Civil Unions For All Gay Couples or For All

[gurneyhalleck1]

But does your point of view have any Biblical or traditional support? Please show me where homosexuality is sanctioned in Scripture or where gay marriage or gay sex is considered ok and I'll join your club. I can find passages opposing it; can you find the inverse? So, "plain as day" indicates what is there. If it's not there, it's not plain, right? A point of view from Scripture actually has to have some shred of evidence and support IMHO.

Obviously, it is not 'plain as day', because I do not agree with you. I could equally say, it is 'plain as day' that the scripture has little to nothing to say on the subject, which, from my point of view, it is.

 

[GodIsLove1]

But does your point of view have any Biblical or traditional support? Please show me where homosexuality is sanctioned in Scripture or where gay marriage or gay sex is considered ok and I'll join your club. I can find passages opposing it; can you find the inverse? So, "plain as day" indicates what is there. If it's not there, it's not plain, right? A point of view from Scripture actually has to have some shred of evidence and support IMHO.

"Plain as day" seems to denote, for you, no need for interpretation.

But as I wrote in a post above, we are not dealing with Objective Truth when we read scripture, but rather with Revealed Truth. That which must pass through the heart of the receiver, then to mind and to hand on a scroll; from the eyes of readers (The Word, quickened by the Holy Spirit) to our brains, then into our hearts. In this, the brain/mind is pivotal.

I have read the scriptures you "can find" in the exact same mode as you have. There was a time I agreed with your understanding wholeheartedly.

That is no longer the case. Even so, brother, I'm NOT making the claim that I am interpreting in the only correct manner and that anyone must side with me to "be in the right." Could I become convinced to switch my understanding again? Of course. But it would take greater "evidence and support" that the words mean something very different than what I now understand them to mean.

My interpretation is "as plain as day" to me. Though I could show you the inverse of your [found] passages, and even offer adjustment to the interpretation of those same passages you would offer, I would not expect (or even desire) that you "join [my] club" of non-gay believers who embrace homosexuals as partakers of the redemptive power of Christ.

Thus, I leave it to the Spirit of God to raise up a person or persons with sufficient wisdom and proof to change either of our hearts -- that, and the Spirit, at work in the both of us now, to help us to hear and to know.

Be at peace.

 

[dandylion1984]

But does your point of view have any Biblical or traditional support? Please show me where homosexuality is sanctioned in Scripture or where gay marriage or gay sex is considered ok and I'll join your club. I can find passages opposing it; can you find the inverse? So, "plain as day" indicates what is there. If it's not there, it's not plain, right? A point of view from Scripture actually has to have some shred of evidence and support IMHO.

First, I must correct you. I did not mean to imply that there was scripture that sanctioned gay marriage or gay sex (though some argue that such passages do exist). Rather, I meant that there are no passages that condemns homosexuality and that the scripture is neutral on the subject.

Second, I hesitate to spend the energy and time typing out a reply that is just going to be rejected without being read. If you are sincere in your request, please tell me.

 

[mark46]

Personally, I have issue with the idea that Scripture is self-interpreting, that it is "plain as day" in any sense.

We are called STR for a reason. Truth is revealed in Scripture, illumined by Tradition, brought to life in our prayer and experience through the Holy Spirit, and confirmed by our Reason. While there are revelations and interpretations after Scripture was written, all such revelation must be tested and connot be in conflict with Scripture.

With regard to this issue, I have come to believe as Tony Campolo (theological conservative) has concluded, that the Church must conclude and teach that marriage is between a man and a women. We also must support the religious and political liberty of those who disagree with us. If we cannot respect religious liberty when we are in the overwhelming majority, surely we cannot reasonably complain when sharia is enforced in Muslim countries. Also, in supporting the political rights of the weak, we show our Christian love, especially when it is clear that we morally disagree with their actions.

"Plain as day" seems to denote, for you, no need for interpretation.

But as I wrote in a post above, we are not dealing with Objective Truth when we read scripture, but rather with Revealed Truth. That which must pass through the heart of the receiver, then to mind and to hand on a scroll; from the eyes of readers (The Word, quickened by the Holy Spirit) to our brains, then into our hearts. In this, the brain/mind is pivotal.

I have read the scriptures you "can find" in the exact same mode as you have. There was a time I agreed with your understanding wholeheartedly.

That is no longer the case. Even so, brother, I'm NOT making the claim that I am interpreting in the only correct manner and that anyone must side with me to "be in the right." Could I become convinced to switch my understanding again? Of course. But it would take greater "evidence and support" that the words mean something very different than what I now understand them to mean.

My interpretation is "as plain as day" to me. Though I could show you the inverse of your [found] passages, and even offer adjustment to the interpretation of those same passages you would offer, I would not expect (or even desire) that you "join [my] club" of non-gay believers who embrace homosexuals as partakers of the redemptive power of Christ.

Thus, I leave it to the Spirit of God to raise up a person or persons with sufficient wisdom and proof to change either of our hearts -- that, and the Spirit, at work in the both of us now, to help us to hear and to know.

Be at peace.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But there are passages that condemn homosexuality....of course I'm sincere in my posting and interactions; no need to imply otherwise.

But I must say, it's rare for anyone on this forum to change their mind; I often wonder why we all hash this stuff out. Liberal Christians have made up their minds about this, conservatives have as well. We're both not budging anyway. There is nothing anyone can produce in Scripture, Tradition, or Reason to change my opinion on this sinful lifestyle. And I'm sure I won't sway you either, dandy.

First, I must correct you. I did not mean to imply that there was scripture that sanctioned gay marriage or gay sex (though some argue that such passages do exist). Rather, I meant that there are no passages that condemns homosexuality and that the scripture is neutral on the subject.

Second, I hesitate to spend the energy and time typing out a reply that is just going to be rejected without being read. If you are sincere in your request, please tell me.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There are plenty of things that are "plain as day," the quote of course being mine again that gets re-hashed over and over, and there are some other grey areas that are not. There is metaphor, there are parables, there are allegories, and things that are literal. Nobody said Scripture is simple or obvious in everything. So my quote, as usual, is taken out of context. What I said was that the Bible's position on homosexuality is plain as day. It is only mentioned a few times and always in a negative, sinful light. That was the context.

Personally, I have issue with the idea that Scripture is self-interpreting, that it is "plain as day" in any sense.

We are called STR for a reason. Truth is revealed in Scripture, illumined by Tradition, brought to life in our prayer and experience through the Holy Spirit, and confirmed by our Reason. While there are revelations and interpretations after Scripture was written, all such revelation must be tested and connot be in conflict with Scripture.

With regard to this issue, I have come to believe as Tony Campolo (theological conservative) has concluded, that the Church must conclude and teach that marriage is between a man and a women. We also must support the religious and political liberty of those who disagree with us. If we cannot respect religious liberty when we are in the overwhelming majority, surely we cannot reasonably complain when sharia is enforced in Muslim countries. Also, in supporting the political rights of the weak, we show our Christian love, especially when it is clear that we morally disagree with their actions.

 

[dandylion1984]

But there are passages that condemn homosexuality....of course I'm sincere in my posting and interactions; no need to imply otherwise.

But I must say, it's rare for anyone on this forum to change their mind; I often wonder why we all hash this stuff out. Liberal Christians have made up their minds about this, conservatives have as well. We're both not budging anyway. There is nothing anyone can produce in Scripture, Tradition, or Reason to change my opinion on this sinful lifestyle. And I'm sure I won't sway you either, dandy.

Why, because sometimes people do change their mind. It is through conversations like these that I have often changed my mind and always for the better. I believe it is important to have my ideas challenged and to find the flaws in my arguements.

Now, back to the passages that are used to condemn homosexuality but do not.

First, the word homosexuality (the concept that a person has an internal desire of one gender over another) did not exist in the time that the scripture was written. There were many Greek words for acts between two men (it was a common practice, after all) but none of those words ever appear in the new testament.

Rather, the word arsenokoitai is translated into homosexual in I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:9-10. However, this word is obscure and no one is really sure what it means. The root of the word is 'man' and 'bed', which could just as likely mean 'a man who sleeps around' or a 'male prostitute' as 'a man who sleeps with other men'.

 

[brightmorningstar]

kiwimac,

So, you do not want homosexuals to marry and would deny them civil unions. What exactly would you have them do? I suspect I know.

So you have what the Biblical testimony says which is what we believe, so I dont see why you are asking.
Sure we would like them to marry if they wish, but remmeber marriage is man and woman.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Godislove,

"Plain as day" seems to denote, for you, no need for interpretation.

Same to you as to kiwimac and dandylion1984, when you say Plain as day seems to denote for you no need for interpretation am I to interpret what you have written to mean what it says or the opposite of what it says? You see if you persist in claiming something contrary to what a whole series of scriptures actually say then you are simply making it up to suit yourself, and if we did that there could be no debate at all cos no one would know whether what anyone wrote was what they meant.

So..

My interpretation is "as plain as day" to me.

OK but that means nothing as if we test your interpretation against what the scriptures say we see it is disbelief of what the scriptures say.

Thus, I leave it to the Spirit of God to raise up a person or persons with sufficient wisdom and proof to change either of our hearts -- that, and the Spirit, at work in the both of us now, to help us to hear and to know.

The Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth and guides believers in truth and reminds them of what Jesus taught (John 14-17), what you are suggesting seems to be the very human wisdom which is foolishness.

 

[brightmorningstar]

dandylion1984,

Obviously, it is not 'plain as day', because I do not agree with you.

OK so both Gurneyhalleck1 and I can see what the Biblical testimony says and believe it, and all you can do is say to me that you don’t agree with me and to gurneyhalleck1 you don’t agree with him.
If it were up to gurneyhalleck1 and me we wouldn’t need Jesus Christ.

Now all you are doing again is giving your own opinions contrary to the Biblical testimony which are also loaded with subsequent disbeliefs.

Now, back to the passages that are used to condemn homosexuality but do not.

What they say condemns same sex acts, let us be clear if you cannot acknowledge what the scriptures say then there as far as many are concerned you have are starting to depart from the faith once delivered to a different Jesus and a different gospel which is no gospel at all (2 Cor 11, Gal 1)

First, the word homosexuality (the concept that a person has an internal desire of one gender over another) did not exist in the time that the scripture was written.

Ok so the Bible refers to the error of men who have sexual relations with men instead of women, That’s what the Bible says. If you wish to refer to homosexuality then you will need to say whether your understanding of the word includes men having sexual acts with other men instead of women.
Now the scriptures say God created woman for man and that men with men is error. Do you really want to try and claim God didn’t know? That is even more unbelief. Sure God knows, that’s why His Biblical testimony throughout condemns same sex relations.

There were many Greek words for acts between two men (it was a common practice, after all) but none of those words ever appear in the new testament.

Neither does eros which was a common contemporary word for love. Romans 1 describes men who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with other men, its part of a passage that is proceeded by such things being wicked suppression of the truth. You don’t even need a word to know the answer, you have a description!. Where you have a word you dont believe that either.

Rather, the word arsenokoitai is translated into homosexual in I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:9-10. However, this word is obscure and no one is really sure what it means. The root of the word is 'man' and 'bed', which could just as likely mean 'a man who sleeps around' or a 'male prostitute' as 'a man who sleeps with other men'.

Again, all you are doing is picking each condemnation of same sex relations and denying it. How much of the Bible do you not believe? Arsen and koites are well known words men bedding (fam) and so it is pretty obvious its men with men instead of women, especially as its condemned in 1 Cor 6 and in Lev 18 and 20 and Romans 1. One might more reasonably assume that the Holy Spiirt inspired scripture has chosen arsen koites specifically becuase they are the words in the Greek Spetuagint of Lev 18 and 20., a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman.

 

[artybloke]

So do you believe that one's own personal interpretation is the highest authority, since it is as likely to be "true" as any other interpretation?

When there is more than one possible interpretation, that's where reason tempered by the ethic of Christ's love for all comes in.

As I see no reason in the world apart from what some people consider the Bible to say, then I take the more loving route; which is to be accepting of those people that Christ himself does not condemn. Does Christ ask us to be tender or to be condemnatory?

I can see nothing wrong with homosexuality; I've met as many loving gay relationships as loving straight ones. In fact, I'd rather celebrate their love than the unloving 'relationship' my sister has with her husband of many years standing. In fact, the relationship of my other sister with her (male) partner is far more helathy than the one who's actually 'married'.

There was a time when slavery was thought to be thoroughly biblical, approved of God and divinely ordained. They could read the institutes of slavery "plain as daylight" off the pages of scripture, and in tradtion too. It didn't stop them from being wrong then and it doesn't stop them from being wrong now.

 

[brightmorningstar]

artybloke,

When there is more than one possible interpretation, that's where reason tempered by the ethic of Christ's love for all comes in.

But there isnt more than one possible interpretation here, the scriptures only ever countenance man and woman and condemn same sex relations.
We are already in the realms of nonsense here, did Jesus ever heal the sick, or could I argue not if all the scriptures where is says He did are ignored and the opposite view taken that He never healed any sick... just like you are doing with the same sex relations issue.

As I see no reason in the world apart from what some people consider the Bible to say,

Let me stop you there, we can all see what it says. Does John 3:16 say “For God so loved the world ..” or does it possibly say “For God did not love the world. .. “ if I interpret it as saying that? No, it says, as all can see, "For God so loved the world..." So do not be dishonest.

I can see nothing wrong with homosexuality;

Again, disciples of Jesus Christ follow His teaching and not your thoughts.

I've met as many loving gay relationships as loving straight ones.

Have you met any loving Westboro church people and encountered their love towards homosexuals, or would you disputing that is love like God’s Biblical testimony says men with men instead of women is not love?

There was a time when slavery was thought to be thoroughly biblical, approved of God and divinely ordained.

But of course the slave trade isnt and just as some perverted the gospel to justify the slave trade, some are now perverting the gospel to justify same sex relations.
But of course we are all slaves, either to righteousness or sin.

 

[artybloke]

But there isnt more than one possible interpretation here,

So you keep saying. Unfortunately, I'll take the experts' opinion over your prejudiced reading any day.

 

[brightmorningstar]

artybloke,

So you keep saying. Unfortunately, I'll take the experts' opinion over your prejudiced reading any day.

And I will take Jesus Christ's words.
The experts I know of are better

You follow whoever you think yoyr experts are and leave believers here to follow Jesus Christ.

 

[artybloke]

And I will take Jesus Christ's words.

Who said nothing about it.

Though you seem to want to put words into his mouth a lot.

So you follow whatever prejudiced reading you wish to, and I will follow Jesus Christ. (See: I can make arrogant claims too...)

 

[brightmorningstar]

artybloke,

Who said nothing about it.

Whose NT teaching condemns men who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with other men, and countenances God's creation purpose of man and woman, as shown and quoted.

Though you seem to want to put words into his mouth a lot.

I can see what the Bible says my friend whether you mlike it or not.

So you follow whatever prejudiced reading you wish to,

I can see what the Biblical testimony says my friend, that God's word is seen by you as prejudiced is your choice.

and I will follow Jesus Christ. (See: I can make arrogant claims too...)

Jesus Christ's NT teaching indicates your claim is wicked suppression of the truth and turning to another Jesus (Romans 1, 2 Cor 11, Galatians 1, which I have already quoted.)

 

[artybloke]

I can see what the Bible says my friend whether you mlike it or not.

So can I. And it says nothing about loving gay relationships whatsoever. Plain as day.

I dont treat your denials and judgements with any credibility.

 

[brightmorningstar]

artybloke,
Sorry I am referring, and have referred to what the Bible says, not your gay thinking. I would assume what you mean by "loving gay relationships" includes men who abandon natural relations with women and commit indecent acts with other men... I think you need to respond to that.

I dont treat your denials and judgements with any credibility.

 

[artybloke]

Sorry I am referring to what the Bibles says, not your anti-gay thinking. I would assume that men who ababdon natural relation with women are straight people who go to gay prostitutes - I suppose it still happens...

I dont treat your denials and judgements with any credibility.

What is 'gay thinking' by the way?

 

[brightmorningstar]

artybloke,

Sorry I am referring to what the Bibles says,

Baseless claims again.

not your anti-gay thinking.

you mean God's, I was referring to what God's word says. 1 Cor 6, Rom 1

I would assume that men who ababdon natural relation with women are straight people who go to gay prostitutes - I suppose it still happens...

No, that gay thinking.

What is 'gay thinking' by the way?

see above