are you projecting this HUMANISM on me? Isn’t your argument humanistic (from the perspective of human oriented things – fleshly even). Marriage is clearly a human / fleshly thing. Jesus was crystal clear that when we depart from the FLESH we will no longer be given or taken in marriage.

Your statement above also demonstrates just how HUMANISTIC marriage really is. Jesus wants us for His bride. Well, from a human perspective Jesus is male and so am I. So Jesus wants to MARRY me as in HUMAN marriage?!?!

My argument is that marriage is a fleshly thing and is the best METAPHOR Jesus could find to help us understand the kind of intimate, loving relationship He wants with us. Intimate, loving relationships are a spiritual thing, not a fleshly thing. From a spiritual point of view wouldn’t you agree that we will have even MORE intimate and loving relationships with each other in heaven than can be had here on earth? Won’t David and Jonathan have an even more loving and intimate relationship in heaven than David had with Bathsheeba here on earth?

I really don’t get why you think that my argument is humanistic. Seems like opposite day to me.

POW

But, as to whether I am mad? .... I guess that I am, bro. You posted the Galatians passage (here's how I see it) in a move to smoke-screen the less studied to accept your point KNOWING FULL WELL (*yelling*) that both the Genesis passage where marriage is instituted AND the passages where Christ refers to the God-institutedness of marriage... well you just blew them off and let them be mute. Bro, you seem to have a strong desire to MAKE God say something that both His WORD and His CHURCH do not say.

Iconoclast

Sorry to make you mad but I am not denying that God instituted marriage. I am just saying that marriage is for us humans here on earth. The Galatians passage showed that from a SPIRITUAL point of view we are neither Jew nor Greek, and neither male nor female. Jesus was the one who gave us this teaching when He says that in heaven there will be no marriage.

I am hearing you say that human marriage is a spiritual thing. I don’t agree. Intimate, loving relationships are spiritual things, marriage is just an institution that God gave us here on earth to help us toward intimate, loving relationships AND to resolve the complex forces related to rearing children and building cohesive social structures.

I hear you as having the strong desire to MAKE God say something that both His WORD and His CHURCH do not say. Again, opposite day as far as I can tell.

POW

Another word about pennance. Since the issue is restoration, one cannot begin pennance while still continuing to practice the sin.

Iconoclast

You seem to be missing the logic of what I am saying. I will try to make it more explicit so that you can show me exactly where my logic is faulty.

. . .

Icon: when we depart from the FLESH we will no longer be given or taken in marriage

PoW: Of course this is true. It should be noted here, for use later though, that gender is part of who we each are. Each, whether male or female are fully human, yet humanity is "male and female." The fact that "we will no longer be given or taken in marriage" (as you say) is true does not take away from what I said:

The IMAGE of marriage as that showing forth the relationship of Christ and the Church is also HIGHLY significant.

This is so true, that when Paul spoke of it he began to mention marriage and ended by pointing out that he was really speaking of Christ and the Church. Notice that I said IMAGE of marriage -- the image that marriage is. This is unique.

In the past you tried to say that "committed gay couples" equals marriage. This is false.

As to where you say, "how HUMANISTIC marriage really is" that is nonesense. This is not the humanism of the Enlightenment. This is a divine creation. Fleshly, yes. And of course it should be. But marriage is an act entered into by THREE parties: the man, the woman, and God.

I think you are cynical when you say,

We are ALL the Bride of Christ. ALL our relationship with Christ (whether we be male or female) is like that of a woman to her husband. Scripture says so.

Icon: Intimate, loving relationships are a spiritual thing, not a fleshly thing.

PoW: From your statement above it can easily, EASILY be developed that since you are aiming only at "spiritual things" that you are now willing and enthusiastic to deny your homosexual friends any sex acts--because they are unnecessary.

But I won't go there. Marriage is NOT merely a spiritual thing via being "not a fleshly thing." Neither are we merely spirits riding in bodies. (If the later were so the Crucifixion would have been unnecessary!)

Icon: wouldn’t you agree that we will have even MORE intimate and loving relationships with each other in heaven than can be had here on earth? Won’t David and Jonathan have an even more loving and intimate relationship in heaven than David had with Bathsheeba here on earth?

PoW: I agree with you there, Icon. Yet, I don't deny that Christians can also participate, when they are willing and able, in the SAME love that is part of relationships in heaven. I'm speaking about Saints. But I'm also saying this about what is the potential in marriage.

And don't deconstruct it, and say that "the sum is equal to its parts." Ain't so.

Iconoclast: Sorry to make you mad but I am not denying that God instituted marriage. I am just saying that marriage is for us humans here on earth. The Galatians passage showed that from a SPIRITUAL point of view we are neither Jew nor Greek, and neither male nor female.

Again, that is NOT what the verse says. "Jew nor Greek" speaks of the "slave/children of Haggar" and "free/Children of Sarah" that were part of the debate with the Jerusalem troublemakers. (Its part of what the whole book deals with.) And, again, "male AND female" (not "male nor female") is NOT, NO, NEVER, EVER, a denyal that God created us male and female. It does not change human nature. It says -- as fits the book of Galatians -- that pagan fertility religions are not a source of salvation either. (Paul says, in a fashion borrowed from the local regions mystery cults that we must "put on" Christ. Put on the stigma of someone who is not merly a Lord--which all religions had--but one who suffered the humiliation of death on the cross. "Christ," the chosen to die.)

Icon: I am hearing you say that human marriage is a spiritual thing. I don’t agree. Intimate, loving relationships are spiritual things, marriage is just an institution that God gave us here on earth to help us toward intimate, loving relationships AND to resolve the complex forces related to rearing children and building cohesive social structures. ... I hear you as having the strong desire to MAKE God say something that both His WORD and His CHURCH do not say. Again, opposite day as far as I can tell.

[PoW:] WHEN was marriage given? After the fall or before?

Marriage was part of God's design, His "very good" design BEFORE the fall. BEFORE the necessity of procreation to delay the extinction of the species. Marriage pre-dates sin!

It is NOT just the stop-gap divice and the mechanical prop you described.

Icon, you can't deeply divide flesh and spirit without being DUALISTIC. Humans are psychosomatic unities. Again, we are not spirits riding around in bodies.

I confess this in the Creed: I look for the resurrection (bodily) of the dead.

Again, you and I agree (with Christ) that we won't be given in marriage. But you will always be male, and Semeia female -- 'cause that's really who you are, and who God made you to be. (Some liberal anthropologists want to deny this!)

Icon: I hear you as having the strong desire to MAKE God say something that both His WORD and His CHURCH do not say.

PoW: What does God's WORD say? That marriage is not just a stopgap instituted after the fall. That the resurrection will be bodily. That mankind is created "male and female." What does the Church say. Same thing.

quote:
POW

Another word about pennance. Since the issue is restoration, one cannot begin pennance while still continuing to practice the sin.

Iconoclast

You seem to be missing the logic of what I am saying. I will try to make it more explicit so that you can show me exactly where my logic is faulty.

The point about your "logic" is that you ignored what the salent thing involved is. Its not guilt, its restoration. Its not punishment, its restoration.

I'm more than a little afraid that you will come back on that and say that it is "restoration" to permissively adivize your friends to continue havine homosexual sex.

Restoration involves repentance; not continuing in sin.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 8:26 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
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.

I am ONLY pointing out that the church is hypocritical ... why it allows divorce and remarried people to be served communion but NOT monogamous gay couples.

Icon has not one but two issues on this table.

First, when he says "the value of the persons ..." he (knowing better) implies that the Church condemns the PERSONS and not the SIN. He saw my posts to this point on the "Gay man" thread. And if he cares to, he will find the same thing all over the Christian landscape, of the Church's commitment: to uphold and support those individuals who seek to follow the Lord and turn from sin; and, significanlty, to condemn any unoloving behavors, attitudes and acts towards any person--to come to their rescue in need.

It is mighty easy to through out such accusations. Icon, go read the BGC on the topic.

(I'll posted it below, on THIS thread.)

Second, You ask "why him and not those guys?" But the answer is neither, in this case. My friend is not a deacon. (And the issue I was discussing was whether he could searve communion; not take it.) But, LOGICALLY, Icon, your statment falls to the floor.

As to your (to me "cynical") recommendation -- in what you'd said before -- that he actually divorce his present wife and try to marry the first... I'm not amused.

Simple logic says that a Gay couple have to repent before taking communion. They do this frequently and they cease being a "Gay couple." That's cool.

Perhaps it is even easier (I don't know--I'm not in the know.) for your Gay friends to repent and then eventually, perhaps, if God wills, be called into the priesthood. (Deacon is an ordained office in his diocese; and if a priest's wife dies you he may not remarry.) a former homosexual might end up "in" and he "out." Who knows. But the point, there, is that individuals don't decide; offices are called.

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/28/2003 06:43:44 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 8:35 PM (GMT -6)

Icon: Can a monogamous gay couple do pennance at your church and be okay just like your friend?

PoW: What do you think that "pennance" IS, Icon?

In reality, using "real" pennance... the answer is SURE.

Homosexuality is a sin. And like other sins must be confessed. And the sinner restored in their relationship with God and the Body. Same as All sins. When/If the repentant individual (Each just do this INDIVIDUALLY) falls back into sin, again, they must repent again.

Obviously if cohabitation presents temptations that are leading to sih, then they must separate.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 8:45 PM (GMT -6)

On MARRIAGE:

quote:
G. Marriage and Family Life

1. The Orthodox Church rejects views of marriage which are based on self-gratification.

Marriages based on self-gratification exclude Christ, His Cross and Resurrection. They deny that marriage must be the living image of the relationship between Christ and His Church: all-encompassing, unique and eternal.

"Open marriages" and "contract marriages," for example, both presuppose that marriage is merely a partial and limited human arrangement belonging to this world. In such alliances each spouse picks and chooses from the other certain self-gratifying aspects of life - sex, economic security, clearly defined companionship and/or mutual assistance - and bases the marital relationship on them. The "open marriage" in particular gives full vent to the fallen search for self-gratification and propels couples on an endless quest for new sexual partners, thereby depriving marriage of its fundamental uniqueness.

2. No form of sexual relationship fulfills human life as created and sanctified by God except the relationship between one man and one woman in the community of marriage.

In our present moral confusion, sex in particular has been isolated from the responsibilities of a total marital union of heart and mind, body, soul, and spirit. Sex has become an end in itself and is proclaimed as such in the philosophy of individualism and self-indulgence which daily bombards us.

This philosophy reduces marriage to an alleged hypocrisy: the obtaining of a "piece of paper" in order to make sex legal. The result is a multitude of sexual attitudes and life-styles which include couples openly living together and/or engaging in sexual relations outside the community of marriage and supposedly finding complete satisfaction and fulfillment in this arrangement.

Such a view of sex and love is degrading and inadequate to the human being as created in the image and likeness of God. God created man and woman not to use each other, but to love and live for each other freely and completely in the community of marriage, reflecting the divine image and likeness in the complementarity manifested in their union. However great its importance and however central it might be in gauging the depths of the fall of man and the subsequent distortion of God's image within him, sex is still but one of the aspects of human life. In God, by virtue of the saving work of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we as human beings are bound and determined by nothing, sex included. All biological determinism has been shattered. Death is overcome. The power of sin has been defeated. God has become man that man might again live and dwell in God. In Him we enjoy the gracious freedom of the Spirit, the Spirit of "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Gal. 5:22). This is the very opposite of the works of the flesh, which St. Paul identifies as: "immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like" (Gal. 5:19-20). In Christ and by the Holy Spirit the human being is again restored to his original wholeness of body, soul, heart, mind and spirit.

In Holy Matrimony husband and wife are brought to realize true unity in all its fullness, a unity which takes into account all aspects of human life, and not just sex. The prayers of the Marriage Service ask that the marriage bed be kept honorable and undefiled: again, that it be the very image of the unique relationship between the Bridegroom, Christ, and His beloved and holy Bride, the Church. The prayers likewise ask that the couple be blessed to live together in purity, to walk according to the commandments of God, to share a perfect and peaceful love, to grow in oneness of mind and steadfastness of faith, and that they be given every needful heavenly and earthly blessing, so that they in turn might give to those in need. By taking into consideration the entire human being, the Church affirms that the giving of a man and a woman to each other in sexual relations finds its perfect and most fulfilling setting in the total, divinely sanctified love which is the center of Christian marriage.

Love which is partial, unsacrificial, non-committal and rooted in lust is really not love, for "God is love" (I John 5:8), and God has revealed Himself in the irrevocable, self-abandoning condescension of His Son, even to the humiliating death on the Cross, and the gracious and all-pervading outpouring of His Holy Spirit, who is "everywhere and filling all things." The holy apostle Paul obviously has this divine manifestation of true love in mind when he writes: "Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in the wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. . ." (1 Cor. 13:4-8), Such is the love on which Christian marriage is based: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her . . ." (Eph. 5:25)

(Hopko, www.oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/documents/holysynod/marriage.html)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 9:21 PM (GMT -6)

To ICON (and adiaphora)

quote:
<< PoW, Please channel your passion on this issue toward constructing arguments that do not include name-calling and negative characterizations of your discussion partners. >>

OK, I'm done addressing Icon as "Picture-smasher/Image-mangler" -- evn though I was sincerly commenting on what I lamented in his treatment of marriage (as not bearing that image).

OK, I'm done using the word "cynical" when I see something that is obviously valuable reduced to a cog. Logic is not absent in cynicism! Perspective is. I'll try to find another word IF it is needed -- and I hope that it is not.

OK, I MIGHT find a better phrasing than "you seem to..." But I don't know it I can.

My thanks to Icon for coming back at me with specifics. That helps us move past...

'Nuff said.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 9:23 PM (GMT -6)

Icon, since the topic IS "Divorce and Remarriage...", What do YOU say as to pennance?

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/28/2003 02:24:30 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 4/27/2003 9:41 PM (GMT -6)

Icon seems to accuse the Church of NOT valuing individuals who are homosexuals AS PERSONS. That needs examining!

quote:
Iconoclast

All that I am asking is that the church recognize the value of the persons (homosexuals) involved ...

I responded saying that I would post a copy of what follows.

PoW

-----------------------------------------------

Here is the Baptist General Conference (of which Woodland Hills is a memeber) position. NOTE THE UNDERLINED PARTS:

quote:
BELIEFS ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND MINISTERING TO HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
(Adopted 1992)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We the delegates to the 114th Annual Meeting of the Baptist General Conference gathering in Estes Park, CO, June 28-28 endorse the following two-part resolution:

Part 1

Our affirmation that the Bible is the infallible Word of God with “supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct,” and our affirmation that “a Christian should live for the glory of God” include the following six beliefs about heterosexuality and homosexuality:

We believe that heterosexuality is God’s revealed will for humankind and that, since God is loving, a chaste and faithful expression of this orientation (whether in singleness or marriage) is the ideal to which God calls all people.

We believe that a homosexual orientation is a result of the fall of humanity into a sinful condition that pervades every person. Whatever biological or familial roots of homosexuality may be discovered we do not believe that these would sanction or excuse homosexual behavior, though they would deepen our compassion and patience for those who are struggling to be free from sexual temptations.

We believe there is hope for the person with a homosexual orientation and that Jesus Christ offers a healing alternative in which the power of sin is broken and the person is freed to know and experience his or her true identity in Christ and in the fellowship of his Church.

We believe that this freedom is attained through a process which includes recognizing homosexual behavior as sin, renouncing the practice of homosexual behavior, rediscovering healthy, non-erotic friendships with people of the same sex, embracing a moral sexual lifestyle, and in the age to come, rising from the dead with a new body free from every sinful impulse. This process parallels the similar process of sanctification needed in dealing with heterosexual temptations as well. We believe that this freedom comes through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of his Spirit.

We believe that all persons have been created in the image of God and should be accorded human dignity. We believe therefore that hateful, fearful, unconcerned harassment of persons with a homosexual orientation should be repudiated. We believe that respect for persons with a homosexual orientation involves honest, reasoned, non-violent sharing of facts concerning the immorality and liability of homosexual behavior. On the other hand, endorsing behavior which the Bible disapproves endangers persons and dishonors God.

We believe that Christian churches should reach out in love and truth to minister to people touched by homosexuality, and that those who contend Biblically against their own sexual temptation should be patiently assisted in their battle, not ostracized or disdained. However, the more prominent a leadership role or modeling role a person holds in a church or institution of the Conference, the higher will be the expectations for God’s ideal of sexual obedience and wholeness. We affirm that both heterosexual and homosexual persons should find help in the church to engage in the Biblical battle against all improper sexual thoughts and behaviors.

Part 2

We further endorse the following affirmation as an implication of the previous six beliefs. Since beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, like beliefs about the sinfulness of lying, stealing, murder, greed, etc., are an essential part of our commitment to the supreme authority of the Bible in all matters of faith and conduct,

and since a person who believes that lying, stealing, murder or greed are Biblically acceptable lifestyles would not and should not be deemed qualified to serve in the leadership of our Conference, or teach in its educational institutions, or serve as pastors of Baptist General Conference churches, or as teachers and principals of all church-sponsored schools, or as missionaries of the Baptist General Conference,

therefore we affirm that, in the same way, those who believe that homosexual behavior is a Biblically acceptable lifestyle are not qualified to serve in the leadership of the Conference or to teach in its educational institutions or to serve as pastors of Baptist General Conference churches, or as teachers and principals of all church-sponsored schools, or as missionaries of the Baptist General Conference.

We further affirm that this affirmation is simply an effort to make explicit the implicit religious consensus of the Baptist General Conference concerning the meaning of Article One (The Word of God) and Article Eight (Christian Conduct) of our Affirmation of Faith adopted in 1951.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Produced by Communications, Baptist General Conference
2002 S. Arlington Heights Road, Arlington Heights, IL 60005
Please address comments or questions to:
Gary Marsh.

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/28/2003 02:42:46 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 4/28/2003 3:55 AM (GMT -6)

Boy does this thread move fast! I'm still chewing on the usury argument (which, so far as I can see, hasn't been answered). In response to John Earp's interpretation of borrowing, the following passage is significant: Jesus said...

Luke 6:34 If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.

So, if the OT isn't enough to teach us not to lend with interest, it would seem that the words of Jesus should be.

And yet, thankfully, we all use money to make money with interest. The economy, and hence well being of millions of people, hangs on this.

I don't see this as a red herring Alan. I think its absolutely germane in setting the rules of the game, as it were. What determines what IS and IS NOT taken as "law" in Scripture? The discover that our practice is somewhat arbitrary is informative and significant, for it forces us to examine our methodology -- and this might affect our view of homosexuality, usury, and other practices.

Greg

ps. I'm delighted to see a moratorium on all name calling and insults. This sort of thing grieves me to no end!

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 4/28/2003 4:11 AM (GMT -6)

Just a couple of things.

First, I can't believe this thread took off. I looked in my mail box and BAM! Fourty-one e-mails, most of which deal with this thread. Anyhoo...

To Brett and Pow. I have a son named Brett. This probably explains the confusion.

It's happened before. Remember Brett?

Alan said:

quote:
Brandon,
I like your interpretive suggestion that adultery in its primary sense is covenant breaking, and only secondarily is it sleeping with another's spouse--one particular form of covenant breaking. I agree with you, therefore, that divorce is a form of adultery. I'm not fully persuaded, largely because of the verse in Matthew that Greg cites, that remarriage is not also adulterous, at least much of the time. I have to think about this some more though.

I am writing a response to the Matthew 5:31-32 verse even as we speak, so please be patient with me my friend. I hope to have it up today. I will even deal specifically with remarriage AS CONTINUAL ADULTERY and why I believe that this is not so. I will also attempt to use my "theological martial arts" (<---I love the way I put that) bringing the force of the charge of hypocrisy back on to the affirming side, thereby sustaining my view that Jesus was concerned with the creational ideal and with the covenant. You have no need to worry Alan, I will do the thinking for you.

Also, what I see going on with the rest of this thread from my last post on forward is the attempt to legitmitze homosexuality by using the hermeneutical rule of extended application. Fine. We can argue this point, but I don't really think it is appropriate on THIS thread. This thread is NOT about that. It is about divorce and remarriage as adultery and its relation to homosexuality. For that is one of the major legs in this debate on the affirming side. If it can be shown that it is weak, then a major tenet of the affirming side has been demolished and the whole or at least a substantial part of the legitmacy of homosexuality is called into question. I would rather keep it focused on that without the confusion of the issue of extended application.

Also, John and Iconoclast said:

quote:
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".

We know that the Pharisees were quite genuine and passionate about the WORD OF GOD. It could be said of them that they were the "gate-keepers" if you will. And it can be said that they truly thought that they were pleasing God through it all. But Christ called them hypocrites. They meant well, but they were wrong. You've heard it said that the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions. And I think it is a truth that the greatest deception is not being decieved by others but self-deception. I would have to agree here with Iconoclast but view the affirming side in this position.

Understand what I'm saying here. I am not being soooo presumptuous as to believe that I know the state of one's heart or what God thinks of them (are they going to hell or not?). My point is that what Iconoclast is saying can be applied to both sides. It can be applied to the non-affirming side for their "correctness on scripture" but inside they have hatred for or they despise homosexuals. This is not the way of Christ. But it is also true for the affirming side, in that they can hold bitterness in their hearts toward those on the non-affirming side. EVEN WHEN they think they are correct in their interpretation and application of scripture here. Electra posted something like this once. She wanted to be careful of where her heart was at (anger and resentment) toward those on the affirming side of the homosexual debate. That is right on. More than anything, it was nice to hear the honesty of her heart. What an example. Thanks Electra. Way too cool!

Now, on to finishing up my post! Hee, hee, hee...

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 4/28/2003 4:33 AM (GMT -6)

Alan Rhoda said:

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.

Semeia:

Obviously there are two questions being discussed here, Alan. One is the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sin. As we have discussed on this and other threads, there is much ambiguity about what the bible actually says about homosexuality, since the word did not exist in biblical times, and the descriptions of same-sex relations given in the bible are greatly at odds with what we know about homosexual behavior today. No one would argue, for example, that homosexuals become homosexuals as a result of God "giving them over to their degrading passions" as a result of their "idol worship" as Paul suggests in Romans 1. Regardless of what factors are genetic and what factors are environmental, medical science agrees that sexual orientation is determined at an early age. To follow that argument through one would have to say that prepubescent gay teenagers are gay because they are being punished by God for their idol worshiping.

There is a great deal of evidence that casts doubt on the scriptures that have been used against gays. Arsenikoites and Malakoi have no crystal clear translation - scholars over the centuries have varied widely in their interpretations, ranging from masturbation to pedophilia to effeminate. The translation HUGELY affects the meaning of the scriptures, and without any clear unambiguous evidence for what Paul was referring to, it seems we should be at the very least hesitant to base our attitudes on those scriptures.

And the Leviticus scriptures are even more problematic, since the vast majority of those scriptures are completely ignored by Christians today.

But whether or not one feels there is sufficient biblical evidence to say that homosexuality is sin (and obviously Iconoclast and I feel there is not), it is definitely NOT a red herring to point out the Church’s inconsistency in its behavior toward certain sinners. I’m rather baffled why you would even suggest such a thing. Do you really think it doesn’t matter whether or not the church ordains divorced and remarried people (who according to Jesus are living in adultery), and gluttonous (another word for overweight) people, and people who practice usury, and angry people, and people who wear two kinds of cloth, and yet REJECTS homosexuals from church leadership (and often from church membership)?

If that is a red herring, then much of Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees was a red herring, because he spent much of his time pointing out to them their hypocrisy – and how they put heavy burdens on people and refused to lift a finger to help. Jesus’ main beef with the Pharisees is that they refused to see their own sinfulness. They saw their own behavior as holy, and constantly pointed out the sinfulness of others. That was the whole point of his statements about divorce being adultery. He did not change the law allowing divorce, he simply pointed out that all the people who believed that their divorces and remarriages were less sinful than someone else’s divorce and remarriage were kidding themselves. And by calling it adultery he was calling it ONGOING sin – not the kind of one-time sin that someone can repent over and move on.

It is far from a red herring to point out this inconsistency in the way sin is dealt with by the church – because this inconsistency hugely affects vast numbers of people in extremely damaging ways. The church has essentially decided to overlook a whole list of sins. For example, the church overlooks gluttony, usury, and divorce (by overlooking I mean that the church takes no active role in keeping gluttons, bankers, people with savings accounts, and divorced and remarried people from membership). The bible is CLEAR on these sins, much clearer than it is on homosexuality, and yet there are no church policies designed to stamp out these sins.

Jesus spent much of his ministry convicting people of exactly this kind of inconsistency. He spent little time lecturing individuals on their individual sins, or telling people that they should be spending their efforts in getting their BROTHER to stop HIS sinning, but rather he convicted ALL people of their sinfulness, MOST ESPECIALLY the religious folk who tended to hypocritically overlook their own sin while at the same time pointing their finger at others.

What we are saying is that this is EXACTLY what the church does today: it overlooks its OWN sins, while pointing out the sins of certain rejected groups, most specifically homosexuals.

Alan, if you are going to say: “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” then you must also say the same thing about divorce and remarriage, usury, gluttony, wearing two kinds of cloth, touching pig-skin, and on and on.

For example, if the bible teaches that divorce and remarriage is the sin of adultery (an ongoing sin), then it is a sin, regardless of whether or not Christians are consistent in their application of biblical standards.

Given that, why shouldn’t the church keep divorced and remarried people from becoming members and leaders in the church, as it does for the sin of homosexuality?

Or, if the bible teaches that usury (charging interest on a loan) is a sin (an abomination, no less), then it is a sin, regardless of whether or not Christians are consistent in their application of biblical standards.

Given that, why shouldn’t the church keep people who practice usury (anyone with money in the bank) from becoming members and leaders in the church, as it does for the sin of homosexuality?

And if you do NOT think that the church should treat these sins with that kind of seriousness, then please explain the difference between these sins and homosexuality.

The only difference I can see is that the one list of sins convicts US, and the other list of sins convicts SOMEONE ELSE. So far no one has presented an argument that in any way repudiates the ongoing nature of the sin of divorce and adultery, or that negates the biblical injunction against usury, or that in any way negates the seriousness of these sins according to scripture. Nor has anyone presented an argument for why homosexuality is a “special” sin that is somehow worse than the break-up of a family, or worse than any other sin that the church condones by lack of action against it.

So regardless of whether or not anyone agrees on whether or not homosexuality is a sin, the question remains as to what the church’s attitude should be toward particular sins. And so far no one has explained WHY there should be a difference in how the church deals with homosexuality compared to how it deals with divorce and remarriage.

To move things forward:

Does anyone deny that the bible names usury, divorce and remarriage, and, let’s say, gluttony, as ONGOING sins?

If you deny this, please give scriptural evidence for all three cases. (Since all three of these sins are rampant among Christians, the point can be made with any one of them. So in fact all three have to be scripturally refuted in order to show the non-hypocrisy of the Church’s position regarding homosexuality.)

If you don’t deny this, on what basis do you justify leniency on a list of sins that the majority of Christians suffer from, while singling out a sin that affects relatively few Christians? How is that not hypocritical?

Either you have to take the legal view and go after ALL sins consistently, OR you have to extend the same compassion you have for your own sins to others. Anything else is hypocrisy.

If you are going to argue that in fact the bible DOES name these sins, but they were in a particular “context” and things have changed such that they no longer apply in the same way – and you agree that this is a legitimate argument – then you cannot counter the same argument about homosexuality SIMPLY by saying that the bible names it as a sin.

Thanks,
Semeia

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

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 4/28/2003 4:45 AM (GMT -6)

BBB: Electra posted something like this once. She wanted to be careful of where her heart was at (anger and resentment) toward those on the affirming side [E: Do you mean non-affirming?] of the homosexual debate.

Electra: Thanks Brandon! ...But I'm not sure what you're refering to.

Maybe affirming/non-affirming is not the most helpful terminology. There is a sense in which Christians on both sides should be affirming of the infinite worth of every human being, and non-affirming of sinful patterns in every human being, whether those patterns involve self-righteousness and/or sexuality—starting with our own sinful patterns (cf. log/speck teaching).

My own temptation in this issue is the hypocrisy of judging the judgers. I'm trying to prove Newton wrong—not every action results in an equal but opposite reaction! Because judgemental sinners are in the more dangerous position of being self-deceived (as you note above), more direct confrontation of them is warranted. However, this confrontation does not diminish the extent to which they are as welcome to the table as any other sinner.

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 04/28/2003 09:51:37 AM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 4/28/2003 4:51 AM (GMT -6)

Oooo...Oooo...I have a question for you Semeia! Ready? OK.

WHO CARES!?

Listen, this thread is NOT ABOUT EXTENDED APPLICATION! It's not about, "If we do it for this sin, why don't we do it for THIS sin?" It is not about that AT ALL.

THIS IS WHAT I CALL BAIT AND SWITCH.

I don't have problems with addressing those issues, but they are separate from what this thread is about. I'll say it again.

What I see going on with the rest of this thread from my last post on forward is the attempt to legitmitze homosexuality by using the hermeneutical rule of extended application. Fine. We can argue this point, but I don't really think it is appropriate on THIS thread. This thread is NOT about that. It is about divorce and remarriage as adultery and its relation to homosexuality. For that is one of the major legs in this debate on the affirming side. If it can be shown that it is weak, then a major tenet of the affirming side has been demolished and the whole or at least a substantial part of the legitmacy of homosexuality is called into question. I would rather keep it focused on that without the confusion of the issue of extended application.

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 4/28/2003 4:55 AM (GMT -6)

Are usury, adultery, divorce and remarriage, gluttony and homosexuality all similar?

Yes, if all are actions that can be changed. But if you claim one of these as being the person's nature, then they are not similar, are they?

So if you're going to use scriptural examples of actions, don't apply them to examples of nature.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.

Edited by - Laika on 04/28/2003 10:00:32 AM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 4/28/2003 5:01 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
What I see going on with the rest of this thread from my last post on forward is the attempt to legitmitze homosexuality by using the hermeneutical rule of extended application. Fine. We can argue this point, but I don't really think it is appropriate on THIS thread. This thread is NOT about that. It is about divorce and remarriage as adultery and its relation to homosexuality. For that is one of the major legs in this debate on the affirming side. If it can be shown that it is weak, then a major tenet of the affirming side has been demolished and the whole or at least a substantial part of the legitmacy of homosexuality is called into question. I would rather keep it focused on that without the confusion of the issue of extended application.

This distinction is a little too subtle for me to follow. (But then again, I have been known to post an occasional non sequitor...

) If the issues are as interconnected as you suggest, then wouldn't it be a distortion to insist on discussing them separately?

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 4/28/2003 5:18 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
BBB: Electra posted something like this once. She wanted to be careful of where her heart was at (anger and resentment) toward those on the affirming side [E: Do you mean non-affirming?] of the homosexual debate.

Sorry. You are right. I misspoke there. I mean NON-AFFIRMING side.

quote:
Electra: Thanks Brandon! ...But I'm not sure what you're refering to.

I am referring to as you say,
quote:
My own temptation in this issue is the hypocrisy of judging the judgers.

You said something to the affect of watching your heart at being angry and holding resentment towards those judgers. It was right on. It's a two way street. It cuts both ways for the affirming side and the non-affirming side.

quote:
Maybe affirming/non-affirming is not the most helpful terminology. There is a sense in which Christians on both sides should be affirming of the infinite worth of every human being, and non-affirming of sinful patterns in every human being, whether those patterns involve self-righteousness and/or sexuality—starting with our own sinful patterns (cf. log/speck teaching).

Well, yes. Right. Everyone is of infinite worth and therefore we should affirm homosexuals as well in THAT sense. As well, we should be non-affirming of sinful patterns. And it is in THIS sense that I use the terminology--"affirming/non-affirming." Some want to affirm a particular sinful pattern, some do not. Obviously, that is what the question is we are attempting to answer. I just don't think the way of extended application, is the topic of THIS thread. It is one response in the debate AS A WHOLE. But it is not the issue here as Semeia, Greg and Iconoclast want to bring into it. They started out good, but then they jumped to another question altogether. I think, if the question I raised in the beginning post is responded to positively, then this will IN AND OF ITSELF respond to questions of extended application that they bring forth.

By the way, most of those on the "affirming side," I believe, don't have a problem with using this terminology such as James B. Nelson.

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 4/28/2003 5:22 AM (GMT -6)

Brandon, thanks for your response.

BBB: Some want to affirm a particular sinful pattern, some do not.

Electra: Would anyone in this discussion characterize themselves as affirming particular sinful patterns? Likewise, would anyone in this discussion characterize themselves as not affirming particular people?

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 04/28/2003 10:25:19 AM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 4/28/2003 5:53 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.

LOL...that's cute.

quote:
This distinction is a little too subtle for me to follow. (But then again, I have been known to post an occasional non sequitor... ) If the issues are as interconnected as you suggest, then wouldn't it be a distortion to insist on discussing them separately?

I hope I responded to that question above. But, eventually, yes, you want to bring them together. But at this point, I don't see that it does any harm to talk about divorce and remarriage AS adultery, separately. After all, divorce and remarriage as adultery and the legitimization of homosexuality are two different questions. Greg, Semeia and Iconoclast want to start out by legitimizing homosexuality on the basis that if one gets remarried AFTER they divorce then they are continually committing adultery every time they have sexual relations with their spouse, not to mention that the spouse is also committing adultery.

THAT IS THEIR PREMISE.

Then they conclude that if Jesus "OK'd" this (sinful pattern), then why not "OK" other sinful patterns such as homosexuality, especially if it is understood as being genetically based.

THAT IS THEIR CONCLUSION.

My point is to show the faultiness of their premise. If it can be shown to be faulty, then a major tenet of the affirming side is called into question.

Therefore, I DON'T CARE about extended application at this point. I want to deal with the premise. I will attempt to use my "theological martial arts" to counter the conclusion TO THEIR CONCLUSION. And THAT (second) CONCLUSION, is that the church is hypocrites. Yikes!! In fact, I will attempt to show who the REAL hypocrites are. Of course, by that I do not mean to name call. I mean it in the way that Iconoclast means it:

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

This is exactly what pharisaism is. Read, Philip Yancey's, "The Jesus I Never Knew." Sometimes our pride will blind us to how much we want to be right. I mean sometimes it feels down right good to go against the status quo. Thinking that the the WHOLE CHURCH is wrong and we are a voice crying in the wilderness.

I say this all in love my friends.

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 4/28/2003 7:20 AM (GMT -6)

I CARE!!!

I wanted to “design” the opening of the post to match Brandon. Perhaps a personal address with a font that was bold, colorful and dismissive. But in light of the agreement as to the parameters of dialogue I decided to take a more graceful route.

Semeia’s last post was not addressed to Brandon. She was responding to Alan.

quote:
Who wrote: “Icon and Semeia,
I appreciate your plea for consistency in the attitudes of Christians toward various sins. There are certainly many respects in which Christians need to better think through the implications of their worldview. We should be more consistent. How that consistency should be achieved is a difficult question calling for great wisdom and sensitivity to the particulars of different issues and cases. 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.”

Maybe you should have blasted Alan for going in THAT direction.

How would you find Donna Summer in the phone book?

Springs

"Dreams are illustrations...from the book your soul is writing about you." -Marsha Norman

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

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

Brandon says:

quote:
I mean sometimes it feels down right good to go against the status quo. Thinking that the the WHOLE CHURCH is wrong and we are a voice crying in the wilderness.

Hey, why you dragging me into this conversation?

peace and love, don

---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/28/2003 7:42 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Sometimes our pride will blind us to how much we want to be right.

Can we assume that some actually are acting out of a supreme desire to be wrong?

"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 1:02:54 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/28/2003 7:50 AM (GMT -6)

John Earp

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.

Iconoclast

Do you consider the person who lies to the nazi in order to protect his Jewish friend to be a "liar"?

John: Ah situational ethics. How fun. Technically yes, they haved lied. Morally what they have done is righteous, just as Rahab's hiding of the Hebrew spies was righteous. Morality lies in the ultimate intention behind thoughts, words, and deeds.

Icon
John, have you ever lied? Do you consider your self a "liar"? Have you ever gotten drunk? Do you consider yourself a "drunkard"? Should we?

John replies: Yes, I have (past tense) lied and gotten drunk. Because I am a new creation in Christ, I no longer lie or get drunk. As Paul said, "such were some of you, but you were washed...justified...and sanctified...by the Spirit of God." And so it is not presently true that I am a liar or a drunkard, by the grace of God.

Icon Seems to me that the act / being dichotomy is a self-evident reality. Are you denying this?

John replies: I certainly don't see the extreme in it that you seem to. 1 John 3:7 says, "Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. Or, as I think Plato said, "We are what we consistently do."

"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 1:12:40 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/28/2003 7:54 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Boy does this thread move fast! I'm still chewing on the usury argument (which, so far as I can see, hasn't been answered). In response to John Earp's interpretation of borrowing, the following passage is significant: Jesus said...

Luke 6:34 If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.

So, if the OT isn't enough to teach us not to lend with interest, it would seem that the words of Jesus should be.

I agreed with this point of view several posts back, where I said that we as Christ's followers should lend if we can and not expect repayment, much less interest. Again, I think people all too easily confuse the Church and the Secular World in this and many other cases. As a bank is not necessarily a part of the body of Christ, it does not follow that a bank should not be allowed to charge interest. Now if a disciple of Christ were the owner of the Bank, he may need to really examine his participation in lending with interest.

"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 1:01:57 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 4/28/2003 7:57 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

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

Nevertheless, you are accusing Alan of having a self-serving, legalistic approach to this issue, while at the same time "speaking from a heart desiring to follow God." One simply cannot be doing both of these at the same time, in the same post. It is not clear how one's approach to an issue can be differentiated from one's heart or ultimate motivation.

As to Brandon's reply that the Pharisees were in fact seeking after God, that is simply not true according to what Jesus had to say to them. He said, "If God were your Father, then you would honor and love me, and yet you seek to kill me." (Again, I'm paraphrasing from memory, but I'm certain that is found in John 8).

Addendum from bible.com:

John 8:7 I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. 38 I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father." 39 They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did. 41 You do what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." 42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

"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 1:14:29 PM

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

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:32 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