Homosexuality - the root of the arguments.

[ebia]

ebia,
No idea what you are talking about. In what way anatomically?
Anatomically two animals or humans of the same sex cant have sexual intercourse. All they can do is intercourse with various parts of the body.
What exactly are you thinking of here?

If you really can't see it, I doubt anything j say is going to help.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,
I can see it, it is you who cant.
Anatomically two animals or humans of the same sex cant have sexual intercourse, as it requires the sexual reproductive organ of the male inserted into the sexual reproductive organ of the female. Agreed?
When animals and humans display homosexual acts they use various other bodily organs and orafices. agreed?

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

This is a constant problem in discussing anything with you - playing fast-and-loose with the referent of pronouns.

No, this is the problem with you. I have asked you specific questions, your opinions the disccusion with me do not even attempt to address the questions.
Anatomically, same sex sexual acts are dysfunctional. To claim some animals do it as a justification begs the question why not be justfied in doing other things animals do.
It may be a natural desire to do something but it doesnt mean the doing is a natural action.

But back to the OP, as soon as someone looks at things in terms of heterosexual and homosexual they have already missed God's purpose for man and woman.

 

[ebia]

Yes, frequently I don't respond to a direct question because it is, or seems to me to be, tangential to the important flow of the conversation.

 

[wayseer]

MKJ and ebia,
I am happy to debate the issue. Your response doesn’t addresses the question, it merely gives your opinion on it.
So show me where the concept of gay and straight, or heterosexual and homosexual is supported in the Bible? Otherwise your response is shrivelled fruit.

Its important that Christians are able to debate this without being tossed about on the wind of false teaching and by the cunning crafty deception employed.

Let me elaborate further. Someone who is called heterosexual means they have an attraction for the opposite sex. That means nothing for a Christian or in terms of God's purposes. A heterosexual may engage in adultery and all kinds of fornication, or may indulge in opposite sex paedophilia or may be faithfully married. Only one of those heterosexual actions is God's purpose, the others are error. So what does heterosexual mean? Its meaningless in God's purposes and is only any use to distinguish between opposite sex and same sex attraction and behaviour which is also against God's purpose.
So as soon as one debates in terms of heterosexual and homosexual, the sexual desire, instead of male and female, what God has anatomically created for purposes, one is using a faulty concept. When one is identifying themselves gay, or their beliefs 'gay christian' then they have already missed the truth.

When I read stuff like this I can understand why people are turning away from the Church.

What is being effectively advocated here is a return to the witch burnings of the past - when anyone could 'dob in' a witch just to liven up a otherwise dull Saturday night - only this time round it's homosexuals and their supporters.

I thank God we live in a secular society.

 

[ebia]

I don't know that a secular society makes fear of difference, scapegoating and a lynch-mob mentality go away.

 

[ebia]

Strong identity is a good thing, for lots of reasons. But whenever you have a strong identity you get bands of people who want to purify and enforce it.

Take a look at some of the people in OBOB stuck in a paradox of disobediently wanting to enforce the Catholic Church's boundaries of obedience.

 

[brightmorningstar]

wayseer,

When I read stuff like this I can understand why people are turning away from the Church.

So can I, the word judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart, they are challenged and their idols are still more important to them. However I can also understand why people are coming to faith and the church when they hear this. That’s the gospel for you.

What is being effectively advocated here is a return to the witch burnings of the past - when anyone could 'dob in' a witch just to liven up a otherwise dull Saturday night - only this time round it's homosexuals and their supporters.

Well there is nothing to support witch burning in Christ’s NT teaching but there is prohibition of homosexual relations, if people don’t want to acknowledge one they probably wont want to acknowledge the other.

I thank God we live in a secular society.

What makes you think God likes disbelief of Him then?

 

[ebia]

Secular does not originally or always mean atheist.

 

[ebia]

wayseer,
So can I, the word judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart, they are challenged and their idols are still more important to them. However I can also understand why people are coming to faith and the church when they hear this. That’s the gospel for you.

It could be that way around, or it could be that people are joining because they want an exclusive club (a huge proportion do) and others are leaving it because the see the gospel being distorted.

Which one sees will depend on ones preconceptions

 

[brightmorningstar]

HisHomeMaker,

I do strive to follow Jesus. Am I not a Christian? At what point on the spectrum of sin will I become or stop being worthy of the name Christian?

So if someone strived to follow Jesus in stealing and lying would they still be worthy of the name Christian? Surely to strive to follow Jesus is to not steal and lie?
Similarly to strive to follow Jesus is not to engage in same sex relationships.
But the OP is showing the concepts of heterosexual and homosexual are human ones and at odds with God's creation.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

It could be that way around, or it could be that people are joining because they want an exclusive club (a huge proportion do) and others are leaving it because the see the gospel being distorted.

No, it says the word judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart, the other way round would be that it doesnt, but it says it does. The gospel is being distorted by the gay christian faction so as to be acceptable to accomodate its wrong thinking.

Which one sees will depend on ones preconceptions

No, one cant see homosexual and heterosexual concepts in the Bible, thats the point, there is no such thing and as soon as one challenges people on that they start to avoid the question, as you have done. The truth is that God made man and woman to be in union, and not in same sex relationships, anyone turring away from the church because of that has not believed.

 

[ebia]

ebia,
No, it says the word judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart, the other way round would be that it doesnt, but it says it does.

Random change of referent again.

The gospel is being distorted by the gay christian faction so as to be acceptable to accomodate its wrong thinking.

there's more than one way of distorting the gospel.

No, one cant see homosexual and heterosexual concepts in the Bible, thats the point, there is no such thing

the concept of sexauality did not exist in biblical times.

and as soon as one challenges people on that they start to avoid the question, as you have done. The truth is that God made man and woman to be in union, and not in same sex relationships, anyone turring away from the church because of that has not believed.

even truth can be presented so badly that it drives away those it would have drawn near. To blame the gospel for your evangelistic outcomes is getting close to blasphemy.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

there's more than one way of distorting the gospel.

yes that’s another way, by avoiding affirming the truth. Its part of the deception.
I am keen to have intelligent debate, but you will need to address the points made rather than merely passing your opinion that you don’t think my points are any good.

the concept of sexauality did not exist in biblical times.

What do you mean by Biblical times? Do you consider God created man and woman to be in union during Biblical times? Is that union not countenanced throughout Biblical times? What do you mean by Biblical times? Was the Bible written as God created man and woman to be in union or after He had done so?

even truth can be presented so badly that it drives away those it would have drawn near. To blame the gospel for your evangelistic outcomes is getting close to blasphemy.

In your opinion, but I think the blessing of same sex relations is more blasphemous. Its good to exchange opinions, now back to the issue.
What I think you are trying to say is that the truth must be presented in love, otherwise its powerless. I agree, but that’s not the issue for the church which is trying to change the truth, or where no matter how lovingly the truth is presented, people’s hearts are hardened against it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

If we look at the ChangingAttitude statement, its not the truth.

I think that this distinction is not now and never has been tenable. It brings in a dualism which is unacceptable to heterosexual people and is equally unacceptable for lesbian and gay people.

There is no such thing as heterosexual or homosexual people in the Bible, end of story. His position is scripturally untenable yet he is saying the truth is untenable. Naughty.

Thats the twisting.

Just how alarming this is, is demonstrated by the next statements.

We need to integrate our orientation with out behaviour, with ouir desire to love and to be in relationship, and the church has got to change its teaching, that is the only possible outcome that is going to resolve this.

There is nothing to stop him integrating his orientation with his behaviour but its not love as God is love if it is a sexual relationship. His view that this is the only possibly outcome is the tail assuming it can wag the dog and rather undermines any relationship with the majority of the church implied. It is also incredibly selfish to assume their particular sexual behavour should be allowed when others' sexual desires and behaviours cannot.

No changingattitude, believers and followers of Christ conform their minds to Christ's teaching and not the sin that Christ has paid the price to forgive.

 

[ebia]

ebia,
yes that's another way, by avoiding affirming the truth. Its part of the deception.

keep going, you might get to yours eventually.

What do you mean by Biblical times?

the concept of sexuality is a very recent development. So there's, say, a gap from the end of the biblical writing to then of what, 18 centuries?

Do you consider God created man and woman to be in union during Biblical times?

but not that every man or woman will marry. It's a general truth, not rule for each individual. Nor does God fail to make provision for human hardness of heart.

In your opinion, but I think the blessing of same sex relations is more blasphemous.

So one blasphemy deserves another?

What I think you are trying to say is that the truth must be presented in love, otherwise its powerless. I agree,

putting it into a cliche like that is a conscious decision to strip a vital gospel truth of its enormous power and challenge. As your next sentence shows...

but that's not the issue for the church which is trying to change the truth, or where no matter how lovingly the truth is presented, people's hearts are hardened against it.

What [mis?]drives ECUSA is pastoral concern. That might be misdirecting them in one direction, but pastoral concern is vital, and the excessive reaction against that looses sight of pastoral concern in the drive for purity. Usually it's what we are getting right that leads us to get things wrong. Unless we can see that - in ourselves and in each other - we can't begin to collectively encompass the whole picture. We are doomed forever to sit in our individual distortions thinking "I'm right and the rest of em are wrong"

 

[ebia]

There is no such thing as heterosexual or homosexual people in the Bible, end of story.

There is no such thing as electricity in the bible.

Well, actually there must have been but the concept didn't exist so the bible doesn't talk in those terms.

Either sexuality is a real concept and homosexual and heterosexual people exist in the bible, or it's a false concept (and you and Lambeth must stop using the words). The bible cannot tell you which of those two is true any more than it can comment on the existence of quarks.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

the concept of sexuality is a very recent development.

So ignore it as we know God created man and woman to be in union.

but not that every man or woman will marry. It's a general truth, not rule for each individual. Nor does God fail to make provision for human hardness of heart.

Sorry, that doesn’t answer the question, what do you mean by Biblical times, the time the Bible was written or the time at creation when God created male and female to be in union?

So one blasphemy deserves another?

As I said that’s just your opinion.

putting it into a cliche like that is a conscious decision to strip a vital gospel truth of its enormous power and challenge. As your next sentence shows...

A cliché? No I don’t see it as a cliché the truth must be in love or its powerless 1 Cor 13, Eph 3.

What [mis?]drives ECUSA is pastoral concern.

Or not as the case is. One cant pastor people to what is a barrier to the Kingdom, that’s not love at all but the opposite of love. I have no idea what you mean by the drive for purity, purity is found in Christ, we cant strive for righteousness.

Usually it's what we are getting right that leads us to get things wrong. Unless we can see that - in ourselves and in each other - we can't begin to collectively encompass the whole picture. We are doomed forever to sit in our individual distortions thinking "I'm right and the rest of em are wrong"

So where would the Biblical testimony of God fit into that relativism where one person thinks they are right and another person thinks they are wrong?
The Bible countenances only man and woman in union and prohibits same sex relations, it isnt a case of whether it does or not.

 

[brightmorningstar]

ebia,

There is no such thing as electricity in the bible.

And?
My point was there is no such concept of homosexual and hetrosexual, they are contrary to God's purposes and what God did create.

Either sexuality is a real concept and homosexual and heterosexual people exist in the bible,

But they dont, the only decription is the behavior, either inaccordnace with what God has created or against it.

(and you and Lambeth must stop using the words).

No, the liberals must stop using it or leave, we have no intention of the majority being dictated to to by a minority who deny what the Bible says on the matter.

 

[ebia]

ebia,
So ignore it as we know God created man and woman to be in union.

I didn't say that.

Sorry, that doesn't answer the question, what do you mean by Biblical times, the time the Bible was written or the time at creation when God created male and female to be in union?

I wasn't distinguishing but if you want to then I was talking about it's writing.

A cliché? No I don't see it as a cliché the truth must be in love or its powerless 1 Cor 13, Eph 3.

You seem to have missed the point of my comment.

So where would the Biblical testimony of God fit into that relativism where one person thinks they are right and another person thinks they are wrong?

Any of us are only ever partly right. We can't hold the whole picture at once. We need other people who see things differently so between us we can have the whole picture (or at least more of it). That's not the same thing as relativism.