I am more than sure you know what I mean by gay theology. I have proven beyond doubt that I know its precepts and doctrines well.
An honest disagreement on one minor doctrine -- and make no mistake, a doctrine based on five less than crystal clear passages, which does not dispute who Jesus is, or the mission of the Holy Spirit, or the nature and course of Salvation, is a minor doctrine -- is not a different "theology." No more than the similar differences between Christians over infant baptism.
And my position is even less a different "theology." My position is not based on the claim that "gay sex" is "all right," or even that it is "all right" under certain circumstances, even though I cannot find any Biblical passage to deny that it is. It is based on the fact that
even if it is always wrong, we are not authorized to condemn those who honestly read permission in the Bible.
A theology is an integrated system for understanding God and His purposes, and, in particular, His will for our lives. One minor doctrinal difference is not a theology.
Two wrongs make only two wrongs. Gay pride is worldly, plain and simple.
?????
????? What two wrongs?
I could understand this response if I had compared your reaction to homosexuality to your reaction to adultery (even though even then it would be missing the point of the comparison). But I didn't list two wrongs. I tried to describe what I thought you might have meant by "gay theology" (and I already had indicated that I was not sure what you meant by the term) and then went on to show that the type of people you seem to feel define "gay theology," while not exactly straw man stereotypes, do not define all, or even most gay Christians.
Not intending a pun here, but you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Homosexual relationships do not fit the Biblical testimony. There is not a single word or sentence or chapter that can show any support for homosexuality thought or acted upon.
There are only five passages that seem to refer to male-male sex in a negative way. None of them can be shown to definitively condemn it under any and all circumstances, because all five describe situations which are sinful even when the partner is female. Using the same logic, you might as well say that because the Scriptures condemn adultery, and prostitution, especially temple prostitution, it condemns all sex, especially since there are
no Scriptures that describe acceptable sexual
practices. The main reason we know that sex is not condemned out of hand, is that one of the results of marital sex, children, are considered a blessing.
But procreation is not the primary purpose of marital sex. The passage (Genesis 2:18-24) that many people claim defines marriage tells us that Eve was created to provide Adam with companionship. Paul sees marital sex as a lesser good for those who cannot vow celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:1-9). But again, in these passages, as in Hebrews 13:4a, sex is neither named or described, but merely implied.
There are, likewise, passages that lend themselves to interpretations that imply intimate same-sex relations may have included physical intimacy. They don't mention sex itself any more than the passages referenced in the last paragraph do, but the
only reason some can claim that, for example, that they are certain that David and Jonathan could not have been sexually intimate is that the Bible would not elevate David if he was intimate with another man. (Yet it elevates him even though he committed adultery and conspiracy to murder.) But this is circular reasoning: "This passage cannot imply 'homosexuality' can ever be OK because the Bible, taken as a whole, condemns 'homosexuality,' and we know the Bible condemns "homosexuality" because there are no passages that imply that it can ever be OK."
But again, even if you believe that "homosexuality" is wrong, we are not only not authorized to condemn gays, we are forbidden to judge them.
Do you think rewriting Christianity is a minor irritation? Gay theology invents a new religion based on, something Christian-like.
Actually, "rewriting Christianity" based on minor doctrinal considerationsis even less than a minor irritation. The Catholic Church "rewrote Christianity" when it took over pagan holy sites and created saints that echoed the gods that used to be worshiped there. It was rewritten again by the Protestant Reformers, and then again by the Anabaptists when they rejected infant baptism, etc. But the core doctrines remained, and the faithful are still forgiven and redeemed, and so Christ's Church survived.
You'ld rather they stay and look like they are supporting the Sodomites taking positions of power and leadership? Every day in a heretical Church is a bad witness to the lost.
Again, we are not talking about a core doctrine; we are talking about a minor difference in interpretation. Even if the "pro-gay" interpretation is wrong, the answer is not condemnation and schism. Again I refer back to Romans 14.
It is better to split. The Anglicans north and south going their seperate ways is a good thing for the truth. The Africans are doing what is right.
The Torah was compiled long before the third century BC. Same gender sexual coupling was a no no even then.
I don't entirely disagree with the idea that same-sex encounters were not encouraged, but it was understood that the rabbinical decrees were more restrictive than the actual command. Look up the concept of an "eruv."
"Ridding Sodomites from the land became a good thing for Israelite Kings to do:
"Sodomites" is a very poor translation of the people that are referred to in passages such as 1 Kings 22:47. The Israelite kings cleared the land of the "qedesh." These are the Canaanite counterparts to the Levites: people of the priestly caste who are not fully consecrated to directly attend to the god. Many (but not all), both male and female, chose to serve their god by engaging in sexual rituals which celebrated his fecundity and which also brought tangible treasure into the temple's coffers.
Since the same passages talk about tearing down their temples and groves, it is clear that the worship of the false gods, is the paramount concern, and "homosexuality" not as much. The male and female acolytes are always mentioned together and equally condemned. No difference is seen in their
I thought it was about cheeseburgers?
Jesus, Peter, Jude and Paul lived before Augustine.
True, but even if they taught that "homosexuality" is a sin (which it is not clear that they did), they did not demonize it.
Jesus only mentioned gays once, and that was without condemnation.
Paul does list the "arsenokoitai" among a number of other sinners, but there is no singling out of any of the sins committed, nor is there any reason to define as "arsenokoitai" all gays.
Paul also quoted an example of the sin of unbridled Passion originally proposed by Plato, which happened to include an embedded ethnic/"gay" joke (Romans 1:26-27). And he took care to emphasize that the sin being discussed was Passion, and took steps to disentangle the joke from the sin illustrated.
Jude and Peter, like many Old Testament writers, used sexual terms to refer to spiritual faithlessness.
To LGBT's and "Q's" it is one and the same thing. It's truly odd that you cannot see that.
I have no clear understanding of what you are trying to say here. The best I can make of this statement (especially in light of the sentence it is in response to) is that you are claiming that the only reason someone would disagree with your interpretation of the passages we've discussed is because they have evil motives. I hope that I am wrong.
How then does Jesus expect us to know who to treat as pagans and tax collectors when they do not change their ways? That has judgment written all over it.
But how did he treat pagans (Matthew 8/Luke 7; John 4) and tax-collectors (Matthew 9;Mark 2/Luke 5)?
I reject that gay and liberal theological position on its face. Your assertion means that there can be no preaching and calling people to repentance at all. Think about what you are saying?
And yet passage after passage tells us exactly that. There are only four reasons for discussing sin, rather than focusing on glorifying God, uplifting our Christian brothers, and sharing the gospel: Formal matters of discipline (and then only by those given authority in the church and/or the community), when specifically asked or invited to share one's experiences either as an advisor and counselor, or in the abstract as in this forum, when examining one's own sins, and when someones sins are hurting you or an innocent third person.
And in the fourth case, we are given a specific formula to follow, keeping the problem as private as possible. First speak to him in privacy, then if he does not listen, bring in one or two trusted mutual friends, then bring it to the attention of a church elder, now making it a matter of formal discipline, but still keeping it as private as possible, and so on.
But we are only authorized to confront someone whose sin is
against us (or a third person if we are the trusted friend of the second step). And we are ordered to forgive his sin against us. (See much of the gospel of Matthew, especially the Sermon on the Mount [Chapters 5-7] and Chapters 18 and 25.)
Please don't use the King james. It's irritating.
But you had no problem using it in order to highlight the word "sodomite" earlier in this same post. More contemporary translations make it clear that the qedesh are cultists (though many call them "cult prostitutes").
When I study the Bible I use several versions including both literal and dynamic translations; I also an interliear Greek (NT) or Hebrew (OT), several reference books, especially a good concordance and several commentaries. But when I quote the Bible in a venue like this forum, I use the AV for two reasons. One, it is easily accessed, so that it is clear that I have not corrupted the text, as might be harder to detect if I used a translation you could not reference.
And two, although some people, like you, prefer not to use it for whatever reason, no one claims that it is a corrupt and mistranslated version. On the other hand, there are a lot of Christians that will not accept any translation but the AV. It is for their sake (based on Romans 14:21 and 1 Corinthians 9:19-22) that I choose to use the only translation they will accept as valid.
The celebration of gay marriage is a good reason to split from a Church. Gay theological fruit does not come from the right tree.
You don't know any gay Christians, do you? Most of the gay Christians I know exhibit the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,, etc. Nor do they exhibit the works of the flesh any more than any other struggling Christian. (See Galatians 5:19-23)
You seem to be claiming 1) that homosexuality is a "work of the flesh" and 2) anyone who does not condemn people for homosexuality are exhibiting this "work of the flesh." But nowhere in the Scripture is disagreeing with onemorequestion is a "work of the flesh."
It's got problems obviously. The people in Jude's Church are making their demands known now in the UCC.
I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean. Could you please rephrase it?
I must disagree once again. To avoid further animosity is a very good reason to split.
It may become necessary, but it is not "good." It is a mark of failure that the factions could not reconcile and work things out.
Welcoming does not mean affirming behavior.
But it does mean seeing the "other" as human and not evil. Even if "homosexual acts" (or any other forms of "otherness") are sin, a person is not just his sin, and Jesus expects us to reach out to all persons as brothers that He wants to save.
In liberal/gay theology repentance is a hate crime. In orthodox Christian reality, repentance is key to membership in the Church.
Yes, there are a few who meet your expectations, so it is not entirely a straw man statement. And there is a second group that has been burned by your attitude, or that of others who react to gays as you have in these posts, and react badly themselves. But for most gay, gay-affirming, and gay-accepting Christians, the problem is not the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin that is the problem, it is the attitude which projects the impression that you believe that they only read the Scriptures differently because they are evil. And the way that attitude seems to lead you to break the oft repeated commands of forgiveness and acceptance, and the command against judging.
