 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/23/2003 9:49 AM (GMT -6) |   | As many of you know, I am NOT on the “affirming side” of the homosexual debate. That is, I AM on the “non-affirming” side.
I still believe that homosexuality is a DEVIANT lifestyle. And I believe that I can maintain a “love the sinner and hate the sin” posture toward homosexuals. I take this stance toward other forms of sexual and non-sexual sin (God knows that I would want SOMEONE to extend grace to me, ‘cause I sin) and so I can with homosexuality. But it is exactly at this point that others would say that I am NOT extending grace toward others when I believe, and act (politically, speaking generally here) in such a way that I would allow for divorce and remarriage within a heterosexual context and not within a homosexual context. After all, if divorce and remarriage IS ADULTERY in the sense that most Christians understand adultery, that is, having (continual) sexual relations with someone other than one’s spouse, then surly, we should allow for the sin of or “Plan B” of loving homosexual relationships between two committed homosexuals. And if we DON’T allow for that, then we are actually judging and we are not being consistent, and fair and so forth.
Also, I would say, that I believe that that follows here. The argument is tight. What I mean by that is, is that the argument is coherent, not necessarily “tight” in the sense of there being no cracks or leaks or weaknesses. Surly, I believe there are weaknesses with the argument, otherwise, I would not be opposed to homosexuality, especially on such a theological basis. What I would like to do is show another take on the infamous adultery passage and therefore the possible weakness of “divorce and remarriage as adultery” view AS ESPOUSED by Greg, Iconoclast and Semeia and others. And if it can be shown that if my view is a plausible one, AT LEAST a major point in their view, if not the whole structure, falls. Lastly, let me ask that no one calls into question my love for my brethren who struggle with homosexuality. I think Greg is possibly off when he says,
quote:
The question, "How can we concretely demonstrate outrageous Christ-like love for homosexuals?" is therefore far more important than the questions, " Is homosexuality ever the best option for individuals? What exactly do the three NT passages on the topic mean? etc..." Being right on the latter questions is worthless if we're missing the mark on the first question.
In a way I agree with this. However, he basically posits it in an either/or rather than both/and dichotomy. If we set aside our biases on this for a moment, using an example, it would be perfectly legit to love an alcoholic by helping them to obey Christ and the demands of the gospel by standing with them in their recovery (if that is to come) through some form of therapy. In other words, “love” has some concrete, tangible ways in which it acts and asking questions that are academic in nature will help us love homosexuals better, because it will help us understand them and their struggle better. Now, back to our regularly scheduled biases. 
I can honestly say that I have some gay friends who I have a wonderful friendship with and whom I see struggle and fail but get back up to want to serve and obey God in the sexual area of their life. I cannot be hard on them. For grace has been extended to me by my wonderful Savior and loving friend Jesus Christ. And if Christ is going to be gracious with them, then I have no other choice. To my spiel.
Quotes from “A Gay Man Defends Himself.”
quote:
The counter to this would be to say that God specifically allowed divorce yet Jesus still called divorce and remarriage the sin of adultery because it is not “God’s ideal”.
“Jesus called divorce and remarriage the sin of adultery…”
“Jesus says quite clearly that divorce and remarriage IS the sin of adultery – that divorced and remarried people are adulterers – living in the sin of adultery.”
“It is extremely pertinent. I am asserting that the Christian community is currently hypocritical regarding its judgment of adultery versus homosexuality.”
“Jesus said that divorce and remarriage IS the sin of adultery. Yes, Jesus conditioned this assertion. I am saying that FOR THOSE CASES where the exception does not apply the Christian community has decided to FURTHER CONDITION 1 Corinthian 6:9 FOR THOSE CASES where the exception does not apply. Do you deny this?”
“Why, why, why did the church decide to condition 1 Corinthians 6:9 for divorce and remarriage (for the wrong reasons)? And why, why, why does it NOT apply the same standard to homosexuals? My answer is prejudice and convenience, pure and simple. Hypocrisy based on prejudice and convenience because WE have problems with divorce and remarriage (for the wrong reasons) but WE don’t have a lot of problems with homosexuality. Thus, the double standard.”
“It refers to adulterers. Jesus said that divorce and remarriage (for the wrong reasons) IS the sin of adultery.”
And lastly, a separated but related quote.
quote:
“He tends not to give us a detailed rule book but wants us to work these things out on our own. Some evidence for this may be that Jesus said that Moses gave them the law about a bill of divorce: Mat 19:8 - He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”
Mark 10:11-12: 11 And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 Also, if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
I want to make some observations through questions here.
1. Is this verse REALLY that clear as Iconoclast is fond of saying? Time and time again, I have read him as saying just this. It is clear, it is clear, it is clear. Is there ABSOLUTELY no other way of viewing this verse some other way? Greg has come to the conclusion that it is impossible to interpret it any other way.
2. Why would Jesus condemn EVERY remarriage? Why should a compassionate Lord judge every couple as adulterers when they get married, just because one of them has been married and divorced before?
3. Does not this view stem from the myth of the “indestructible marriage?”
4. Is not a marriage a covenant between two people, a covenant created by their wills and therefore breakable by their wills? Is not the human will the invisible fiber that holds a marriage together so that when the human will fails the marriage dies? It ought not to have died but it did? And if marriage is left behind to die AFTER a divorce it makes nonsense of the notion that a divorced person is still morally married—and nonsense of the notion that remarriage is a kind of adultery for this reason.?
5. What are the effects of the myth of the indestructible marriage? Suppose a woman divorces to stay alive because her old man is beating the snot outta her. Suppose she later marries a decent man and loves him faithfully. Is she guilty of adultery on the ground that she is stuck forever to her first brutish partner!?
6. Suppose a man who divorces his wife and marries another woman. After a few years, he visits his former wife who herself is remarried. He sleeps with her one night, but of course he is not committing adultery with her because he is still morally married to her. He is committing adultery, rather when he sleeps with his own wife.
7. Those of us on the non-affirming side have been told time and time again that we are judging or condemning homosexuals and that we are being hypocritical because we allow for divorce and remarriage for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals. We are told that we are the cause of self-fullfilling prophecies because homosexuals will take all of this negativity on themselves, yet is this not precisely what the affirming side does in light of the questions raised above with regard to heterosexuals?
8. Though there is no detailed rule of conduct, is this (remarriage as adultery) not precisely a rule set up by our Lord in light of the questions above?
Seriously. I do not believe that Jesus was speaking here of adultery as illicit sex. That is, sleeping with one’s second spouse is not the sin that Jesus has in mind. I would contend that Jesus is using the word “adultery” in the DEEPER sense of breaking the covenant of marriage. That is,
THE ADULTERY IS THE DIVORCE, NOT THE REMARRIAGE!
Jesus is saying that a person commits adultery (breaks a covenant) when he divorces a spouse. Divorce is an assault against life’s most complete covenant, a partnership that calls for a sharing of everything one is and has in life.
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OUTSIDE MARRIAGE IS ONE FORM OF ADULTERY. DIVORCE IS ANOTHER.
Jesus is merely using the word “adultery” as the equivalent of covenant-breaking. Other passages speak this way.
James 4:4 Adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? So whoever wants to be the world's friend becomes God's enemy.
Ezekiel 16 Israel was an adulterer because she repeatedly broke covenant with its Lord.
22 In all your years of adultery and loathsome sin, you have not once thought of the days long ago when you lay naked in a field, kicking about in your own blood.
32 Yes, you are an adulterous wife who takes in strangers instead of her own husband.
38 I will punish you for your murder and adultery.
59 Now this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will give you what you deserve, for you have taken your solemn vows lightly by breaking your covenant.
And now we have Jesus telling us that people that break covenant with each other by means of divorce are doing something called adultery. So then the question may be asked why does Jesus mention remarriage? The answer to that is that Jesus simply lumps divorce and remarriage together into one package. That is, he simply ASSUMES that a divorced person will get married again maybe even that he divorces IN ORDER to marry again. The indictment is against divorce and remarriage was thrown in, not because it involved sex with the second partner, but as the almost inevitable appendage to divorce. It is divorce that breaks covenant and thus violates the basic intent of the Seventh Commandment.
This is not a rule. It is somewhat similar to the creational narrative, “What God has joined together..” No one should take THAT to mean a magic formula that makes God the sole creator of every single marriage!? Could you imagine what an easy escape route that would be from a miserable marriage? It would go something like this, “We are not married because God did not ‘join’ us.” The statement means something more general. That is, it is a statement that simply means that God ordained marriage and intends it always to be permanent.
If we see that Jesus is REALLY indicting divorce and not singling out remarriage we are free to deal with the past in a realistic manner AND TO HOLD OUT HOPE FOR A NEW BEGINNING. The important issue is whether after a divorce a previous marriage is really over, assuming both ex-partners will it to be. We cannot ignore the past or make believe that it did not happen. It is only a shadow and shadows can be dispelled by the light of forgiveness and renewal.
Paul speaks of possibilities in Philippians 3:13,
13 No, dear brothers and sisters, I am still not all I should be, but I am focusing all my energies on this one thing: Forgetting the past and looking forward to what lies ahead,
Though people who remarry ought never make light of the moral seriousness of their divorce, the past can be forgotten in the sense that it no longer determines our future. When a marriage fails, REALLY fails and reconciliation is impossible, the marriage is dead, and has no claim on us. The gospel of grace then opens up new possibilities for a new vow, a new commitment of two selves in the face of an uncertain future and a new entrée to a life of covenant keeping.
No rules. Just grace. Jesus is REALLY concerned about covenant keeping and in particular the covenant of marriage.
P.S. It is utter unlike Jesus to be so technical AND unrealistic as to declare that adultery has such power that it can break a marriage in a single blow or that the non-adulterer is so innocent that only he or she may marry again without the guilt of adultery. Really, I don’t think that sexual adultery is the worst way to fail in fidelity. Fidelity can even “digest” an act of adultery. Fidelity is the main thing. Keep away from sexual affairs is one way to not have to deal with a bunch of other clutter.
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 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/24/2003 7:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Brandon,
I totally agree with you, friend.
A couple of things I think are important to this discussion:
I think it is self-evident that we must consider the entire teaching of Scripture on this or any other subject. Merely quoting one saying from Jesus, as the "affirming side" tends to do, while ignoring Jesus' other statements on the same subject seems quite unwise. The old, "never build a doctrine on one verse" that any Christian should learn in the beginning of their Christian life comes to mind. As I don't want think they are really this ignorant of Scripture, it seems to me that those on the affirming side simply choose to ignore the following verses, spoken by Jesus on this same subject:
Matt 5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for {the} reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Matt 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
(NASB)
From these plain statements, it seems clear to me that Jesus viewed the act of adultery/fornication by a married person as what truly broke the marriage covenant; a legal divorce decree in the above cases was simply a public recognition of an already true fact.
I continue to think that what's really going on is that those on the "affirming side" are simply trying to use the old bait n' switch (as if one sin would justify another). If I steal a candy bar from the convenience store, pointing out another person's lying by no means removes my own guilt.
"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 04/25/2003 12:23:46 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/25/2003 10:40 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
So then, you hold to the standard Protestant view held today that the only reason for divorce would be sexual immorality or infidelity correct?
Just off the top of my head. My problem with that, as you can see by my questions, is that we then make this the ONLY LEGITMATE REASON for divorce AND remarriage not to mention making it into a "rule," or as I see it, a legalistic standard. I don't believe this is what Jesus intends to do ESPECIALLY with regard to the situations I mention. In fact, I believe you would basically be in the same boat as those on the affirming side and it would be very hard to argue against them as you have tried to do with Semeia.
In the Matthew text, if we want to be JUST THAT TECHNICAL and may I be so blunt as to say WOODEN, then that would mean that Jesus was speaking only to men, since it is a wife a man is divorcing. Second, the wife being divorced automatically becomes an adulterer simply because the HUSBAND divorces her. Do you REALLY believe that Jesus is saying that?
There are some things that influence my thinking on this no doubt. Of them, there are hermeneutics, that is, the spirit of the text as opposed to the taking of individual words in isolation, the nature of the law, and the moral conscience (of Jesus).
Either way, in my view, those on the affirming side would portend toward a legalism though they don't intend to. My understanding is that they use the one and only reason (remarriage is adultery, IF ONE DIVORCES FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN adultery or fornication, etc, then one is an adulterer plain and simple) as a legalistic standard. In otherwords, the affirming side is the one that is being the sticklers, here and NOT the non-affirming side. What I have tried to do is what a marital artist would do. A martial artist will be attacked by an attacker using the force of their weight to bring the martial artist down. The maritial artist will use that energy and force and fall to the ground in conjunction with the energy and force and weight of the attacker to bring their attacker to the ground thereby ultimately causing the attacker to feel the full energy and force of their own attack. I have tried to turn their argument on them.
Saying that this is THE ONLY reason for divorce puts one into a legalistic position in light of the questions that I present. I understand that you may want to protect marriages at almost any cost (THIS is the only reason for divorce), especially in light of the epidemic of divorce, but I believe that there is something more deeper at play here than a one time act of infidelity that would be the basis for the destruction of a marriage. And I think that Jesus has more in mind than responding to questions of what breaks a marriage. He, it seems to me, is more interested in THE COVENANT of marriage AND the ideal set forth at the beginning. Hence, his reason for bringing up the creation narratives that ARE a pattern and model to follow.
I think it would be safe to say that Greg, for the most part would agree with me on this. However, he would most assuredly disagree that it is legalistic and possibly the idea of the creation narratives I just mentioned.
Bottomline? No rules, just grace.
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
Edited by - BBBCanada on 04/25/2003 3:48:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/25/2003 2:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Brandon,
I've not read this thread real closely--you're probably thinking, "Then shut up, idiot!"--but I've got a few thoughts here that come to mind.
You said, Second, the wife being divorced automatically becomes an adulterer simply because the HUSBAND divorces her. Do you REALLY believe that Jesus is saying that?
I believe what is meant behind the concept of the woman becoming an adulterer if she's divorced is obviously not that she really does, but that she becomes stigmatized; she is seen as an adulter--based on the Mosaic rule--whether she is or not. This is, I believe, critical to consider in regard to your point I quote next:
Saying that this is THE ONLY reason for divorce puts one into a legalistic position in light of the questions that I present. I understand that you may want to protect marriages at almost any cost (THIS is the only reason for divorce), especially in light of the epidemic of divorce, but I believe that there is something more deeper at play here than a one time act of infidelity that would be the basis for the destruction of a marriage. And I think that Jesus has more in mind than responding to questions of what breaks a marriage. He, it seems to me, is more interested in THE COVENANT of marriage AND the ideal set forth at the beginning. Hence, his reason for bringing up the creation narratives that ARE a pattern and model to follow.
The entire concept of marriage originates two-fold: the concept of man, woman and child declaring something more about being made in the image of God (the Triuneness of God); and the very passionate heart of God behind the concept. Legalism is obviously not the make-up of nor the core of the heart of God, particularly in the context of marraige. It is, in fact, fitting more along the lines of what you said: He, [Jesus] it seems to me, is more interested in THE COVENANT of marriage AND the ideal set forth at the beginning.
It is, in my opinion, the very heart, passion and soul of God expressed not just in the creation of the Adam, but what followed: "It is not good that man should be alone; I will create for him a helpmate." It wasn't enough to stop there; the marriage was yet to be complete in purpose without a child. At that point, the process is complete: man, woman, child. The theology if frighteningly wonderful. It is expressed again, I believe, in how you've talked about what Jesus was really after. There really is more behind His "teaching" than just, "Don't you dare get divorced or that's it; you're an adulterer."
Homosexuality is sin all day and all night, 365 days a year in any form; whatever love is found in the relationship is negated in view of the purposes of God found in the creation of the original concept of marriage. This is the first and foremost reason why homosexuality is "sin.": it steps outside of God's heart and soul--the expression of which should cause us to bow before Him in awe of His wonderous work called marriage, and not a deviation from it, of any form. Bringing love into a homosexual marriage neither supports nor justifies the relationship. It is a man-made created order, and not an order after God's own heart.
Pointing the finger at the homosexual and saying, "You sinner!" is to fall into the same judgmentalism that preys upon the other fellow who disembarks from the HEART of God's plan called marriage and points his finger at the woman and says, "Sorry, you don't please me; I divorce you." There's no recognition at this point for the heart of God. Further (and maybe not compounding the problem anymore, but certainly coming at it from another angle) is to find that one has been unfaithful in a marriage. It isn't the unfaithfulness per se that's so destructive--by all means, it is destructive--but the heart that was either crushed or rebellious enough to be found in this position in the first place--a departure, again, from the heart of God.
Finally, a homosexual couple simply can neither marry nor remain married without the whole context being at odds with God: that we call sin: But if a person has repented from a heart that has fallen prey to the hell that can bring on divorce, and if that person has re-married, the sin of remarrying is there BECAUSE RE-MARRIAGE IS A STATEMENT OF WHAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE: a disruption of the heart and soul of God in having created marriage to be a once-in-a-lifetime. However, unlike a homosexual marriage, once God forgives--IF He does, because He doesn't have to--the second after He forgives that marraige is clean, because (and this is the heart of re-marriage at this point) marriage itself is not a sin. Homosexuality always is. God forgives the homosexual, but the second after he is forgiven, he is still in wrongly-relating relationship that is at odds with God. THAT problem MUST be rectified, or the issue remains unresolvable. But that simply cannot be said about the couple in a re-marriage.
No one probably exemplified the grace of God in this issue more than David. God not only forgives David (after the nasty pain of the loss of a child from the illicit marriage takes place), but God bless it, resets the clock called marriage in David's life (makes it clean), and gives him offsping of which lineage Christ was born. This simply could never happen under a homosexual marraige. They could not even have children based upon the heart and soul of what makes the concept of children possible: a man and woman rightly expressing something about the passion of God's desire to express something of His heart in regard to relationship between Himself and mankind.
For the passion of God's heart,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/25/2003 3:34 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John,
So then, you hold to the standard Protestant view held today that the only reason for divorce would be sexual immorality or infidelity correct?
Hi Brandon,
I apologize that I did not cover all possibilities in my original post. My primary intent was to speak to the Synoptic witness on this subject; i.e., the words of Jesus, as it seems to me that "the affirming side" overlooks or at the very least downplays the exception that Jesus makes.
I also did not include, though I do believe it is also a biblically justifiable reason, Paul's reference in 1 Cor. 7:15 of what seems to be abandonment as being another justifiable reason for a believer being morally and legally freed from the marriage bond. It would seem to me that physical abuse would qualify as practical abandonment in some instances.
I am just very hesitant to morally affirm anything the Bible does not address, and so I am very hesitant to make judgements beyond the clear testimony of Scripture about other cases of D&R.
For me, the Scripture is the Christian's only infallible rule of faith and practice. As such, to dismiss clear New Testament scriptural references on a topic as using a "legalistic" approach to my mind can only lead to the moral relativism the "affirming side" seems to hold to. If we as Christians can't support our beliefs from the Bible itself (rightly interpreted and always within proper context), then I for one don't see what good such a belief ultimately is. If I accept your adage, "No rules, just grace" then I am compelled to accept ANY activity whatsoever as okay for a Christian, am I not?
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, rightly considered, does not hold all four sources (Scripture, Reason, Tradition, & Experience) as equal by any means. Tradition and especially Experience are always subject to Scripture and Reason. I would have to also say that for Open Theists such as myself, Tradition in the sense of scholarly theology (as opposed to popular theology) is in large part removed from the paradigm.
As to the topic of homosexuality, I prefer to simply call it what the real defining aspect is--sodomy. I have many men in my life whom I love dearly, have had several male roommates in the past, etc., but of course this does not mean I am homosexual, as I have never once even thought about committing sodomy with one of them. That is, this is all about whether homosexual sex is or is not sin.
"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 04/26/2003 1:35:54 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/25/2003 3:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman
Homosexuality is sin all day and all night, 365 days a year in any form;
…
Pointing the finger at the homosexual and saying, "You sinner!" is to fall into the same judgmentalism...
Iconoclast
How does your first statement here not point the finger at the homosexual and say, “You sinner!”? I can’t tell the difference here. To me one is simply the passive voice and the other is the active voice.
Starkman
This is the first and foremost reason why homosexuality is "sin.": it steps outside of God's heart and soul…
Iconoclast
Are you claiming that you know God’s “heart and soul” on this matter?
It seems to me that the closest biblical thing we could say about God's "heart and soul" would be to say that God is love. How exactly is a loving monogamous gay couple being unloving?
Starkman
…it [homosexuality] steps outside of God's heart and soul--the expression of which should cause us to bow before Him in awe of His wonderous work called marriage, and not a deviation from it, of any form.
Iconoclast
Didn’t Jesus say that ANY divorce and remarriage is a deviation from God’s wonderous work called marriage? Didn’t Jesus say that “what God joined together let no man put asunder?”
My understanding is that Yes, ANY divorce and remarriage is a deviation from God’s wonderous work called marriage. So, again, how exactly is divorce and remarriage (except for the “right” reasons) biblically any different from homosexuality in this context?
Starkman
…the sin of remarrying is there BECAUSE RE-MARRIAGE IS A STATEMENT OF WHAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE: a disruption of the heart and soul of God in having created marriage to be a once-in-a-lifetime.
Iconoclast
If this is true then why did Jesus call divorce and re-marriage (except for the “right” reason) the sin of ADULTERY?
It seems to me that Jesus logic is rather explicit:
1. Marriage was intended by God to be until death.
2. Divorce (except for the “right” reason) meant that the couple was really still married.
3. Thus, any re-marriage is adultery BECAUSE the person is still really married to another. ADULTERY, on-going ADULTERY, every time they have sex.
Brandon
Bottomline? No rules, just grace.
Iconoclast
Look, either we are going to be legalistically accurate or we are not. I am only saying that we either be appropriately legalistic or we realize that BEING LEGALISTIC is the whole problem to begin with. The “legal view” kills. But if we realize that the real problem is our legalism (knowledge of good and evil – our judgment) then how can we say that “Homosexuality is sin all day and all night, 365 days a year in any form;”?
There is only ONE command: Love God and love one another. How exactly is a loving gay monogamous couple 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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/25/2003 7:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon
1. Is this verse REALLY that clear as Iconoclast is fond of saying? Time and time again, I have read him as saying just this. It is clear, it is clear, it is clear. Is there ABSOLUTELY no other way of viewing this verse some other way? Greg has come to the conclusion that it is impossible to interpret it any other way.
Iconoclast
Yes.
Brandon
2. Why would Jesus condemn EVERY remarriage? Why should a compassionate Lord judge every couple as adulterers when they get married, just because one of them has been married and divorced before?
Iconoclast
Good point. And why should a compassionate Lord judge a every loving monogamous gay couple when He made them gay to begin with? “Lord, who sinned, these men or their parents that they were born gay?”
Brandon
3. Does not this view stem from the myth of the “indestructible marriage?”
Iconoclast
Mar 10:2-12
And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
I don’t know what the myth of the “indestructible marriage” is but it does seem to me that Jesus is saying that once two people are joined together then, by definition, if they divorce and remarry it is called adultery. Adultery, is sex with someone other than who you are “joined” to. My understanding is that we become “joined” with another by having sex.
Brandon
4. Is not a marriage a covenant between two people, a covenant created by their wills and therefore breakable by their wills? Is not the human will the invisible fiber that holds a marriage together so that when the human will fails the marriage dies? It ought not to have died but it did? And if marriage is left behind to die AFTER a divorce it makes nonsense of the notion that a divorced person is still morally married—and nonsense of the notion that remarriage is a kind of adultery for this reason.?
Iconoclast
Jesus said, “let no MAN break asunder”. Isn’t breaking the marriage by their wills the same as man breaking asunder?
Brandon
5. What are the effects of the myth of the indestructible marriage? Suppose a woman divorces to stay alive because her old man is beating the snot outta her. Suppose she later marries a decent man and loves him faithfully. Is she guilty of adultery on the ground that she is stuck forever to her first brutish partner!?
Iconoclast
Yes. Absolutely guilty of adultery according to Jesus’ definition. And yet would any of us tell her to stay in that marriage? I would think not. I think we would all say that it is most loving to leave him through an appropriately loving process. Love covers a multitude of sin. If you are hiding a Jewish person in your house and a nazi guard knocks on your door and asks you if you are hiding a Jewish person what is the loving thing to do? I would say that it is to tell your very best lie. And yet you would then be guilty of lying. If you did not lie you would be guilty of something far worse.
Brandon
6. Suppose a man who divorces his wife and marries another woman. After a few years, he visits his former wife who herself is remarried. He sleeps with her one night, but of course he is not committing adultery with her because he is still morally married to her. He is committing adultery, rather when he sleeps with his own wife.
Iconoclast
Yes. But even worse he is being unloving to his current wife if he sleeps with his ex-wife.
Brandon
7. Those of us on the non-affirming side have been told time and time again that we are judging or condemning homosexuals and that we are being hypocritical because we allow for divorce and remarriage for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals. We are told that we are the cause of self-fullfilling prophecies because homosexuals will take all of this negativity on themselves, yet is this not precisely what the affirming side does in light of the questions raised above with regard to heterosexuals?
Iconoclast
No. The affirming side has repeatedly stated that it does NOT believe that Jesus was enacting even more stringently legalistic rules that we must follow. The affirming side has repeatedly stated that there is only ONE command: love God and love one another. That our salvation depends on loving one another – NOT seeking to stringently adhere to a set of legalistic rules – that, in fact, it is the very “legal view” that is the whole problem to begin with because those who live by the “legal view” apply it by self-selecting those legalistic rules which benefit themselves and yet they are seemingly unaware that they do this.
Jesus whole point in showing just how stringent the requirements of the “legal view” are was to demolish the “legal view” once and for all in an all out attempt to get us to give it up. To get us to die to the “legal view” that we might finally turn to Him, receive His unconditional love for us and in turn love one another.
The affirming side is simply using Jesus’ own strategy to try and demolish the “legal view” when it comes to homosexuality such that people can then quit condemning homosexual people and be open to actually finding practical ways to be loving toward them just like we have done for divorce and remarriage.
Brandon
8. Though there is no detailed rule of conduct, is this (remarriage as adultery) not precisely a rule set up by our Lord in light of the questions above?
Iconoclast
No. It is the standard that is required if one wants to be righteous in and of themselves. It is the standard of the “legal view”. So is never having lust in our hearts. So is never saying “racca” to our brother. So is never saying a careless word. And so on…
I would say that it is absolutely impossible to not be guilty under the "legal view" unless you are omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent. For those who want to live under the "legal view" the question then is, what would you rather be guilty of? Lying or turning over your Jewish friend to a nazi. Adultery or being unloving to your current wife? "Condoning homosexuality" or being unloving toward gay people?
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 04/26/2003 12:30:11 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/25/2003 8:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Homosexuality is a form of idolotry: of putting the flesh ahead of the spirit.
Iconoclast's view, here and in the "Gay...defends..." thread, is Humanistic. Its basic failure is that it constructs an ivory tower of human love. YET the Bible preaches that "our own rightesousness is as filthy rags."
Fidelity to scripture would recognize that for two homosexually oriented (not practicing) people to show "Christian love" suffices; same as for any two Christians drawn from a hat. But Iconoclast chooses to also construct what Scipture does not. And he baptizes it as though it were part of the Body of Christ. And in so doing he is wrong.
I wrote long before on the "defends..." thread (drawing from G. K. Chesterton) that there are really no "homosexuals" -- there are just homosecual acts. Our nature as human does not include sin. The fall bend our nature, but did NOT change it.
Spiritual development is the same for all humans: triumph over the tyrany of the passions. Christian marriage, which pictures the Trinity, is a sacrament to that end; IF followed. Humanistic constructions are not.
Humanistic constructions make as their goal actualizing the kingdom as now, and on this earth, and in this state. The Christian life==on the other hand--involves struggle, and sacrifice, and repentance.
=============================================
For BBBCanada:
www.stlukeorthodox.com/html/evangelist/2001/gaylife.cfm
www.orthodox.net/russia/2000-08-17-homosexuality.html
www.acrod.org/orthodox6.html | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 4/26/2003 4:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Iconoclast,
I love you brother and as someone who is faced with temptation myself, you appear to be saying homosexuality is less than a temptation to do something against God’s revealed will, seems illogical to me, one sinner said to the other  .
Men and women in a pre-fallen state would not even consider same sex relationships, because such was never in the mind of God, that it should ever work that way, it is a result of Spiritual death. And if Christ brings a Spiritual rebirth, the new life would incline to repel such, sexual immorality. Although, the flesh and/or the mind requires yet a correct understanding of this, in order to pursue the new life, which is actually the old or previous state of humanity before the fall.
Lev 18:22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
1Ti 1:8,9But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners (such as the abomination mentioned above)
You seem at times to refuse to call homosexuality immoral, am OK with that, Scripture does not appear to agree with you, so many others will not either, no matter how well constructed your defense of homosexual activity is presented and you have done a fine job, thank you.
1Cr 10:13 There hath no temptation (including homosexuality in the mind of many here) taken you but such as is common to man:
But God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also makes a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].
Hbr 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/26/2003 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon, I think the attempt to identify divorce as adulterous in an of itself is clever, but unsuccessful. Consider that Jesus says:
Matt. 5:31-32 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Its about sex with someone other than the first partner.
On the "exception" clause, its interesting to note that Mark doesn't include it. Many scholars have argued that the reason Matthew DOES is because his audience is the most Jewish. The debate of the day was about the grounds for a "justified" divorce. The conservatives said only adultery was a ground. The liberals said it could be anything. It would be uncharacteristic of Jesus to side with one school against another, without saying so, and then speaking against divorce in unqualified terms by going back to the beginning (Adam and Eve) and concluding "let no man..." The only way to see Jesus as doing what he did everywhere else -- viz. showing that both sides of a dilemma were sinful -- is if the "unchasity" (pornea) he is referring to had to do with the betrothal period.
In ancient Judaism, a husband and wife were legally married about a year before they consumated the marriage. It was the betrothal period. During this time, a man or woman could annul their marriage (as Joseph was going to do ) if they were unfaithful.
In this light, we might hear Jesus saying that all divorce and remarriage involves sin -- except, of course, if one of the partners is unchaste (which can mean anything from full sex to anying morally indecent) during the betrothal period.
I suspect this is the best reading. ALL divorce, once the marriage is consumated, is sin, and all remarriage involves adultery. It happens because of the hardness of people's hearts.
Yet, Jesus is not thereby trying to tighten the belt on the OT permission to divorce and remarry. He is saying, to both the conservative and liberals parties... "don't feel justified in divorce or remarriage. If it happens, it 's always a break from God's ideal."
Blessings
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/26/2003 7:38 AM (GMT -6) | | POW
Homosexuality is a form of idolotry: of putting the flesh ahead of the spirit.
…
Christian marriage, which pictures the Trinity, is a sacrament to that end; IF followed.
Iconoclast
I have a hard time seeing how this idealized version of what marriage is, is not a form of idolotry: of putting the flesh ahead of the spirit.
Look at Galations 3:23-28
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Which is it, the spirit or the flesh? Seems to me that in the spirit there is neither male nor female. If so, then how is it that marriage of specifically male and female is some sort of “sacrament” which “pictures the Trinity”? Is the Trinity somehow male and female? Sounds kind of sacrilegious to me. How is this not an idealized fleshly version of what marriage is? How is this not keeping us under the “schoolmaster”?
Why wouldn’t we rather say that in Christ Jesus, in the spirit rather than the flesh, that there is neither male nor female? That two males can love each other as deeply as male and female? Doesn’t the Son love the Father and the Father love the Son much more deeply than any male or female?
POW
I wrote long before on the "defends..." thread (drawing from G. K. Chesterton) that there are really no "homosexuals" -- there are just homosexual acts.
Iconoclast
It is hard for me to see why you are not making the same mistake as the Pharisees regarding fleshly concerns – that the act of eating what is “unclean” defiles a person.
Matthew 15:11-12
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
Matthew 15:16-18
And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Romans 14:4
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.
Homosexual acts are not “unclean” in and of themselves else we have to say that Paul was persuaded by the Lord Jesus incorrectly. A homosexual act is “unclean” if it comes from an “unclean” heart. A homosexual act is NOT “unclean” if it comes as an expression of love towards another.
There is only one issue: is it loving or is it not. Does it come from a “clean” heart (an expression of love) or does it come from an “unclean” heart (an expression of lust). Do you deny this?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 4/26/2003 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Tim said:
Lev 18:22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
1Ti 1:8,9But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners (such as the abomination mentioned above)
Semeia
Tim, I'm confused why you (or anyone) would continue to use Leviticus in an argument against homosexuality. Time and time again we have shown that readers pick and choose (self-select) from these scriptures in a self-serving way. IF we are going to preach these scriptures then to be consistent we need to preach ALL of these scriptures, not just the ones that appeal to us because they do not apply to us.
So IF you are going to preach Lev 18:22, are you also going to quote the scriptures that call for stoning to death adulterers? Many people are divorced and remarried NOT for the “right” reason (Jesus named “porneia” as an exception), which Jesus himself called ADULTERY. So where is the crackdown on this kind of sin? Is it missing because we all know so many divorced and remarried people that our church memberships would be cut in half if we went after it? Why is it that Christians so eagerly go after sins that apply to others, while “overlooking” the many condemnations of sins with which they themselves suffer? Like the divorce issue.
Or take usury, for example. From an article by John Corvino:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Bible condemns usury in no uncertain terms. In the Book of Exodus God says “if you lend money to my people, to the poor among you. you shall not exact interest from them” (22: 25). The fifteenth Psalm says that those who lend at interest may not abide in the Lord’s tent or dwell on his holy hill (1-5). Ezekiel compares usury to adultery, robbery, idolatry, and bribery, and asks whether he who “takes advanced or accrued interest; shall he then live? He shall not. He. shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.” (18: 10-13; see also Deut. 23: 19, Lev. 25: 35-37, Neh. 5: 7-10, Jer. 15:10, Ezek. 22: 12, and Luke 6:35)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The biblical case against usury seems to be airtight. The bible says: don’t do it. And keep in mind that in biblical times usury was understood as charging ANY interest on a loan, not merely EXCESSIVE interest. And, as far as I know, the bible nowhere repeals this prohibition – which is called an abomination. The article continues:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So what happened? Did the Church suddenly realize that it was missing out on something lucrative, and thus rescind its earlier prohibition? Not surprisingly, Church leaders offer a quite different explanation. According to them, economic conditions have changed substantially since Biblical times, such that usury no longer has the same consequences as it did when the prohibitions were issued. Therefore, those prohibitions no longer apply. As Father Richard McBrien, former chair of the University of Notre Dame theology department, writes:
“The teaching on usury changed because certain theologians in the sixteenth century concluded that economic conditions had changed, making the old condemnations obsolete, and that the experience of lay Christians had to be listened to. Thus, Navarrus (d. 1586), a professor at Salamanca in Spain and author of a Manual for Confessors, argued that an “infinite number of decent Christians” were engaged in exchange-banking, and he objected to any analysis which would ‘damn the whole world.’”
McBrien’s example of Navarrus is helpful here, for it shows how the Church’s pastoral experience influenced its understanding of Scripture. Faced with otherwise “decent Christians” engaging in a traditionally forbidden practice, the Church re-examined the earlier prohibitions and found that they depended on conditions that no longer held.
Yet are we not today in a similar position regarding homosexuality? Even Christian traditionalists have begun to recognize that the stereotype of all gays as corrupt, hedonistic, sex-crazed heathens is unsupportable. On the contrary, many gay and lesbian relationships appear loving, nurturing, and fulfilling. As Richard B. Hays, a Methodist professor of New Testament at Duke University, points out, “There are numerous homosexual Christians whose lives show signs of the presence of God, whose work in ministry is genuine and effective. How is such experiential evidence to be assessed?”
Hays is appealing to a familiar Biblical principle here: “By their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:20). Surprisingly, however, he ultimately concludes that homosexual relationships are immoral. I suggest that Hays, and countless other theologians like him, have dropped the ball. They notice that many gay and lesbian relationships manifest themselves as good, but then opt for the prohibitions of Scripture over the evidence of their own experience. What they fail to notice is that the Church’s history on usury provides a way out of this apparent dilemma.
Consider the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans, perhaps the most problematic text for gay and lesbian advocates. Paul writes of Gentiles who have given themselves up to “dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons due penalty for their error” (1:26-7).
It seems fairly clear that Paul viewed such acts as a sign and consequence of the Fall. (Some, like John Boswell and William Countryman, have argued that Paul’s use of “unnatural” – para physin -- carries no moral force. My argument does not require this conclusion, but if it is true, so much the better.) Granting (for the sake of argument) that Paul morally condemned such relationships, must contemporary Christians condemn homosexual relationships as well? Not necessarily. Suppose that in Paul’s time homosexual relationships were typically exploitative, paganistic, or pederastic—as virtually all scholars would agree. If Paul condemned homosexuality because it had such features, but such features are no longer typical, then Paul’s condemnation no longer applies. Substantial changes in cultural context have altered the meaning and consequences—and thus the moral value—of homosexual relationships. Put another way, using the Bible’s condemnations of homosexuality against contemporary homosexuality is like using its condemnations of usury against contemporary banking.
This context-sensitive approach preserves not only the inerrancy of the Bible but also the authenticity of experience. For the religious believer, both are important: surely the Creator of all things reveals himself in lived experience as well as ancient texts. Indeed, to accept the text at face value while ignoring the evidence of experience would be to betray a rather impoverished view of revelation -- one that has been rejected by centuries of official Church teaching.
But does this approach leave any room for mystery or for faith? If we need only consult experiential evidence to determine God’s will, of what use is the Bible? I have not suggested, however, that we need only consult experiential evidence; I have merely suggested that experiential evidence, like Biblical evidence, is an important source of revelation. Nor have I denied that Biblical evidence may contradict experiential evidence and thus result in mystery. In this case, however, the contradiction is merely apparent. There is still room for mysteries of faith; this just happens not to be one of them.
The usury analogy also provides a better model for re-interpretation than do the more commonly cited issues of divorce and slavery. The Biblical case against divorce is at least as strong as that against homosexuality; indeed, Jesus forcefully condemns divorce (Matt. 5: 31-32) but never mentions homosexuality. This fact is startling when one considers how many advocates of “traditional Christian values”—Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, and Phil Gramm, for instance—are divorced. Perhaps they consider divorce a one-time failure as opposed to an inveterate sin (though Jesus, who likened divorce to adultery, apparently disagrees). Or perhaps they accept an argument similar in strategy to the usury argument: divorce during Jesus’s time had disastrous social consequences for women that it no longer has; thus, the Biblical condemnations are obsolete. The problem with the divorce analogy is many fundamentalists maintain that those who divorce and remarry are inveterate sinners, just as Jesus’s words suggest.
By contrast, virtually no one wants to maintain the Bible’s approval of slavery. Nevertheless, the Bible’s position appears clear: Leviticus states, “You may acquire slaves from the pagan nations that are around you” (25:44). St. Paul writes, “Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ” (Eph. 6:5). Are such pronouncements (and many more like them) context-specific in a way that renders them inapplicable today?
Many believers think so. They argue that during Biblical times slavery was significantly different from its antebellum American form; specifically, Biblical masters were much kinder to their slaves. This argument concedes that cultural context is relevant to interpretation, and thus buttresses the case in favor of homosexuality. But it also concedes that under some certain circumstances human beings may own one another—a repugnant conclusion. Some believers try to avoid this conclusion by noting that according to St. Paul, “there is no longer slave or free” (Gal. 3:28). Yet this response also buttresses the pro-gay case, for the same passage says, “there is no longer male and female.” Erase that distinction, and homosexuality becomes a non-issue.
Perhaps the slavery example shows that the revisionist approach—or at least, the assumption that the Bible is inerrant—inevitably leads to absurdity. Perhaps it is time for gay rights advocates to bite the bullet and say, “Look, the Bible’s just wrong sometimes.” For those unprepared to make that concession, the Church’s stance on usury suggests a useful and coherent alternative.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Semeia:
So, Tim, if you are going to quote Leviticus against homosexuality, all we ask is that you be consistent, and likewise condemn divorce and usury, not to mention all the laws pertaining to a woman’s menstrual cycle, and such crimes as wearing two kinds of cloth.
Tim said:
You seem at times to refuse to call homosexuality immoral, am OK with that, Scripture does not appear to agree with you, so many others will not either, no matter how well constructed your defense of homosexual activity is presented and you have done a fine job, thank you.
Semeia:
You seem at times to refuse to call divorce and remarriage (except for in cases of “porneia”) IMMORAL, and usury immoral, and wearing two kinds of cloth immoral, and gluttony (which simply means overeating) immoral, and you seem at times to refuse to call slavery MORAL. Scripture does not appear to agree with you.
All we are asking for is consistency. If one is going to argue for a legal view of scripture, then one must take Jesus at his word: lust in the heart IS the same as adultery, saying “thou fool” to your brother DOES put you in danger of hell-fire, divorce and remarriage except in cases of “porneia” IS adultery, BE PERFECT, as your father in heaven is perfect.
If, on the other hand, you believe that there is a context in which slavery is wrong, and divorce is permissible, and usury (charging ANY interest on a loan) is permissible, then you disqualify yourself from using scripture to dismiss people who have reasonable, logical arguments based on both scripture and experience supporting monogamous, loving gay relationships as permissible before God, and that the scripture prohibiting homosexuality is as context-sensitive as that which prohibits usury and wearing two kinds of cloth, or that which upholds slavery.
Some argue (in books like “Women, Homosexuality and Slavery”) that attitudes about slavery and the treatment of women gradually evolved over the course of the bible, whereas attitudes about homosexuality did not, and that therefore those issues were “culturally-based” whereas homosexuality is a universal prohibition. But it doesn’t take much thought to see how that argument fails – because in fact if we apply the same hermeneutics to divorce we see that Jesus made divorce LESS ACCEPTABLE than it was before, and NOWHERE in the bible (as far as I know) was the prohibition against usury ever lightened up in the slightest. Nor was the prohibition against wearing two kinds of cloth ever repealed.
So once again we have a kind of self-serving selection process going on, where we are very attuned to cultural shifts concerning women and slavery (mostly because anyone who does not acknowledge those cultural shifts is seen to be a racist and sexist redneck bigot) whereas we overlook the LACK OF cultural shift regarding issues which more directly convict us – such as divorce, gluttony, and usury. And yet we continue to single out homosexuality, even though the case against it in the bible is less strong than the case against divorce and remarriage or the case against usury.
Why is that? How is it possible that people who are themselves divorced and remarried for reasons other than “porneia”, which Jesus explicitly calls adultery, can possibly point out the “sexual immorality” of their brother? How is this not the definition of hypocrisy?
Now, if we were to all realize that we all fall far short of perfection – on an ongoing basis (such as being in an “adulterous” remarriage) – that our righteousness is “as filthy rags” – then perhaps we could get on with the business of loving people without judging them. Sometimes love calls for a “stop-action” such as intervening when someone is being rampantly promiscuous, or drinking themselves to death, or hurting people, etcetera. But we would never even consider intervening in someone’s remarriage, or asking them to remarry their first spouse, even though according to Jesus their relationship is an adulterous one, because we realize that we cannot unscramble eggs. Once someone is remarried, then to divorce their spouse to go back to the original spouse would commit the same harm to the second spouse that was caused to the first: they would be forced to commit adultery. You can’t unscramble eggs.
Jesus didn’t say what he did to enact a stricter law against divorce. He said what he did to prove to the Pharisees that they were every bit as guilty as the people whom they condemned.
The Pharisees did not believe him then, and the Pharisees do not believe him now.
But that doesn’t make it any less true.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard
Edited by - Semeia on 04/26/2003 1:53:48 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/26/2003 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Three responses to Iconoclast/"image"-breaker (Marriage as an “image” given us by God.)
quote:
POW : Homosexuality is a form of idolotry: of putting the flesh ahead of the spirit.
…
Christian marriage, which pictures the Trinity, is a sacrament to that end; IF followed.
Iconoclast
I have a hard time seeing how this idealized version of what marriage is, is not a form of idolotry: of putting the flesh ahead of the spirit.
No, you don't get it.
Passions outside of the church are "putting the flesh ahead of the spirit." marriage is within the church.
Homosexuality is a form of IDOLOTRY.
quote:
Icon
Look at Galations 3:23-28
But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Bad translation.
It reads “NEITHER MALE AND FEMALE” and it refers to yet another (the passage list actively listing several) form of pagan salvation formula. This one refers to fertility cults!!!! The “NEITHER MALE AND FEMALE” says that natural procreation will not save -- ONLY "the children of god by faith in Christ Jesus" will find salvation.
*THAT* is what Paul is saying in this passage.
Gender (but not sex) continues into the new heaven and earth. (the radical feminists have it wrong!)
quote:
There is only one issue: is it loving or is it not. Does it come from a “clean” heart (an expression of love) or does it come from an “unclean” heart (an expression of lust). Do you deny this?
thanks,
Iconoclast
In as much as homosexuality is sin, yes I deny it.
Besides, you are speaking HUMANISTICALLY. My post above still stands.
************************
Another point, the individuals may be christian, and they may have faith. Yet, it is *STILL SIN.*
And in order to take communion they should repent and cease.
And no church, and no follower of our lord should encourage them in thier sin.
And no denomination.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/28/2003 06:23:10 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/26/2003 10:45 AM (GMT -6) | | POW
ANOTHER POINT, THE INDIVIDUALS MAY BE CHRISTIAN, AND THEY MAY HAVE FAITH. YET, IT IS *STILL SIN.*
AND IN ORDER TO TAKE COMMUNION THEY SHOULD REPENT AND CEASE.
AND NO CHURCH, AND NO FOLLOWER OF OUR LORD SHOULD ENCOURAGE THEM IN THEIR SIN.
Iconoclast
When you do all caps does that mean that you are yelling at me? Are you mad at me?
If you really believe this logic then how do you deal with your friend who you earlier said that your church would not let be a deacon because he has been remarried. Clearly this comes from 1 Timothy where a deacon can only have one wife. Thus, your church is saying that your friend has two wives. Jesus called this the sin of adultery. Does your church allow your friend to take communion? By your logic shouldn’t your church insist that he repent and cease from continuing in adultery with his second wife? Is your church wrong to allow him to take communion? Is adultery not sin? Isn’t your church encouraging him in his sin (by your logic)? I am really confused as to how you deal with this POW.
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 04/26/2003 4:36:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 4/26/2003 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Just as I thought. Huh...OK.
I have to make this REALLY quick and so I won't be able to provide a full all out frontal attack.  But I will come back on this to back what I say in the second thought below.
First? Pow? Breathe.... Clear! The point of this thread is not to get into homosexuality as such. That is a rather secondary question. It is related, but it is secondary. The thread is about Jesus on divorce and remarriage, and how that affects one's understanding of homosexuality. I would like to stick more on divorce and remarriage as Jesus understood it.
Second? Just as I thought. Like I said in a post last year. We can all disagree on the reasons FOR divorce, but I think we can all agree that God meant and still means for marriage to be permanent. It is obvious in this discussion already, what is starting to shape up here. That is, that we have different views being presented for reasons of divorce. Some say, divorce for adultery or fornication. Some say, for adultery, fornication AND desertion. I will even try to argue that according to some scholars, even these ARE NOT "biblical" reasons for divorce. I hold to a more liberal view on this and I will try to argue why Matt 5:31-32 cannot be read to mean that Jesus was THAT restrictive.
EITHER WAY, IT IS ON THIS BASIS that I believe that for one to say, that the church is hypocritical and judgmental is wrong and will have four other fingers pointing back at them by those who do not believe in divorce OR remarriage.
Gotta fly.
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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 4/26/2003 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | An aside.
POW: GENDER (BUT NOT SEX) CONTINUES INTOTHE NEW HEAVEN AND EARTH. (THE RADICAL FEMINISTS HAVE IT WRONG!)
Electra: There is a lot of variety among radical feminists, but in many cases their views include a gendered primordial past and a gendered utopian future—in which feminine deities are worshiped and women rule.
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/26/2003 2:26 PM (GMT -6) | | GOOD question, and FAIR question:
quote:
Iconoclast
When you do all caps does that mean that you are yelling at me? Are you mad at me?
No. The reason for the caps was I was on an trip to pick something up, and passing by a computer quickly posted a response. The CAPS merely provided a dEsIgN element to make your words and mine differentiated.
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. (Tim said it well, in brevity worthy of Tom!!!) Christ ALSO *blessed* marriage in making it the venue of his first miracle. The IMAGE of marriage as that showing forth the relationship of Christ and the Church is also HIGHLY significant. Am I mad that you blew these off. YES.
For Brett
quote:
BBBCanada
First? Pow? Breathe.... Clear! The point of this thread is not to get into homosexuality as such. That is a rather secondary question. It is related, but it is secondary. The thread is about Jesus on divorce and remarriage, and how that affects one's understanding of homosexuality. I would like to stick more on divorce and remarriage as Jesus understood it.
I agree, Brandon. But Icon's post was just too pointed and centered on homosexuality. I cut right to the core of the issue underlying his presentation: HUMANISM. (as in Enlightenment Humanism)
quote:
BBBCanada
Second? Just as I thought. Like I said in a post last year. We can all disagree on the reasons FOR divorce, but I think we can all agree that God meant and still means for marriage to be permanent.
GOTTCHA!
(back to the picture-smashing "Image"-mangler (Marriage as an “image” given us by God.)... in his current line of posting)
quote:
Iconoclast
When you do all caps does that mean that you are yelling at me? Are you mad at me?
If you really believe this logic then how do you deal with your friend who you earlier said that your church would not let be a deacon because he has been remarried. Clearly this comes from 1 Timothy where a deacon can only have one wife. Thus, your church is saying that your friend has two wives. Jesus called this the sin of adultery. Does your church allow your friend to take communion? By your logic shouldn’t your church insist that he repent and cease from continuing in adultery with his second wife? Is your church wrong to allow him to take communion? Is adultery not sin? Isn’t your church encouraging him in his sin (by your logic)? I am really confused as to how you deal with this POW.
Iconoclast, you are not confused; It seems from the pattern of how you have approached this over various thread that you know very well what you are doing. I feel that you are being very cynical!!!
And it is purely not your business what the Bishop decides to do. (Opening up someone else's business to divert the fault of the party you are taking up sides for is not "logic." Its cynical.
Grace resides with the Church. (Obviously he is only married to one of the women. But you are being far to cynical, as it seems to me, to either recognize that or be able to recognize that!) He does take communion. Obviously. As to what period of time he probably had to obstain from communion participation, well, that is not my buesiness to ask him. (And by the same token it is not yours either.) Historically periods of pennance have varied, and varied by pastor.
A word about pennance. THE FOCUS ("Eastern" understanding; not RCC) IS ON RESTORATION AND *NOT* ON PUNISHMENT. (caps for emphasis)
Another word about pennance. Since the issue is restoration, one cannot begin pennance while still continuing to practice the sin. Hypothetically (in a twisted kind of way) one maybe could begin to pay punishment while continuing to sin (credit cards being a clear example here), but that is not what it is all about here.
Brandon -- WHAT ABOUT "PENNANCE" AND DIVORCE. SOUND LIKE A GOOD ISSUE???
pOw
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/28/2003 06:31:39 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 4/26/2003 6:40 PM (GMT -6) | | 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?
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.
1. Jesus said that re-marriage is the sin of adultery BECAUSE man cannot put asunder what God has joined together.
2. Thus, by #1, a re-married person is still married to their first wife.
3. Your church agrees with #2 because they will not let your friend be a deacon because he has two wives. Your church recognizes that he is still really married to his first wife.
4. Thus your friend according to Jesus’ definition is continuing to practice the sin of adultery. Every time he has sex with his current wife it is adultery against his first wife. (from #1).
5. Your church however is disregarding what Jesus says about re-marriage being the sin of adultery because they let your friend do pennance when he is still continuing to practice the sin of adultery against his first wife – which your church agrees that he is still married to (from #3).
My question is, why does your church hold to #3 which is based on #1 and #2 and yet does not hold to #4 which is also based on #1 and #2?
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 04/26/2003 11:45:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 4/27/2003 2:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Semeia,
Thanks for your response…love you sister.
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/27/2003 3:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia: (Some, like John Boswell and William Countryman, have argued that Paul’s use of "unnatural" – para physin -- carries no moral force. My argument does not require this conclusion, but if it is true, so much the better.)
Doc: Paul says, "Does not nature itself (same word) teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering (1 Cor 11:14-15). It seems clear that in this passage, "nature" is equivalent to "seems natural" (according to custom).
Iconoclast If you really believe this logic then how do you deal with your friend who you earlier said that your church would not let be a deacon because he has been remarried. Clearly this comes from 1 Timothy where a deacon can only have one wife. Thus, your church is saying that your friend has two wives. Jesus called this the sin of adultery. Does your church allow your friend to take communion? By your logic shouldn’t your church insist that he repent and cease from continuing in adultery with his second wife? Is your church wrong to allow him to take communion? Is adultery not sin? Isn’t your church encouraging him in his sin (by your logic)? I am really confused as to how you deal with this POW.
Doc: Bingo. I’ve never understood the policy of those churches who regard remarriage to be adulterous enough to disqualify someone from ministry, but not adulterous enough to disqualify from being members of a church, etc… Nor have I understood their unwillingness to force remarried people to get divorced and go back to their first wife (though, oddly, this is the ONE person the OT forbids them to go back to once they’ve married again).
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.
Blessings
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 4/27/2003 11:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
For Brett
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBBCanada
First? Pow? Breathe.... Clear! The point of this thread is not to get into homosexuality as such. That is a rather secondary question. It is related, but it is secondary. The thread is about Jesus on divorce and remarriage, and how that affects one's understanding of homosexuality. I would like to stick more on divorce and remarriage as Jesus understood it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, Brett. But Icon's post was just too pointed and centered on homosexuality. I cut right to the core of the issue underlying his presentation: HUMANISM.
"BBBCanada" is Brandon. I am Brett.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/27/2003 12:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Brett: "BBBCanada" is Brandon. I am Brett.
POW: Okay, so POW is confused, and perhaps growing cynical.
Heh, anyone want to take a swing at Semeia's "USURY" argument? (outstanding girl!) As one who is pretty open to all sides in this debate, I find this argument to be pretty dang forceful. It may be significant to note that usury was forbidden by the Church until the late middle ages. Part of the reason why it was overturned is that some Jews were making alot of profit lending to others with interest (after Christians forced them off manors and into merchant trading where some got successful, much to the chagrin of Christians, thereby creating the myth that all Jews are good at making money). Wealthy Christians wanted in on the deal. With the rise of capitalism, it became VERY disadventageous for the Church to forbid lending with interest.
And THEN came the great exegetical insight that
THE CULTURAL CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED. It was now okay to lend with interest.
WHEREEVER ONE LANDS on the divorce-remarriage and homosexual issue, I believe one has to grant that Semeia and Icon have done a good job of EXPOSING THE ARBITRARINESS of much of the ethical thinking of Christians and especially our use of the Old Testament. We might like to think that there's a clear-cut rhyme or reason to why CERTAIN aspects of the Old Testament are applicable and others not. We hold to our distinctions between "the ritualistic" and "the moral" aspects of the law, our distinction between what Christ did away with and what he didn't do away with, our suppositions about what aspects of culture have and have not changed.... but, if we are totally honest, we have to admit that, to a significant extent at least, these are PRACTICES IN SEARCH OF A REASON.
INTUITION AND CUSTOM ARE TO A LARGE DEGREE DRIVING OUR THOUGHT.
What I hear Icon and Semeia arguing is, "Whatever else conditions our exegesis, let LOVE above all else drive our thought."
A partial refutation of their system would be a solid rational case for why usury is permitted today (though the prohibition is nowhere revoked, even in the NT). Whatever the refutation consists of, it should include an explanation as to why the Church missed this explanation for fourteen hundred years and why it coincidentally found it -- or some other explanation -- just when it became adventageous to do so.
Bring it ON!!!!
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.
Edited by - GregBoyd on 04/27/2003 5:48:04 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/27/2003 2:44 PM (GMT -6) | | 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.
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. 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.
Icon: There is only ONE command: Love God and love one another. How exactly is a loving gay monogamous couple violating this command?
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.
Icon: Why should a compassionate Lord judge a every loving monogamous gay couple when He made them gay to begin with? “Lord, who sinned, these men or their parents that they were born gay?”
Alan: 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 (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.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/27/2003 3:46 PM (GMT -6) | | The issue of usury had entirely to do with loans within the Nation of Israel, and in fact the Israelites were permitted by God to charge interest to foreigners:
Deut. 23:19 You shall not charge interest on loans to another Israelite, interest on money, interest on provisions, interest on anything that is lent. 20 On loans to a foreigner you may charge interest, but on loans to another Israelite you may not charge interest, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all your undertakings in the land that you are about to enter and possess. (NRSV)
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. Interesting topic, nevertheless. It would seem to me that if someone asks you for a loan as a Christian you are bound to help as you are able. It would also seem to me that if someone "begs" from a Christian, the Christian is compelled by the words of Jesus to help as they are able.
"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 8:52:01 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 4/27/2003 4:15 PM (GMT -6) | | 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.
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
| 132 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:03 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|