 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/29/2006 9:22 AM (GMT -6) |   | | The Winter issue of The Bethel Focus (my alma mater) has a center section called "Homosexuality: A Christian Response."
VERY GOOD.
Anyone get it?
It begins with the question "We here a lot of talk today about secual idenity and orientation. Could you (the cross-disciplinary faculty panel of five) bring your perspective to this emphasis in our culture?"
The two answers featured, by Holmes in biblical studies and by Paris in anthropology are EXCELLENT, imho!
Anyone else receive the Focus?
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 2/3/2006 8:34:24 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/30/2006 9:54 AM (GMT -6) | |
Finished the entire three-part section. It is extreemly well done!
Covers: "God's Gift of Sexuality," "Homosexuality: A Christian Response,"
and "Alumni Lead Lust Free LIving Ministry."
Every single paragraph in the three articles are absolute GEMS!!!
I kid you not. What a resource.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/30/2006 8:58:00 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/31/2006 5:19 PM (GMT -6) | | GETTING #1, #2, AND #3 in correct order....
* QUOTE: "We need to take scripture as a whole and ask _1_ 'What does it say
about who we are as persons, who is God, and what is the world like that we
live in?" _2_ Sexuality is a derivative question from those broader themes,
and _3_ homosexuality is derivative of that. When we start backwards, it
seems as if six verses are for gay people and about five verses are for
women, for example, when in fact all of scripture speaks to all of us."
POINT MADE: "All of scripture speaks to all of us....(with regards to) who
we are as persons, who is God, and what is the world like that we live in."
(* QUOTE FROM "FOCUS" )
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/1/2006 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | scripture...
yeah.
I'd love to read these, if I could. Is there any way that you could scan the articles into PDF format for us?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/1/2006 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/1/2006 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/1/2006 6:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Bethel, my alma matter says this:
....."We believe that sexual intercourse and other forms of inensely
interpersonal sexual activity are reserved for monogamous, heterosexual
marriage. We recognize that sexual purity involves right motives as well as
right behaviours..."
Bethel's policy and mission comports with a Christian view of sexuality.
Reading on, in my alma matter's magazine... Within this biblical framework
and community commitments, Bethel says this in the Focus:
..... "We need to be a community that reflects who Jesus has called us to be
regardless of what the struggle is in our lives."
The endeavor to be a safe place for young people to deal with themselves and
with issues.
So... Here's how they end things:
..... "Homosexual activity is a sin. But sadly, so is the response of so many Chrisians to homosexuals."
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/2/2006 10:35 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/2/2006 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | More stuff to see.
A theologian engaging Wink.
"Gays and the Bible: A Response to Walter Wink"
by Robert A. J. Gagnon
www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2664
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 2/2/2006 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | |
See if this file uploading business works.
I have a little booklet written by this guy
http://www.revneal.org/
who is a pretty good e-buddy (click on his Bio, he's from my neck of the Texas woods, Dallas). The book is called, "Homosexual Christians: What the Bible Does NOT Say." He wrote it for the United Church who put it on the back burner (at the time) so as to not create MORE controversy. Corey, could I e-mail you the booklet and then you could put up the link to it? It is waaaay too big for an upload.
Mind you, all the Walter Wink stuff, and even Rev Neals stuff, I'm in disagreement over, but it is good to hear the other side.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 2/2/2006 10:40:30 AM (GMT-6)
File Attachment :
tohellwithgays.pdf 47KB (application/pdf)This file has been downloaded 13 time(s). | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/2/2006 4:57 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Well, the "Wink" method (anti or pro) may look at the issue in a certain way.
But BETHEL's method is different. And it is not original -- its BASIC.
Wink's text is called "Homosexuality and the Bible." Its starting with assumptions that make Homosexuality the starting point. But certainly THAT begins at the wrong end of the process, and attempts to work backwards!
What Bethel's approach, and the Anthoropology prof's contribution in particular did, was to get #1, #2, AND #3 in correct order....
* QUOTE from the Focus: "We need to take scripture as a whole and ask _1_ 'What does it say
about who we are as persons, who is God, and what is the world like that we
live in?" _2_ Sexuality is a derivative question from those broader themes,
and _3_ homosexuality is derivative of that. When we start backwards, it
seems as if six verses are for gay people and about five verses are for
women, for example, when in fact all of scripture speaks to all of us."
POINT MADE: "All of scripture speaks to all of us....(with regards to) who
we are as persons, who is God, and what is the world like that we live in."
Number one is what the Bible says about WHO WE ARE AS PERSONS, WHO GOD IS, and what the world is like that we live in."
As the prof. said, if you start at the wrong end you just have issolate verses that NOT ONLY seem like they can be made to say jsut about anything, BUT ALSO a strong tendency to think that what the Bible says is not meant for everyone.
.
To "which end" do you see yourself trying to lead this discussion, D?
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 2/2/2006 6:57:39 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/2/2006 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Wink writes, in classic nominalistic myopia: "No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does."
But the truth is that the very NOTION of "sexual orientation" is a social construct that did not get invented until the nineteenth century (1800's). And such a term is a massive oversimplification of sexuality and personhood.
Our culture has made an IDOL out of sex.
A Bethel prof. pointed out that not many cultures in world history have said sexuality is so important. This is the proverbial "cart before the horse!"
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 2/2/2006 4:13:12 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/2/2006 5:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's some scripture:
2 Cor. 12:9
James 5:16
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 2/2/2006 4:52:25 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/2/2006 9:39 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
To "which end" do you see yourself trying to lead this discussion, D?
Everything seems to hinge on what power is granted to the Creation narrative(s). I would firmly agree that the question of sexuality IN GENERAL has to be answered in the larger question of teleology (or lack thereof). In other words, if one disagrees with the premise of homo sapiens sapiens (modern human beings) sexuality being the product of some divine ordinance from the Almighty...because one has problems with the verity of Creation narrative(s) (or some ambiguous "theology" that supposedly can exist WITHOUT the historicity of the accounts)...then the problem is multiplied.
Sure, someone could try to go the "natural law" route...but that gets problematic. See the homosexuality entry in plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/
So, maybe it comes down to that. Does a person believe that God 1) instituted sexual complementarity and reproduction between males and females (as found in modern human beings) as some kind of representation of divinity in some way and 2) initiated the first actual "marriage"? If you do, then I suppose you can take the standard party line, then. If you have doubts...well...
[Digression: I wonder. We know that Homo Erectus and Neanderthals (which more even old earth evangelicals like Hugh Ross wouldn't consider actual "human beings" )had sex. Lots of it. And reproduced. We also know that there is decent probability the deviancy in sexual behavior existed at that time as well. I guess I wonder. Since these beings DIDN'T have the Imago Dei (according to people like Ross), did God have a telos in mind for their sexual behavior or their rudimentary attempts at burial of the dead? Was God indifferent to them...but really began to care when homo sapiens sapiens came on the scene? Hmmm... Just a thought.] | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/2/2006 10:18 PM (GMT -6) | | D: "Does a person believe that God 1) instituted sexual complementarity and reproduction between males and females (as found in modern human beings) as some kind of representation of divinity in some way" . . . "If you do, then I suppose you can take the standard party line, then."
I've never heard of any such thing. Certainly you are on a different page than the Orthodox. NOT at all! (My intitionis that they'd be revulsed.)
And the rest of this speculative pre-history doesn't stick on the sidewalk (that's a snow reference), as far as I am concerned. (You didn't seem serious--but I really, really don't know you.)
But thanks for answering.
------------------------------
As to -- POW: To "which end" do you see yourself trying to lead this discussion, D?
What I was asking was where on the three-part chart I quoted from are your thoughts BEGINNING from? (1) From the big picture, (2) from the consideration of human sexuality in itself, aside from the big picture, or (3) just from the issue of homosexuality.
Even from the last one, it is quite a stretch from homosexual acts, that arguably are found throughout history, and then all the way to the nineteenth century intellectual construct of a "sexual orientation." But ignore the later, as the question I asked and am asking can be answered by saying 1, 2 or 3.
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 2/2/2006 9:24:03 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/2/2006 10:23 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
D: "Does a person believe that God 1) instituted sexual complementarity and reproduction between males and females (as found in modern human beings) as some kind of representation of divinity in some way" . . . "If you do, then I suppose you can take the standard party line, then."
I've never heard of any such thing. Certainly you are on a different page than the Orthodox. NOT at all! (My intitionis that they'd be revulsed.)
Do you even understand what I meant by what I said? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/2/2006 10:28 PM (GMT -6) | | |
MephEternal said...
Do you even understand what I meant by what I said?
PoW:
I understand this: "Does a person believe that God 1) instituted sexual complementarity and reproduction between males and females (as found in modern human beings) as some kind of representation of divinity in some way" . . . "If you do, then I suppose you can take the standard party line, then."
And I tried to follow this latching onto what you maybe are issolating from the rest of scripture, and tradition.
But I think the fish are in another part of the lake.
? ? ?
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/2/2006 10:29 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
What I was asking was where on the three-part chart I quoted from are your thoughts BEGINNING from? (1) From the big picture, (2) from the consideration of human sexuality in itself, aside from the big picture, or (3) just from the issue of homosexuality.
Even from the last one, it is quite a stretch from homosexual acts, that arguably are found throughout history, and then all the way to the nineteenth century intellectual construct of a "sexual orientation." But ignore the later, as the question I asked and am asking can be answered by saying 1, 2 or 3.
That's more clear.
I'd start with 1...which ties to the Creation narratives and how one takes them.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/3/2006 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | POW:
That said, procreation is mentioned in some prominant places as a pre-known necessity that is pre-retrofitted, so to speak. And nobody much cared to try to insist that every detail fit together in any externally-imposed way (free of nominalism and scholasticism). We needed procreation to make up for the death that would surely come when we inevitably sinned, do to our own fault.
Want to make sure I got this part straight. I am interpreting this from what I've heard...
Human procreation via sexuality was a method conceived by God to counteract the effects of human death...which would come from inevitable human sin.
Is this what you are saying?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/3/2006 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/3/2006 12:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Now, I really DO wonder. Did God EVOLVE sexuality? I mean some Christians are more than willing to say that humanity came on the scene via a theistically-guided evolutionary process...where God waited until just before the emergent existence of homo sapiens sapiens to infuse the hominid with the Imago Dei. They would say this occured such that, even though SOME elements of rationality or emotionality may have existed in other hominids, it was only in modern humans that the elements of personhood were FULLY in place. Could things be likewise with respect to sexuality? In other words, was the chief intent of sexuality meant to be more perfectly exemplified in modern humanity (with it's sentience and sapience)...even though sexual reproduction and male/female complementarity in reproduction and the rearing of young has obviously existed WAY before even ANY hominids came on the scene?
Hmmm...
I know this questions and thoughts mean little to nothing to you, POW...and I can really understand why. I can almost hear it now...
What significance does this have with becoming more like Christ, fulfilling our "likeness" of God, and living more of our graciously bestowed union with God in Christ? If nothing, why should I even bother caring?
Hey, I got that. No biggie. I guess for rationalistic Westerners like me...I guess it's just endemic, huh? heh...
Whatever, I suppose.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/3/2006 1:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok. From www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=16
"The Genesis story is the divinely-inspired description in symbolic terms of man's primordial and original possibilities and failures. It reveals that man's potency for eternal growth and development in God was turned instead into man's multiplication and cultivation of wickedness and his transformation of creation into the devil's princedom, a cosmic cemetery "groaning in travail" until saved once more by God (Rom 8:19-23). All the children of Adam, i.e. all who belong to the human race, share in this tragic fate. Even those born this very minute as images of God into a world essentially good are thrown immediately into a deathbound universe, ruled by the devil and filled with the wicked fruit of generations of his evil servants. "
Ok...I have an issue here. But let me post something I kept as a note...
From NT Wright's Commentary on Romans...(emphases mine)
--------------------
"Paul clearly believed that there had been a single first
pair, whose male, Adam, had been given a commandment and had
broken it. Paul was, we may be sure, aware of what we would
call mythical or metaphorical dimensions to the story, but he
would not have regarded these as throwing doubt on the existence,
and primal sin, of the first historical pair. Our knowledge
of early anthropology is of course sketchy, to put it mildly.
Each time another very early skull is dug up the newspapers
exlaim over the discovery of the first human beings; we have
consigned Adam and Eve entirely to the world of mythology,
but we are still looking for their replacements. What "sin"
would have meant in the early dawn of the human race it is
impossible to say; but the turning away from open and obedient
relationship with the loving creator; and the turning instead
toward that which, though beautiful and enticing, is not God,
is such a many-sided phenomenon that it is not hard to envisage
it at any stage of anthropoid development. The general popular
belief that the early stories of Genesis were straightforwardly
disproved by Charles Darwin is of course nonsense, however many
times it is reinforced in contemporary mythmaking. Things are
just not that simple, in biblical theology or science.
One potentially helpful way of understanding the entry of
death into the world through the first human sin is to see
"death" here as more than simply the natural decay and corruption
of all created order. The good creation was nevertheless
transient: evening and morning, the decay and new life of
autumn and spring, pointed on to a future, a purpose, which
Genesis implies it was the job of the human race to bring
about. All that lived in God's original world would decay
and perish, but "death" in that sense carried no sting. The
primal pair were, hoever, threatened with a different sort
of thing altogether: a "death" that would result from sin,
and involve expulsion from the Garden (Gen 2:17). This death
is a darker force, opposed to creation itself, unmaking that
which was good, always threatening to drag the world back
toward chaos. Thus, when humans turned away in sin from the
creator as the one whose image they were called to bear, what
might have been a natural sleep acquired a sense of shame and
threat. The corruption of this darker "death" corresponded
all too closely to, and seemed to be occasioned by, that turning
away from the source of life, and that turning instead toward
lifeless objects, which later generations would call idolatry."
----------------------------
Wright TRIES to struggle with things...but in the end, it's taken as fact by Wright that a "fall" MUST have occurred. A primordial turning away from God that lead to sin and death. I'm having some deep problems with this. Given an edenic situation (like what is seen in the Creation narratives) things seem patently obvious. There is a CLEAR sense of relationality between human beings and God that is recognized by the humans.
However...
The vast majority of evidence we have on the emergence of hominids up through homo sapiens sapiens shows carnage, waste, violence, and death...as well as a growing sense of reflection on such things. In other words, it seems like humanity has ALWAYS been surrounded by nature "red in tooth and claw" and has always been sociologically affected by it's environment. By what stretch of the imagination could anyone try to assert that homo sapiens sapiens had some "golden age" of it's existence where it had a decent UNDERSTANDING of God as loving, relational, provision-making being and themselves being BEFORE that God...in order for sin to exist??
I hope that I'm being clear here. Paul and Jesus did NOT know about hominid development. It would have been inconceivable for them to have considered some proto-human hominid being existing BEFORE Adam's creation. They, most likely, considered Adam to be the first hominid-like creature EVER CREATED. Adam being the ultimate ancestor.
As I try to look more and more into hominid development, the Creation narrative(s) along with their implicit view of women coming FROM man and the joining of man and woman being an FIAT-intentional thing for the man's benefit...gets more and more problematic. Things get even more problematic when we talk about sexuality in general. If sex was really created as a means of 1) reproduction and 2)"imaging God" all to the end of theosis...then what were the sex acts of the Neanderthals and other bipeds like that? Were they meaningless to God?
Anyone see where I'm coming from here?
Now, I've actually been told this...
"Well, there's nothing to say that progressive creationism isn't true. That is that God created modern humans de novo and created them in a protected environment...AWAY from the destruction and other beings like the Neanderthals. All other hominids other than modern humans do NOT have the image of God, Neanderthals included. Only modern humans. After the fall away from God, they left their "edenic" state and THEN had interaction with other hominid species and the violence, struggle, waste, and destruction of the world." (For a good example of this kind of thinking, go here )
All of this on the "dogma" created around the Creation narrative(s). Of course, I can't deny this could have happened. But this seems like another "gap theory" to explain some stuff. Not necessarily the de novo creation of humans, but the conducive space for some kind of meaningful "fall" to take place.
How does all this bear upon sexual identity and orientation? It does so insofar as it starts from more of the "big picture". It seems to me that what has largely been advocated is that sexuality is a GIFT that is intentionally created to employ the "one flesh from two" motif that is supposedly a FIAT condition set by God. That all of this was to, at least in part, set up a realm of existential discourse with the "mystery" of God later revealed in human history. But obviously, the idea of coitus, reproduction, childrearing, familial systems, and cultural aspects didn't originate with modern human beings. So what does this mean?
Does anyone see what I'm wrestling with here...or am I just shadow-boxing?Post Edited (MephEternal) : 2/3/2006 1:22:20 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/3/2006 1:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh, and I loved this...from the Family section...
"True love in marriage supposes the bearing of children. Those who truly love in marriage will naturally have children as the fruit of their love and the greatest bond of their union. Those who despise children and refuse to offer them care and devotion do not truly love.
Of course there are those whose marriages will be childless because of some tragedy of nature brought on by the "sin of the world." In such marriages perfect love can exist, but the mutual devotion in the service of God and man will take on other forms, either the adoption of children or some other good service for the sake of others, The childless marriage, either by voluntary choice or natural tragedy, which results in self-indulgence is not a spiritual union.
The voluntary control of birth in marriage is only permissible, according to the essence of a spiritual life, when the birth of a child will bring danger and hardship. Those who are living the spiritual life will come to the decision not to bear children only with sorrow, and will do so before God, with prayers for guidance and mercy. It will not be a decision taken lightly or for self-indulgent reasons.
According to the common teaching in the Orthodox Church, when such a decision is taken before God, the means of its implementation are arbitrary. There are, in the Orthodox opinion, no means of controlling birth in marriage which are better or more acceptable than others. All means are equally sad and distressing for those who truly love. For the Christian marriage is the one that abounds with as many new children as possible.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
| 72 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:48 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 |
|
|