Civil Unions For All Gay Couples or For All

[artybloke]

No, mate, you keep reading what you want to read in my posts, mate. 'Course, that's not surprising, cause that's what you do with the Bible...

Unless, of course, you're claiming that because we know Jesus that means we're somehow infallible... am I reading you right? I must be, because I know Jesus and therefore I know all the truth there is to know, right?

When Jesus said we can know the truth, does that mean that we can now know the whole truth and nothing but the truth? That we can never get things wrong from now on in?

When the Bible says "now we see through a glass darkly," do you think it might possibly qualify that "we know the truth because we know Jesus" statement with a little real world wisdom? That we don't yet know everything and therefore can't see things from God's point of view in this life at least?

Sure, we have a relationship with the truth. But do we suddenly become knowalls when we become Christians? In your case, it seems we do...

 

[brightmorningstar]

dandylion1984,

I suppose this is what upsets me most about the debate around the sinfulness of being gay. There are only about 3 verses in the NT that are used to outright condemn homosexuality. They are not in the gospels and they are ambigous at best.

No, the passages that condemn same sex relations are not ambiguous in the slightest, one describes it n detail, and same sex relations fall outside and are contrary to the whole creation purpose of man and woman in marriage that runs throughout the Bible.

However, take the issue of divorce and remarriage. Something Jesus himself spoke out against and is recorded in multiple gospels. Yet, so many denominations permit divorce and remarriage (which is basically church accepted adultary).

No, no and no.
Firstly the synoptic gospels in particular account for Jesus ministry and record the disciples learning, Acts onwards is disciples released in the power of the Holy Spirit.
You seem to forget that Luke probably never heard Jesus speak but Paul did and preached what He received from teh risen Lord.
Furthermore, there isnt the fuss with the other sins becuase the other sins are not being blessed and promoted like sss.

And, I suppose, that goes back to the original question. There is a difference between civil marriage and marriage before God. A civil marriage is simply the government acknowledging that two people are joined and they can get divorced and remarried as often as they want (and can afford). But true marriage, the marriage before God, can only happen once and it can only be broken with death.

No you see thats disputable, Matthew 19 for example says a man should not divorce except for fornication ocurring.

A couple may seperate and even have a civil divorce but they are still married in the eyes of God. And should one of them start a new relationship (even under the guise of marriage), it is adultry.

Correct.

Personally, I would rather have the church bless same-sex couples than permit a person who was married in the church to remarry after a divorce.

Why? Why would you want to have anything that could affect salvation?
What if someone gets divorced and then become Christians, would you not see Christ forgiving them if they repent and then start a marriage in God's eyes? A same sex couple cant because same sex relationships are sin, marriage isnt.

 

[dandylion1984]

Of course objective truth exists... but no-one but God can see it completely. And, however inspired it is, the Bible is as much a product of the culture that produced it as is the Book of Common Prayer or the writing of Richard Dawkins.

While it is true that God sees the whole truth, Christians are able to view parts of it (and I would argue, the most important parts) through scripture, prayer and worship.

And I agree, the bible, while divinely inspired, was filtered through and written down by imperfect human beings. In fact, the very books that make up our canon were decided by a group of early Christians who were equally a product of their our culture and bias.

However, just because we cannot know the whole truth does not mean we should no keep looking for it.

 

[artybloke]

While it is true that God sees the whole truth, Christians are able to view parts of it (and I would argue, the most important parts) through scripture, prayer and worship.

And I agree, the bible, while divinely inspired, was filtered through and written down by imperfect human beings. In fact, the very books that make up our canon were decided by a group of early Christians who were equally a product of their our culture and bias.

However, just because we cannot know the whole truth does not mean we should no keep looking for it.

Everybody, not just Christians, is able to see part of the truth. Science is as objective as it can be, and that's part of the truth about our world and how it works. Art, music & literature are non-propositional ways of finding the truth about the world. Other faiths have truths we might learn from if we allow ourselves.

Your last statement is why I chose the Christian-Seeker symbol. Because we should never stop asking questions, especially of those who claim authority over us...

 

[brightmorningstar]

Artybloke,
Its quite straightfoward, Jesus Christ said He is the truth and when we do what He says we know the truth and the truth sets us free. Quite what you are talking about is not clear, so I cant read anything into your posts.
Christ is the truth so He is infallible, right? He, not us; all we know is the truth when we do what He says.
Does that mean we know the whole truth, yes as in Jesus Christ is the whole truth, no as in Christ’s NT teaching says there are things we dont know, as you acknowledged "now we see through a glass darkly"

That we can never get things wrong from now on in?

Not with the things that Christ has made clear, of course not or it could not be the truth that sets us free,

 

[brightmorningstar]

artybloke,
If Jesus Christ is the truth other faiths dont have the truth. Some of the thinking other faiths have is the same as Christ's teaching sure, but thats Christ's teaching that is the truth, not the other faiths.

 

[artybloke]

And Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, however much you pretend to yourself he did. He did, however, say something about divorce...

And it was Paul not Jesus who said "through a glass darkly" (unless Paul's suddenly joined the Trinity so he can be twisted to into your dark world of misinterpretations as well...)

 

[brightmorningstar]

artybloke,

And Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, however much you pretend to yourself he did.

I dont need to pretend, I can read. I think all honest people will acknoledge men who abandon the natural use of women and commit indecent acts with other men is homosexual rather than heterosexual in your terms.

And it was Paul not Jesus who said "through a glass darkly" (unless Paul's suddenly joined the Trinity so he can be twisted to into your dark world of misinterpretations as well...)

According to Paul he preached what he received from Jesus, not artybloke.

 

[Adam Warlock]

This thread has absolutely gone off the deep end.

 

[brightmorningstar]

artybloke,

And Jesus said nothing about homosexuality,

So what did you mean by homosexuality if not men who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with men?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

artybloke,
I dont need to pretend, I can read. I think all honest people will acknoledge men who abandon the natural use of women and commit indecent acts with other men is homosexual rather than heterosexual in your terms.

According to Paul he preached what he received from Jesus, not artybloke.

And here we see the Paulian religion in its native habitat.

 

[brightmorningstar]

This thread has absolutely gone off the deep end.

I agree, lets get back to the spirit of the OP and how Christians are going to address what the world wants to do.

 

[artybloke]

I think all honest people will acknoledge men who abandon the natural use of women and commit indecent acts with other men is to do with ritual temple prostitution where married men go to see male prostitutes as that is more likely to be the context in which St Paul (again, not Jesus...) was written both to and from... But then fundies do like to pretend the Bible was just written yesterday, don't they?

According to Paul he preached what he received from Jesus, not artybloke.

And according to Paul himself, quite a lot of what Paul preached came from Paul, not Jesus.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I agree, lets get back to the spirit of the OP and how Christians are going to address what the world wants to do.

Considering we are supposed to be in the world, but not of the world, one assumes the obvious answer is "let them".

 

[brightmorningstar]

Blackwater Babe,

And here we see the Paulian religion in its native habitat

I suggest you get in touch with your church and find out some of the basics of Christianity.

 

[Adam Warlock]

I think all honest people will acknoledge men who abandon the natural use of women and commit indecent acts with other men is to do with ritual temple prostitution where married men go to see male prostitutes as that is more likely to be the context in which St Paul (again, not Jesus...) was written both to and from...

I don't think we can make that assumption with any certainty. It's an opinion, not the acknowledgement of "all honest people."

But then fundies do like to pretend the Bible was just written yesterday, don't they?

Is is possible to avoid use of terms like "homophobes" and "fundies" around here? Why are "priestess" and "modernist" banned, but liberal attack terms are not?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I don't think we can make that assumption with any certainty. It's an opinion, not the acknowledgement of "all honest people."

Is is possible to avoid use of terms like "homophobes" and "fundies" around here? Why are "priestess" and "modernist" banned, but liberal attack terms are not?

Priestess and modernist are banned?

 

[dandylion1984]

No, the passages that condemn same sex relations are not ambiguous in the slightest, one describes it n detail, and same sex relations fall outside and are contrary to the whole creation purpose of man and woman in marriage that runs throughout the Bible.

This is where we disagree and no amount of argument is going to change either of our opinions. Just know that I have studied these passages in great detail, in multiple translations, read a lot of commentary on the subject and have come to my own conclusion that these passages really don't have much bearing on gay couples today.

No, no and no.
Firstly the synoptic gospels in particular account for Jesus ministry and record the disciples learning, Acts onwards is disciples released in the power of the Holy Spirit.
You seem to forget that Luke probably never heard Jesus speak but Paul did and preached what He received from teh risen Lord.
Furthermore, there isnt the fuss with the other sins becuase the other sins are not being blessed and promoted like sss.

Again, we are going to disagree because we have different views on the infallibility of the scripture. Unlike you, I do not believe that just because Paul wrote something, he is correct. Rather, we need to look at multiple points of view. I ask myself, is there evidence for this belief in the gospels and the letters? If not, as is the case for homosexuality, I question that belief.

No you see thats disputable, Matthew 19 for example says a man should not divorce except for fornication ocurring.

Mark (the gospel to which Matthew and Luke is partly based) gives no such caveat. Rather, it is more likely that Matthew, speaking to a Jewish audience, added that in to make the teaching more palatable.

Why? Why would you want to have anything that could affect salvation?

If you have already seen, I don't believe same sex marriage is a sin. And I could say the same thing. Why would you permit divorce and remarriage, as that also COULD affect salvation?

What if someone gets divorced and then become Christians, would you not see Christ forgiving them if they repent and then start a marriage in God's eyes?

You'll note in my original post I was very careful in my writing. I said, married in the church. If you are married outside the church, a civil union for example, that doesn't count. It wasn't a true marriage. But if you were married, in the church, you can't remarry.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Artybloke,
There is no mention of temple prostitution, the NT already says to avoid sexual immorality each man needs to have his own wife. Leviticus 18 and 20 says that pagans do these things, so men who abandon the natural use of women are indulging in pagan rituals, but men who abandon the natural use of women and commit indecent acts with other men are suppressing the truth with wickedness.
I think all honest people can read what the Bible says and see you are not being honest about it.

And according to Paul himself, quite a lot of what Paul preached came from Paul, not Jesus.

No, very little Paul announced it when it did, and not the condemnations of same sex sexual relations.

 

[Adam Warlock]

Priestess and modernist are banned?

Yeah...long story. Basically, anything that can possibly upset anyone, at any time, for any reason, is banned on STR. It's like we're walking on eggshells around here. However, in practice, "conservative" complaints (like calling something modernism or heresy) receive a greater outcry than liberal name-calling ever does.