The Ordination of Practicing Homosexuals

[mark46]

1) I will re-state. In the last couple of centuries, the use of the OT by Christians probably has done more harm than good.

I certainly did not mean to imply that the revelation of the one God to Abraham did more harm than good.

2) You will indeed be attacked for being followers of Jesus. The Evil One is real. However, Christians are NOT now being attacked because of their loyalty to the teachings of Jesus. I believe that Christians are being self-rightoeus in this regard. Jesus is one of the most holy prophets of Islam. The virgin birth is part of Mulsim theology. Gandhi would have become a CHristain had he found communities that really followed Jesus.

In any case, we disagree.

3) With regard to homosexuality, you rightly point out the necessity of a man and a woman for propagation.

A) Do you believe that sex is only for situations where reproduction is desired and possible? If so, the model you support is absilutely necessary.

B) If sex is desirable and godly even when no child can be conceived, then we must assess when sex is appropriate and what purpose it serves. If sexual relationships are about love, then the sin of homosexuality is about having sexual relationship outside the marital bond.

C) The critical intrepretations are about the roles of sex, love, reproduction and marriage. I would submit that if sex and marriage are about love, even if there is no possibility of children, then there is room for the Church to decided that homosexual unions are godly.

Othwerwise, let's be clear and teach that sex for those after menopause or a hysteretomy is a sin.

D) The situation is not at all as clear as some would have it. There is very little in scripture. And scripture is seriously mistranslated to meet the needs of the teacher. We see the Greek word for immorality and we translate it as homosexuality. That is poor scholarship. Paul was teaching against the Greek idea of homosexual love between a older man a young boy.

In any case, the current situation is clear for all but a few dioceses. Having sex outside marriage is prohibited. That is the Tradition of the Church. Of that there is lttle doubt.

Mark

I agree with a lot you say, however I have a couple of points:



This would be misleading to say the least. Without God the default of the human condition is to deceive, etc and has been this way since the beginning. Those of the Judeo Christian faiths certainly aren't the main protaganist nor less the creator of this phenomenom.



This is a unfortunaltely inaccurate interpretation and in direct conflict with the scriptures. Jesus was hated in His time and was murdered because of it. We should not expect all to love us and in fact should expect many to hate us as JESUS clearly states in the New Testament.



This is omitting the root of the problem and in fact will give hope to those who wish homosexual unions be recognized. Fact is plain and simple God hates homosexual relations. He made the sexual organs of a man compatible with that of a women, not with the organ whose only function is to dicharge human waste. To continue to propagate anything else is an affront His masterful creation.

 

[Secundulus]

1)We see the Greek word for immorality and we translate it as homosexuality. That is poor scholarship. Paul was teaching against the Greek idea of homosexual love between a older man a young boy.

Why did it take until the late 20th century in the Episcopal Church for anyone in Christendom to figure this out?

FWIW. The Early Fathers wrote on this subject also and none of them were able to exegete the scriptures in the way that latter day Protestants do.

 

[mark46]

The early Tradition of the Church held that sex was for the purpose of procreation and that homosexuality was a sin. There is little question that there was no acceptance of homosexual sexual unions and marriages until recent times.

With regard to translation, it is not unusual for translations to be used to support theological or doctrinal position. Scripture is a sword and can be used in isolation to support many opposite positions. We all understand that Mary was a virgin at Christ's birth, so we happily mistranslate Isaiah to say that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin instead of a maiden. John 3:16 is famously translated differently by Catholics and Protestants.

IMHO, there is sufficient scriptural support for a marriage to be between a man and a woman, and for sex to be only acceptable within marriage. After all if same sex marriage were acceptable, we might have seen it somewhere in scripture. Also, the Tradition of the Church is clear.
================================================

In the end, we must decide what teachings are time-bound and which are eternal. For example, do we allow women to wear braids, or to wear gold, or to wear pearls? Should men have long hair? All this is clearly forbidden in the New Testament. Should a slave respect the wishes of his master as is clearly taught? We happily quote the Old Testament when it prohibits homosexuality in the same sections that it calls for stoning of adulterers and various dietary restrictions.

Is it really reasonable to have our children be expected to take the vow of celibacy for 10 years before they marry at 25 or so? If sex is about love and not procreation, should same-sex relationships be excluded? If marriage is about love and not sex, and often not about raising children, should same sex marriage be excluded? Sexuality is not an issue of Christology or of salvation. It just isn't. Different ages can indeed have different views and not burn in hell for them.

We do not live in a world where we need to maximize the number of our children so that they can care for us in our old age. We do not live in a world where inheritance in the key driving force of our lives.

It is just possible that we should focus much more on the two commands, and much less on defining sexual morality as if we lived in an agrarian society of 5000 years ago. And it is just possible that we should fly on airplanes even of no one in the bible did so.
===================

These issues are about how we love one another. We gave up on having a list of over 600 rules when we accepted Jesus at his word that there were but two commands. We accept the beatitudes and follow Jesus.

And maybe, just maybe, we need to pray about the appropriate attitudes towards sexual conduct. This will not be the first time. There was a time when sex was only for the purpose of procreation. There was a time when women were the sex slaves of their husbands. We have moved on. Perhaps, it is time to move on again.

The alternatives are to simply ignore the reality of our current culture. As I said, the issue is about more than homosexuality. It is about many, many aspects of sexuality.

Why did it take until the late 20th century in the Episcopal Church for anyone in Christendom to figure this out?

FWIW. The Early Fathers wrote on this subject also and none of them were able to exegete the scriptures in the way that latter day Protestants do.

 

[Secundulus]

Originally you said that scripture does not prohibit homosexual conduct.

Now you seem to be saying that it actually does prohibit homosexual conduct but that we should be ready to reject scripture wherever it disagrees with prevailing non-Christian attitudes and values.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[mark46]

A) Scripture has three or verses that directly address homosexual conduct. The one in the OT clearly prohibits such conduct.

Homosexual conduct is clearly prohibited since it is sex outside of marriage, which is the sin of fornication or adultery, depending on whether either partner is married to someone else.

B) I made no recommendation for change other than the Church should review sexual conduct. As I have stated, there should be no ordaining of homosexual priests, and certainly not bishops.

C) You are cavalier in your implication that I am suggesting rejecting scripture "whenever it disagrees with non-Christian attitudes and values". That is ad-hominem rubbish at best.

I take that you support slavery, and the prohibition of women wearing braids, gold, and pearls. These are clear statements with regard to these behaviors in the New Testament. And I clearly do not have time to even consider listing the over 600 commands of the Old Testament. Do you try to keep all of those? Have you stoned any adulterers lately?

Do you give ALL that you have into the common pot so that the deacons can distribute it among the parishioners according to their needs.

D) Perhaps we need to have yet another thread regarding the obvious issue of which commands of scripture are instructions to the churches of the day and which are eternal. Perhaps then we can better deal with the sin of fornication.

Originally you said that scripture does not prohibit homosexual conduct.

Now you seem to be saying that it actually does prohibit homosexual conduct but that we should be ready to reject scripture wherever it disagrees with prevailing non-Christian attitudes and values.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[mark46]

A) You are free to interpret the Koran as you will. Call Muslims blasphemers if you wish. Include Jews and all those Christians who disagree with you. And yes, persecute them. It is a Tradition of our Church.

I agree that Christians are being persecuted in Muslim countries. I agree that the crisis of this century is Muslim fundamentalism. Christain fundamentalism could be as dangerous if not for the hated non-fundamentalists who are in control of nominally Christain countries.

B) There is a clear prohibition in the Old Testament regarding male homosexuality. I agree that homosexuality is fornication and a sin.
BTW, how many of the over 600 commands of the OT do you think that we should pluck out and follow today. Perhaps we need to again discuss the possibility that certain scriptures were phobihibitions for those at the time. Should we prohibit women for wearing pants, braids, gold and pearls. Surely their head should be covered in church, and ours always.

Seriously, we CANNOT take a verse or two of scripture (not spoken by Jesus) and blindly use it as a hammer to instruct us today. Use the Beatitudes. BTW, do you support slavery? Scripture clearly does. Do you support treating wives as property. Scripture clearly does.

====================

Finally, I do accept and strongly support the orthodox view of scripture as supported by the Tradition of the Church.

Quite off the mark. Get with the news. Christians the world over are are being persecuted and killed. Look at Africa and the Middle East. If Muslims love and respect us so much please go to any non secular Muslim country and preach the Gospel as directed by Jesus and see if you are alive by the following morning. In many Muslim countries it is punishable by death to convert to Christianity.

At any rate the Koran clearly states that God has no son. This is blasphemy, plain and simple.



Quite a typical remark. I have already discussed this. Why should repeat myself if it will just be ignored? Nonetheless your assumption is incorrect.



Why don't you translate the original Hebrew verses with regard to men having relationships with men in the Old Testament and let us know what you find out?

I think I can see now a pattern here. No wonder the homosexual movement has taken over certain Christian churches. Supposed theological legalistic gobblygook is used in place of common sense with the purpose of subverting God's plan for personal motives. Bottom line is God gave us a brain and He also required us to submit to Him; something lacking anymore.

 

[catolico]

I take that you support slavery, and the prohibition of women wearing braids, gold, and pearls. These are clear statements with regard to these behaviors in the New Testament. And I clearly do not have time to even consider listing the over 600 commands of the Old Testament. Do you try to keep all of those? Have you stoned any adulterers lately?

While the Old Testament and issues you state may confuse you, why project this on me by assuming that I have to support you assertations ???

Your confusion has nothing to do with me. Please keep me out of these assumptions. After all, I don't remember where I am assuming so much about you on this forum.

 

[catolico]

A) You are free to interpret the Koran as you will. Call Muslims blasphemers if you wish. Include Jews and all those Christians who disagree with you. And yes, persecute them. It is a Tradition of our Church.

Here we go again with the immature assumptions and exxagerations. I would expect that from a juvenile, not an adult.

As far as "blasphemers" go, I guess Jesus and His disciples were only kidding.

Why don't you post the "correct" version of the Bible so we can all be "up to date".

 

[Colabomb]

(this post has NOTHING to do with homosexuality and I am staying intentionally neutral on the subject, try not to read anything into it other than what is said)

Islam is blasphemous and anti-Christ mark. There is no question. They deny the very Gospel of Jesus Christ, which we build our faith upon. They deny the Sacrifice of Calvary, they deny the defeat of Death on the Third Day, and they deny the very identity of the One whom we serve.

This does NOT mean that we have a right to mistreat them or hate them. We are called to love all men, even the antichrists and the blasphemers. We are to be civil decent human beings who show love, compassion, mercy and Grace towards all men, as mirror images of our Master. However, we must not confuse loving our neighbor with approving of everything our neighbor believes.

 

[mark46]

No, we should not approve of the beliefs of Muslims.

I agree with all your comments.

I tend to use the word "blasphemer" differently than you do. If it is to mean those who do not accept Christ as savior, then Muslims are definitely blasphemers. I use the word "unbeliever" for that concept.

(this post has NOTHING to do with homosexuality and I am staying intentionally neutral on the subject, try not to read anything into it other than what is said)

Islam is blasphemous and anti-Christ mark. There is no question. They deny the very Gospel of Jesus Christ, which we build our faith upon. They deny the Sacrifice of Calvary, they deny the defeat of Death on the Third Day, and they deny the very identity of the One whom we serve.

This does NOT mean that we have a right to mistreat them or hate them. We are called to love all men, even the antichrists and the blasphemers. We are to be civil decent human beings who show love, compassion, mercy and Grace towards all men, as mirror images of our Master. However, we must not confuse loving our neighbor with approving of everything our neighbor believes.

 

[Secundulus]

I take that you support slavery, and the prohibition of women wearing braids, gold, and pearls. These are clear statements with regard to these behaviors in the New Testament. And I clearly do not have time to even consider listing the over 600 commands of the Old Testament. Do you try to keep all of those? Have you stoned any adulterers lately?

You need to do some study and understand the difference between the moral law and the other regulations in the Bible.

 

[mark46]

Moral law is in the eye of the beholder. Do you believe that slavery is not a moral issue? Is treating women as property a moral issue?

You need to do some study and understand the difference between the moral law and the other regulations in the Bible.

 

[Secundulus]

Moral law is in the eye of the beholder. Do you believe that slavery is not a moral issue? Is treating women as property a moral issue?

Moral Law in the Bible indicates a specific thing and is not the same as a moral issue.

Moral Law is in fact what Jesus was talking about in his two great commandments. Look them up in the Bible. They are direct quotes from Leviticus and Deuteronomy,

 

[mark46]

I agree that Jesus defined moral law with these commands. Of course Jesus is not suggesting that we obey the ritual law of the OT or the purity rules/code.

Leviticus is all about ritual and purity. Yes, Jesus stated the great command from here. However, does that make the rest any more important to us? On what basis should I chose to accept some of these purity rules of Leviticus and not others?

And I repeatedly the example of slavery for a reason. In the Ten Commandments, we are told not to desire or covet the woman or man slave of oiur neighbor. Is this clear support of slavery to be followed, or are we allowed to disregard scripture (your words) and oppose slavery? There are many, many other scripture passages that support slavery.

For me, Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT law. He taught us in the Our Father, the great commands, the great commission, the beatitudes and in his life examples. Why should we consider the purity codes of Leviticus binding on us today?

As I have indicated before, this is more than an OT issue. Paul in his letters stated prohibitions that are clearly not meant for our age.

The open question is how we sort through which are God's Law for us and which are simply not relevant. We teach that scripture gives us all that we need. However, we need the Tradition of the Church to sort it all out.


=============================================
18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. 20 " 'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD. 22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the LORD for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.

Moral Law in the Bible indicates a specific thing and is not the same as a moral issue.

Moral Law is in fact what Jesus was talking about in his two great commandments. Look them up in the Bible. They are direct quotes from Leviticus and Deuteronomy,

 

[catolico]

On what basis should I chose to accept some of these purity rules of Leviticus and not others?

With all due respect we have a new commandment which of course you already know.

I honestly befuddled by this common argument of yours, that we are still to follow all of the laws of the Old Testament.

This is well established in the New Testament. I recommend you read it sometime.

I will also state for the record that Jesus clearly states that those looking to disrefute God's word will always be in a state of confusion and will never be given the insight to understand it, the Word. After all it is a gift - and therefore not given to all - especially the proud of heart. Furthermore, for those consider that the Bible has been misinterpreted for the 1500 years or so I'd say that is as vain a thinking as is possible.

 

[Secundulus]

As I have indicated before, this is more than an OT issue. Paul in his letters stated prohibitions that are clearly not meant for our age.

Acts 15:20. Paul was there and he agreed with it. Was that meant just for a short time?

 

[Colabomb]

There is no biblical distinction to be fair. I understand that Roman Catholics view Tradition differently than Anglicans, but you must admit that the distinction between Moral, Civil and Ceremonial law is not biblical.

To the ancient Isralites, ALL of the Law was an issue of Morality. One was either faithful to the covenant or they were not.

 

[mark46]

Yes, Paul indicates that many rites and rules of the OT are not relevant. He also spoke directly to the potential Greek converts with regard to idol worship and fornication, niether of which the potential Greek converts considered wrong.

I agree with Paul's conclusions.

What point are you making?

Acts 15:20. Paul was there and he agreed with it. Was that meant just for a short time?

 

[mark46]

A) Is it your position that none of the laws of the Old Testament need to be followed?

B) If some of the laws of Old Testament should be followed, how do we choose which ones are applicable to today?

C) I have never said that we need to follow all of the laws of the Old Testament. I have never said that we need to follow all the laws/rules of the New Testament. For example, I think that women should be allowed to weak gold and pearls. Also, I don't think that we should recommend that slaves obey their masters.

D) Should all the laws/rules of the New Testament be followed today?

E) If not, how do we choose which to follow?

With all due respect we have a new commandment which of course you already know.

I honestly befuddled by this common argument of yours, that we are still to follow all of the laws of the Old Testament.

This is well established in the New Testament. I recommend you read it sometime.

I will also state for the record that Jesus clearly states that those looking to disrefute God's word will always be in a state of confusion and will never be given the insight to understand it, the Word. After all it is a gift - and therefore not given to all - especially the proud of heart. Furthermore, for those consider that the Bible has been misinterpreted for the 1500 years or so I'd say that is as vain a thinking as is possible.

 

[Secundulus]

There is no biblical distinction to be fair. I understand that Roman Catholics view Tradition differently than Anglicans, but you must admit that the distinction between Moral, Civil and Ceremonial law is not biblical.

To the ancient Isralites, ALL of the Law was an issue of Morality. One was either faithful to the covenant or they were not.

It is biblical by virtue of the Council in Jerusalem. Converts are expected to abide at a minimum by the puriy rules applied to God fearers in the synagogue.

What is non biblical is the notion that those rules expired after one generation. Nobody in the entire history of the Church thought that those Apostolic decisions expired until about 20 years ago in one small corner of the Church.