- Jan 29, 2010
- 20,702
- 5,045
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Again, I agree with all your comments. But then, I too am too politically liberal for the fundamentalists and too conservative for the theological liberals.
I do NOT believe that we understand the passages regarding homosexual conduct. I agree that cultural context is critical. The critical issues are nature fo marriage and the purpose of sex (and whether sex outsie marriage is acceptable).
I do NOT believe that we understand the passages regarding homosexual conduct. I agree that cultural context is critical. The critical issues are nature fo marriage and the purpose of sex (and whether sex outsie marriage is acceptable).
I was merely advocating listening to the other side, for both people. That is the Christian attitude, it seems. Even Arius had a hearing. I can see the points for both sides.
As far as scripture being irrespective of culture: When was the last sermon you heard about not eating meat sacrificed to idols?
Does your church ask the women to cover their heads "on account of the angels?" Culture does seem to matter.
I think the issue is: What laws do Gentiles have to keep to be included in the church? Luckily, Acts 15 answers this:
19) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
My point was merely that all these things, taken in context seem to be talking about idolatrous practices- every facet of them. Why weren't "don't lie, don't cheat on your spouse, believe in one God, etc." mentioned? Some things are assumed. I suppose they are asking if homosexuality, as we have it today, was assumed as well.
Again, I see both sides, but I am leery of ever saying God can't or hasn't saved anyone because of a sin in their life, even if the repentance we see is lacking or nil. Romans 1 lists plenty of other sins in that list, and some of them are pretty common, not necessitating being "given over." I would also say that Romans 1:23 seems to speak to idolatry too.
As with any ethic, the situation leads to other questions and so on and so forth. I suppose I would have been better off just keeping my mouth shut, as I was dealing with hypotheticals in a forum of peoples dealing differently with the issue. I should, however, qualify my statements by saying that I:
a) don't agree with redefining the term marriage. Call it a civil union if you want, take the rights given by the state such as insurance, taxes, whatever, but don't say God blesses something it doesn't seem He does. Marriage has a purpose, and kids have a purpose. I also don't agree with people in homosexual relationships adopting. Kids need a mother and a father. Period. That being said, would they be better off left in a foster home? I doubt it. This opens the question of "what is the purpose of sex?" That's sticky...
b) I don't agree with the idea of "gender reassignment."
c) I can't agree with the ordination of any minister we know is in a homosexual relationship UNTIL we can answer any questions about the sinfulness of the activities in the negative.
So, I'm essentially screwed as I'm too liberal for the fundamentalists, but too conservative for the LGBT agenda. lol.
Upvote
0