Redefining God's Word

[Ohioprof]

It's a common acceptance by the great majority of the church that it is indeed sinful, regardless of whether its right or not. From my own understanding of the biblical passages in regard to homosexual actions, they are always grouped with negativity. And not once did I find something along the lines of 'Tell the men to come out so we can know them, and possibly have a committed loving same sex relationship in the future.'
But since the disagreement with current doctrine of the majority is coming from liberals or whoever, the burden of proof is on them to prove it incorrect.

There's nothing in nature that suggests that anything is a sin. Sin is determined by God, not nature, unless you worship nature as a god I guess.

Once again, we have differences in our purpose. I believe that God put us here to please Him, therefore my own wants and wishes should come second. This is not to imply that they always do, because I fall into sin just like anyone else.
I have no qualms with gay marriage, and think it would be kinda cool for my single guy friends to marry each other for the awesome tax breaks that marriage entitles.

In response to your first point, churches are divided right now over whether same-sex relationships are "sinful" or not. And they are becoming more divided as more Christians decide for themselves that they do not think same-sex relationships are "sinful."

You say that God decides what is "sin," but how do you know what God has decided? People who believe the Bible is the word of God point to a few disputed passages to support their argument that God says same-sex relations are "sin." Yet there are more passages in the Bible that condone slavery than there are passages that suggest, ambiguously, that same-sex relations may be "sin." Most Christians that I know of today think slavery is "sin," and in thinking this, they brush aside the Bible passages that condone slavery. Most Christians today also brush aside Bible passages calling for women to keep silent. Christians regularly ignore Bible passages that don't conform to their life experiences or that are inconsistent with what science tells us about the universe. Yet many Christians still seem hung up on the few Bible passages that ambiguously suggest to them that same-sex relations are "sin."

If the broad message of the Gospel, which most Christians believe in, is to love God and to love one's neighbor, then shouldn't Christians focus on that and leave the judging of others to God?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

You have an interesting position on same-sex marriage. But getting married does not really give you tax breaks that I can see. Having a child does, but you don't have to marry to have a child. I have a child, and I am not married. If you read through the instructions for Form 1040, you'll see that married people pay about the same tax as single people.

The biggest tax break that I received was the adoption tax credit, which was over $10,000. That was a credit, not a deduction. Of course, the adoption cost me far more than that.

Anyway, I should get back on our topic.

I meant it in a jokingly manner, thats the problem with legalizing same-sex marriages. I could see a huge increase in abuse of the system. There are several advantages to those who are married, another big one I can think of off the top of my head is medical coverage. How easy it would be to save a bunch of money by finding a friend who wouldn't mind saving some cash by taking advantage of the system. I am not stating that I am against gay marriages, since I look at it as a civil matter. I just hope that they take precautions to avoid the potential abuse of the system.

 

[RMDY]

You say that God decides what is "sin," but how do you know what God has decided?

Don't ya just wish Paul were here today to give us his definition of what pornia really means?

 

[Ohioprof]

It's a common acceptance by the great majority of the church that it is indeed sinful, regardless of whether its right or not. From my own understanding of the biblical passages in regard to homosexual actions, they are always grouped with negativity. And not once did I find something along the lines of 'Tell the men to come out so we can know them, and possibly have a committed loving same sex relationship in the future.'
But since the disagreement with current doctrine of the majority is coming from liberals or whoever, the burden of proof is on them to prove it incorrect.

There's nothing in nature that suggests that anything is a sin. Sin is determined by God, not nature, unless you worship nature as a god I guess.

Once again, we have differences in our purpose. I believe that God put us here to please Him, therefore my own wants and wishes should come second. This is not to imply that they always do, because I fall into sin just like anyone else.
I have no qualms with gay marriage, and think it would be kinda cool for my single guy friends to marry each other for the awesome tax breaks that marriage entitles.

One final point about God's purpose. I think God's purpose is for us to enjoy our lives and to be happy. That means that we let other people be happy too. That means that we don't persecute people simply because they are different from the majority. That means that we don't scapegoat people or point fingers at them or throw stones at them simply because they are different from the majority. That means we let people be themselves and not treat others as pariahs simply because they are different from the majority. That's how I see it.

For someone who is heterosexual to tell someone who is gay, "Oh, you can't just do whatever you want," is simply unfair. It is to expect gay people to do without the love that heterosexuals assume for themselves as a right. The heterosexual person can marry the person they love and create a family and be accepted by others, especially by other Christians. The gay person can't do any of that without great difficulty and much resistance, especially from other Christians. For someone to say, "You must do without love and partnership, because it is the will of God, while I get to have love and partnership that you can't have," is just plain wrong.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

In response to your first point, churches are divided right now over whether same-sex relationships are "sinful" or not. And they are becoming more divided as more Christians decide for themselves that they do not think same-sex relationships are "sinful."

You say that God decides what is "sin," but how do you know what God has decided? People who believe the Bible is the word of God point to a few disputed passages to support their argument that God says same-sex relations are "sin." Yet there are more passages in the Bible that condone slavery than there are passages that suggest, ambiguously, that same-sex relations may be "sin." Most Christians that I know of today think slavery is "sin," and in thinking this, they brush aside the Bible passages that condone slavery. Most Christians today also brush aside Bible passages calling for women to keep silent. Christians regularly ignore Bible passages that don't conform to their life experiences or that are inconsistent with what science tells us about the universe. Yet many Christians still seem hung up on the few Bible passages that ambiguously suggest to them that same-sex relations are "sin."

If the broad message of the Gospel, which most Christians believe in, is to love God and to love one's neighbor, then shouldn't Christians focus on that and leave the judging of others to God?

It's not about judging, its about attempting to defend against the spread of heresy. Thats what apologetics are all about.

From what I've read biblically, I can say that the few references of homosexual actions are always accompanied by negativity of some sort, and there are absolutely zero passages giving it a blessing.

The slavery system was alot different in those times than it was in early america. For instance, one could repay his debts by going into slavery. Not that it justifies it in any way, but with the way the system worked back then it was just another one of the means they used.

I don't know of any churches that are divided over this topic, but thats not to say that there aren't any of course. This is definitely a tough subject.

Unfortunately, with the push of the godless society we live in, it won't be long until we are in here debating the sinfulness of adultery.

 

[Ohioprof]

I meant it in a jokingly manner, thats the problem with legalizing same-sex marriages. I could see a huge increase in abuse of the system. There are several advantages to those who are married, another big one I can think of off the top of my head is medical coverage. How easy it would be to save a bunch of money by finding a friend who wouldn't mind saving some cash by taking advantage of the system. I am not stating that I am against gay marriages, since I look at it as a civil matter. I just hope that they take precautions to avoid the potential abuse of the system.

Heterosexuals abuse the system all the time. Look at the fraudulent marriages that are performed to allow immigrants to live in the United States.

Why would you assume that same-sex marriages would be any more riddled with fraud and abuse than opposite-sex marriages are?

 

[RMDY]

I think God's purpose is for us to enjoy our lives and to be happy.

I thought God's purpose was for us to be saved and be like Jesus, serving others in love?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof

And YOU are the decider, to borrow a term from W, about what is Christian and what isn't?

As much as you are yes. But I am pointi ng out what the dictionary says, what the Bible says and what most people have always decided throughout thye ages and so it ISNT ME. I only agree with almost everyone elses definition.

YOU get to decide who should be thrown out of the forum for holding different beliefs from yours?

do I who says and why do you think I should. I havent made any comment concerning that view.

 

[Ohioprof]

It's not about judging, its about attempting to defend against the spread of heresy. Thats what apologetics are all about.

From what I've read biblically, I can say that the few references of homosexual actions are always accompanied by negativity of some sort, and there are absolutely zero passages giving it a blessing.

The slavery system was alot different in those times than it was in early america. For instance, one could repay his debts by going into slavery. Not that it justifies it in any way, but with the way the system worked back then it was just another one of the means they used.

I don't know of any churches that are divided over this topic, but thats not to say that there aren't any of course. This is definitely a tough subject.

Unfortunately, with the push of the godless society we live in, it won't be long until we are in here debating the sinfulness of adultery.

You have just rationalized the Bible passages condoning slavery by saying that things were different back in the days when the Bible was written. Well things were different in how people looked upon same-sex relations back then also. The writers of the Bible probably did not have an understanding of sexual orientation, that there are people whose orientation is gay. You can use the same kind of argument to disregard the few Bible passages that ambiguously may suggest that same-sex relations are "sin" that you use to disregard the more numerous passages that condone slavery.

As for churches that are divided over this topic, look at the Anglican Communion right now, which is on the brink of schism over how the church treats gay people. There was a big news story about this yesterday. Within the United States, the Episcopal Church is splitting apart over this, as well as possibly splitting from the Anglican Communion. (Or more accurately, the Anglican Communion may kick out the Episcopal Church.)

The Methodist Church is also divided over how to treat gay people, as is the Presbyterian Church, though neither of these churches is going through the wrenching divisions of the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church U.S.A., which is part of the Anglican Communion.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof

And YOU are the decider, to borrow a term from W, about what is Christian and what isn't?

As much as you are yes. But I am pointi ng out what the dictionary says, what the Bible says and what most people have always decided throughout thye ages and so it ISNT ME. I only agree with almost everyone elses definition.

YOU get to decide who should be thrown out of the forum for holding different beliefs from yours?

do I who says and why do you think I should. I havent made any comment concerning that view.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Jet_a_Jockey,

That is, unless you can find them in some other book.

She may find them in the Gnostic works, but she doesn’t ever quote them. This is the problem, she does refer to and cite from the Bible but says she doesn’t believe the Bible is the word of God, she says she prefers the Gnostics yet never gives chapters as citation from the gnostics and all the time posters like you and I are asking where she gets the ideas.

 

[Ohioprof]

Don't ya just wish Paul were here today to give us his definition of what pornia really means?

Why should we care what Paul says? He is not God.

 

[artybloke]

It's not about judging, its about attempting to defend against the spread of heresy.

What heresy? If someone disagrees about somebody on an issue of morality, as opposed to doctrine, in what way is that heresy? Heresy (if such a thing exists) is to do with doctrine.

And why be so defensive? Is Christianity all about standing behind barriers fighting off the evil influence of this or that secular idea? If so, it should have resisted the influence of late Platonism rather more successfully in the 4th century, because without the language of Platonism the Nicene Creed wouldn't even have been possible.

Christianity ought to be about moving forward with the love of God, not hiding behind theologically correct barriers scared to go outside.

The slavery system was alot different in those times than it was in early america. For instance, one could repay his debts by going into slavery. Not that it justifies it in any way, but with the way the system worked back then it was just another one of the means they used.

This is bunkum, special pleading in an attempt to say that the Bible isn't really wrong about this. However you look at it, slavery is about treating other human beings as objects, depriving them of their freedom and individuality and forcing them to do things they wouldn't otherwise do for you. And it's evil.

You can say that it's part of the context of the time that no-one at the time would have thought twice about changing, that the economy would have depended on slave labour etc., but to try and say "it wasn't all that bad" is nonsense.

 

[artybloke]

I thought God's purpose was for us to be saved and be like Jesus, serving others in love?

Aren't they the same thing?

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Jet_a_Jockey,
She may find them in the Gnostic works, but she doesn’t ever quote them. This is the problem, she does refer to and cite from the Bible but says she doesn’t believe the Bible is the word of God, she says she prefers the Gnostics yet never gives chapters as citation from the gnostics and all the time posters like you and I are asking where she gets the ideas.

I have never said that I prefer the Gnostics! I have said that the Gnostic Gospels give us new insights into early Christianity, and scholars can and should use their writings as primary historical sources along with the Gospels that are included in the Bible. I have never claimed to be a Gnostic or to prefer the Gnostics. I like the fact that these "heretics" who were driven out of the church succeeded in hiding their writings, and I am glad that these writings have been discovered so we have them as sources. The Gnostic writings are no more the word of God than the Bible is.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Jet_a_Jockey,
She may find them in the Gnostic works, but she doesn’t ever quote them. This is the problem, she does refer to and cite from the Bible but says she doesn’t believe the Bible is the word of God, she says she prefers the Gnostics yet never gives chapters as citation from the gnostics and all the time posters like you and I are asking where she gets the ideas.

One futher correction to what you have said about me: I do not use the Gnostic writings as sources for my personal morality or my personal beliefs, any more than I use the Bible as a source for my personal morality or my personal beliefs. I see the Gnostic writings as historical sources. They are a source for uncovering the historical Jesus, for helping us determine what Jesus actually said, in contrast to what his disciples and others made up and attributed to Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas is a sayings Gospel, presenting sayings of Jesus. We can look at these sayings and compare and contrast them with the sayings in the three synoptic Gospels, in an effort to determine what Jesus probably said.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

One final point about God's purpose. I think God's purpose is for us to enjoy our lives and to be happy.

This comment reminds me of the various prophets and apostles of God who had great suffering in their lives. Why did they suffer? Because they proclaimed and lived His Word.

That means that we let other people be happy too. That means that we don't persecute people simply because they are different from the majority. That means that we don't scapegoat people or point fingers at them or throw stones at them simply because they are different from the majority. That means we let people be themselves and not treat others as pariahs simply because they are different from the majority. That's how I see it.

I never once asked someone to stop committing homosexual acts because I think they are sinful. If you would not have told me about your sexual orientation previously I would not have immediately assumed you were homosexual. This issue is not about happiness. If someone was about to get hit by a car, and I pushed them out of the way, do you think they'd be unhappy that they were pushed? I agree that we are all sinners therefore we should treat each other the same. My intention is not to ruffle feathers, but rather to emphasize my belief on the scripture, as well as explain why I feel the way I do.

For someone who is heterosexual to tell someone who is gay, "Oh, you can't just do whatever you want," is simply unfair.

How is it? I can't do whatever I want either.

It is to expect gay people to do without the love that heterosexuals assume for themselves as a right.

I don't expect any gay person to do without anything, all I'm saying is same-sex sex is a sin.

The heterosexual person can marry the person they love and create a family and be accepted by others, especially by other Christians.

well, with the power of procreation they could, without any other outside contributing factors. Creating a family, I mean. It doesn't get more natural than that. About acceptance by others, lets not generalize. I am as accepting of a gay couple as i am of a straight one. But that doesn't mean that I am going to walk on eggshells around them when it comes to topics like this.

The gay person can't do any of that without great difficulty and much resistance, especially from other Christians. For someone to say, "You must do without love and partnership, because it is the will of God, while I get to have love and partnership that you can't have," is just plain wrong.

Once again, if you believe that God is just a big pleasure giver then I can understand your point. God allows suffering, look at Job. One of God's faithful, tested in some awful ways. It's scripturally shown that he allows great suffering in His most faithful, look at the pain His Son suffered. Jesus says to deny ourselves and take up our cross.

Easier said than done, right?

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof
As much as you are yes. But I am pointi ng out what the dictionary says, what the Bible says and what most people have always decided throughout thye ages and so it ISNT ME. I only agree with almost everyone elses definition.
do I who says and why do you think I should. I havent made any comment concerning that view.

Correct me if I am misreading you, but you seem to be arguing that people like me should be excluded from the forums, because I don't believe what you believe and because my beliefs appear to run afoul of your dictionary "definition" of what is Christian.

I am making no argument that anyone should be excluded from the forums. I like the forum rules as they are. They allow for free expression of all viewpoints, not just the Christian viewpoints that you consider to be "true" Christianity.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

You have just rationalized the Bible passages condoning slavery by saying that things were different back in the days when the Bible was written. Well things were different in how people looked upon same-sex relations back then also. The writers of the Bible probably did not have an understanding of sexual orientation, that there are people whose orientation is gay. You can use the same kind of argument to disregard the few Bible passages that ambiguously may suggest that same-sex relations are "sin" that you use to disregard the more numerous passages that condone slavery.

As for churches that are divided over this topic, look at the Anglican Communion right now, which is on the brink of schism over how the church treats gay people. There was a big news story about this yesterday. Within the United States, the Episcopal Church is splitting apart over this, as well as possibly splitting from the Anglican Communion. (Or more accurately, the Anglican Communion may kick out the Episcopal Church.)

The Methodist Church is also divided over how to treat gay people, as is the Presbyterian Church, though neither of these churches is going through the wrenching divisions of the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church U.S.A., which is part of the Anglican Communion.

I rationalized it only in the way that modern slavery and ancient slavery are very different things. That does not condone either.


If they didn't understand sexual orientation then you must claim that there were no committed monogamous same sex relationships during that time, correct?

 

[Ohioprof]

This comment reminds me of the various prophets and apostles of God who had great suffering in their lives. Why did they suffer? Because they proclaimed and lived His Word.

I never once asked someone to stop committing homosexual acts because I think they are sinful. If you would not have told me about your sexual orientation previously I would not have immediately assumed you were homosexual. This issue is not about happiness. If someone was about to get hit by a car, and I pushed them out of the way, do you think they'd be unhappy that they were pushed? I agree that we are all sinners therefore we should treat each other the same. My intention is not to ruffle feathers, but rather to emphasize my belief on the scripture, as well as explain why I feel the way I do.
How is it? I can't do whatever I want either.


I don't expect any gay person to do without anything, all I'm saying is same-sex sex is a sin.


well, with the power of procreation they could, without any other outside contributing factors. Creating a family, I mean. It doesn't get more natural than that. About acceptance by others, lets not generalize. I am as accepting of a gay couple as i am of a straight one. But that doesn't mean that I am going to walk on eggshells around them when it comes to topics like this.



Once again, if you believe that God is just a big pleasure giver then I can understand your point. God allows suffering, look at Job. One of God's faithful, tested in some awful ways. It's scripturally shown that he allows great suffering in His most faithful, look at the pain His Son suffered. Jesus says to deny ourselves and take up our cross.

Easier said than done, right?

I don't think we are here to deny ourselves. I think we are here to enjoy the bounty of life, to enjoy the gifts that God has given us. I think we are here to love God and to love each other. Yes, there is suffering. As soon as we are born, we know we will die. But in the process is the opportunity for rich sharing and happiness.

Notice that I said happiness, not pleasure. Pleasure seems superficial. Happiness is deeper. Same-sex relationships are not simply for pleasure.....they are not simply for sex. They are for a deeper happiness, just as opposite-sex relationships are.