Homosexuality - the root of the arguments.

sbvd,

If we had to answer to every question, we'll need another 24 hours a day.

Click to expand...

Thats suggesting we dont have an answer to anything, but as you see to some things, such as the error of same sex relations, we have a clear answer.

brightmorningstar said:

sbvd,
Thats suggesting we dont have an answer to anything, but as you see to some things, such as the error of same sex relations, we have a clear answer. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Click to expand...

No, I'm just saying why I limit my time on forum debates =)

This linked from an Anglican website..

Departing Safe Schools Czar Met with PFOX to Discuss Ex-Gays - Christian Newswire

There is a great deal of bigotry and rejection of ex-gays even in the church. I have seen loads on forums (though not CF thankfully) Its a serious issue and this should help highlight it.

Brightmorningstar, you keep referring to the OP, so let’s revisit it for a moment.

You open your response to the quote of Colin Coward, saying:


“It is at odds with Lambeth 1.10 which distinguishes between the two, and it is an indication that the minority wish the majority to abandon the faith once delivered, and at odds with the Biblical testimony.”

Alright, Let’s look at how the archived text of Lambeth 1.10 reads, to see if you’ve got that quite right. From the last paragraph of the Resolution, subsection 3:

“…. Our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our class race or nationality. At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as "a" homosexual or "a" heterosexual; therefore there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humanity in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation.”

I’d say the bishops, then, did Not “distinguish between the two” -- “… no such thing…” You might, possibly, take some time to reconsider the foundations of your argument.

Let’s also look at your final clause, above, about the Church potentially changing its stance on “homosexuality” as a call to “abandon the faith once delivered, and at odds with the Biblical testimony.”

The scripture you keep alluding to is from Romans, chapter 1. Yes? Or from Leviticus, chapter 18? It doesn’t matter which. The point I’ll make here is that a Thorough and Careful Reading of either chapter, within context, will reveal that Neither chapter is referring to “same-sex relationships” of either an ancient OR modern understanding. Both are describing/denouncing an ACTIVITY which was linked to Idol Worship, practiced by (in fact, commanded with religious “statute” by) the pagan communities, among whom they lived.

Certainly, the scripture does Not change (except possibly by its varied “translators”). But we Christians can and do change in our understanding of the Word of God as we come to know Him better. If the Scriptures themselves (rather than “Christ crucified, resurrected, and ascended”) were the sum total of “the faith once delivered,” we’d still have slavery, and we’d never get to enjoy lobster.

Perhaps there is More to learn?

Blessings.

There is always more to learn.
==========================
There are many, many examples of married relationships, betrothals and marriages in Scripture. There are many mentions of marriage. Please point us to a couple of examples where marriage is between two people of the same sex. Surely, there would a couple of examples of married homosexual couples if this were an acceptable option.

The second question is where in Scripture is sexual intercourse outside of marriage allowed or said to be blessed?
==============================
For me, the above two questions provide the key to our understanding of the issues of the acceptability of homosexual sexual activity and of the ordination of homosexual clergy.
=============================-
We usually focus on the prohibitions when discussing this subject. I agree that the verses concerning the prohibitions are not as useful as examples of how we should act, with sexual inercourse contained within the marriage of a man and a woman.

GodIsLove1 said:

Brightmorningstar, you keep referring to the OP, so let’s revisit it for a moment.

You open your response to the quote of Colin Coward, saying:


“It is at odds with Lambeth 1.10 which distinguishes between the two, and it is an indication that the minority wish the majority to abandon the faith once delivered, and at odds with the Biblical testimony.”

Alright, Let’s look at how the archived text of Lambeth 1.10 reads, to see if you’ve got that quite right. From the last paragraph of the Resolution, subsection 3:

“…. Our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our class race or nationality. At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as "a" homosexual or "a" heterosexual; therefore there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humanity in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation.”

I’d say the bishops, then, did Not “distinguish between the two” -- “… no such thing…” You might, possibly, take some time to reconsider the foundations of your argument.

Let’s also look at your final clause, above, about the Church potentially changing its stance on “homosexuality” as a call to “abandon the faith once delivered, and at odds with the Biblical testimony.”

The scripture you keep alluding to is from Romans, chapter 1. Yes? Or from Leviticus, chapter 18? It doesn’t matter which. The point I’ll make here is that a Thorough and Careful Reading of either chapter, within context, will reveal that Neither chapter is referring to “same-sex relationships” of either an ancient OR modern understanding. Both are describing/denouncing an ACTIVITY which was linked to Idol Worship, practiced by (in fact, commanded with religious “statute” by) the pagan communities, among whom they lived.

Certainly, the scripture does Not change (except possibly by its varied “translators”). But we Christians can and do change in our understanding of the Word of God as we come to know Him better. If the Scriptures themselves (rather than “Christ crucified, resurrected, and ascended”) were the sum total of “the faith once delivered,” we’d still have slavery, and we’d never get to enjoy lobster.

Perhaps there is More to learn?

Blessings.

Click to expand...

Godislove,
How? What you have quoted from Lambeth is exactly what I was saying compared to the Changing attitude statement, yet you suggest it isn’t.
What you quoted distinguishes that our sexual affections can’t define us, we are not homosexual or heterosexual but male and female. CA says “It brings in a dualism which is unacceptable to heterosexual people and is equally unacceptable for lesbian and gay people.” CA brings in the idea of dualism, its not there in God’s word. Its false teaching.

Now I ma not prepared to listen to your disbelief and total misunderstanding of the scripture. You have no idea of the context, which has been explained. Jesus NT teaching affirms God’s creation purpose of man and woman in faithful union (Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5), the Leviticus 18 & 20 passages are the OT law that specifically condemns the same sex perversion opposite to God’s creation purpose in the new covenant in Jesus Christ.

And don’t try and tell me men abandoning the natural use of women and committing indecent acts with men is not same sex relationships.

Both are describing/denouncing an ACTIVITY which was linked to Idol Worship, practiced by (in fact, commanded with religious “statute” by) the pagan communities, among whom they lived.

Click to expand...

Yes it was linked to idol worship and both references say God’s people must not do these practices that pagans do.

1 Cor 5 says those who willfuly persist in sexual immorality merely call themselves brothers.

So God's word is actually showing, as millions upon millions of Christians know that CA is merely calling itself Christian but actually pagan.

Godislove,
mark 1's excellent last post is something you need to address.
The majority Christian position concerns the Biblical testimony full of affirmation of man and woman in union, and the NT teaching of God's purpose of man and woman in union.
The gay argument not only doesnt recognise all the prohibitions of same sex relations but argues for it against the backdrop of all the affirmations of man/woman.

The gay lobbies like CA cannot see that anyone doing the same could ignore all scripoture and pormote something contrary. A paedophile would have a much lesser disbelief from scripture than a practicing homosexual.

Who do we think has introduced the rule that one mustn't call another 'not a Christian'? 1 Cor 5 is the word of God and says those who wilfully persist in sexual immorality merely call themselves brothers but should be expelled from the fellowship

Godislove,
Let me ask you this. If someone also cliamed God is love and claimed God hates homosexuals, would you think that's the love of God? Well you had better realise that claiming God is love and then affirming sexual relationships that God's word says He detests, isnt the love of God either.

What I see in Romans 1 is that the practice of homosexual activities are seen by Paul as a consequence of idol worship along with being unmerciful and so on

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

As I indicated, I think that it is better to view positive examples rather than to look for the reason for prohibited behavior.

1) All the biblical examples of marriage are between a man and a woman (sometimes more than one woman).
2) All acceptable sexual intercourse is within marriage.
3) We have no bibical model for marriage between two of the same sex.

sbvd said:

What I see in Romans 1 is that the practice of homosexual activities are seen by Paul as a consequence of idol worship along with being unmerciful and so on

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Click to expand...

SBVD,

What I see in Romans 1 is that the practice of homosexual activities are seen by Paul as a consequence of idol worship along with being unmerciful and so on

Click to expand...

Firstly it is not Paul, its Christ's teaching and homsoexual practice is what pagans do (see Lev 18 & 20) Yes verse 25 says exchanging the truth of God into a lie is serving the creature more than the creator. (the creature may be serving the flesh or the devil, I dont know)
So yes all the things in Romans 1 that God gave them up to are their idols.
This means those who wilfully indulge in homosexual practice are idoloters.

Mark1,

) All the biblical examples of marriage are between a man and a woman (sometimes more than one woman).
2) All acceptable sexual intercourse is within marriage.
3) We have no bibical model for marriage between two of the same sex.

Click to expand...

Excellent. This is true. This is why one doenst even need the prohibitions to know what is right. All accpetable intercourse in the Bible is according to Jesus NT teaching, faithful man and woman marriage. Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7 show the only alternative countenanced is celibacy. One doesnt even really need the specific prohibitions.
It just goes to show the level and depth of the attack on the truth, which is masquerading as the truth, and the problem facing the church.

brightmorningstar said:

SBVD,
Firstly it is not Paul, its Christ's teaching and homsoexual practice is what pagans do (see Lev 18 & 20) Yes verse 25 says exchanging the truth of God into a lie is serving the creature more than the creator. (the creature may be serving the flesh or the devil, I dont know)
So yes all the things in Romans 1 that God gave them up to are their idols.
This means those who wilfully indulge in homosexual practice are idoloters.

Click to expand...

Romans is attributed to Paul; though that is not to be seen as a challenge to the inspiration of Romans.

Ultimately every sin is a form of idolatry, of idolatry to the self or the creatures, as it diverts the soul from God. Yet again, the text as it is written, seems to say that at least in the case of the pagans, the homosexual activity are the consequence of worshiping other things rather than God.

bms:

You respond to me with:
"How? What you have quoted from Lambeth is exactly what I was saying compared to the Changing attitude statement, yet you suggest it isn’t.
What you quoted distinguishes that our sexual affections can’t define us, we are not homosexual or heterosexual but male and female."

First, if that's what you meant, which stills comes across rather confusing even now, perhaps you should begin your arguments with common nouns rather than pronouns or non-referential nouns (i.e. "two").

Second, it's been my understanding that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) I'm fairly sure, then that the writers at Lambeth did Not, thus imply Your Meaning.

Finally, what I'm saying (to both you and sbvd) is that these very specifically delineated Sexual Activities (in Leviticus 18) were considered Obligatory by law (religious law) in the lands of Egypt and/or Canaan at the time. They were parts of religious ritual as can be discovered by Google or Bing searches with the terms, "Sex+rites" combined with "ancient+world" or "Egypt" and/or "Canaan." Many findings of archaeology show these activities and more.

The object of these rituals was to reEnact the myths of their religion which created the specific gods. Costumed as a god or goddess (depending on their relations to each other) they would call up fertility for the earth, or weather, or good fortune for the community. [There are Magicians who practice "Sex-Magick" (e.g. Aleister Crowley, last century, and those that follow his and other teachings today,) to invoke/evoke pagan deities.] Using sex with animals in their rites would call forth the specific "gods" that we find in hieroglyphics and on papyrus writings, Part human image/ Part animal.

These passages are most definitely NOT about "relationships"

And, sbvd, that which you're inferring from is Not the "consequence" of idolatry, but the Very Act of Idol Worship, itself. Please note the distinction. From verse 28 on, your inference is correct.

These were the Statutes that the Hebrew people (as foreign slaves in Egypt) were required to participate in. They knew exactly what Yaweh was talking about. As His People, the Hebrews, were being called on to Only do that which Yaweh accepted as religious ritual.

They also wouldn't be allowed to sacrifice their children to Molech by passing them through the fire. That commandment, alone, in the midst of the list ought to show that this is a section of laws NOT regarding sexual sin, per se, but about the worship of false gods. The mention of man lying with man, was simply denouncing participation in a reenactment of a myth -- such as Horus (the First) raping Set. You might thus find it strange that nowhere in these lists, is woman-with-woman sex forbidden.

In Romans 1, Paul is paraphrasing this section of "The Law" to begin his discussion of "The Law" for the Jewish Christians (though in Christ there is neither Jew Nor Gentile ) in Rome, and for the Gentile believers to have some "context" when he gets around to addressing them.

Blessings.

Wow. People aren't kidding when they say that Anglicans are utterly obsessed with sex. I guess they ARE kidding when they say that we care about Scripture and Tradition, since the liberals ignore them or make up bogus interpretations of them when they don't suit the liberal agenda.

The title of this thread is analogous to something like "African Americanism - the root of all the arguments". Or "Being Female -- the root of all the arguments".

Drax said:

Wow. People aren't kidding when they say that Anglicans are utterly obsessed with sex. I guess they ARE kidding when they say that we care about Scripture and Tradition, since the liberals ignore them or make up bogus interpretations of them when they don't suit the liberal agenda.

Click to expand...

In what way do you identify yourself with the "Hammer of Justice"? That is an interesting user title.

higgs2 said:

The title of this thread is analogous to something like "African Americanism - the root of all the arguments". Or "Being Female -- the root of all the arguments".

Click to expand...

I like "Wormy apples, the root of all the arguments".