Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
we dont pass judgement on others but God's kindness leads us toward repentance, verse 4.
I suppose the crux of the disagreement is that one side (my side) contends that the OT scriptures were delivered for to a specific people within a specific cultural context, and that we must employ reason to interpret God's message as a whole and apply it to modern contexts. The conclusion that my side has reached is that homosexuality in the modern context of a monogamous and commited relationship is neither a perversion nor sinful, due to our interpretation of God's message and our perception of its relevance to this particular modern context.
Obviously, you have reached a different conclusion which I assume is based on an interpretation of God's message which more fully incorporates OT law, with less regard to the context in which it was delivered. You seem to opperate under the assumption that everything in the bible applies univerally, rather than contextually. This would be our fundamental disagreement.
I suppose this would be considered more of a fundamentalist approach. My perception of your assessment is something along the lines of: 'God said it within a different cultural and historical context, but that doesn't change the fact that he said it so it still applies'.
If the above is in fact your position, we simply disagree. While I certainly respect your opinion, you and I have reached different conclusions. It happens.
MKJ said:THis is not what the Church has ever taught about the OT and the Bible, however. It has certainly taught that we look at what was said in context so that we can discern what it actually meant. But this is the case for all of Scripture, Tradition, etc, not just the OT.
The Church has taught that portions of the OT Law were meant specifically for Jews, and were not meant to be applied to all Christians. The moral commands, however, are meant to be applied to all. In some cases, it can be unclear what might be a moral vs another type of command.
Your view that the "modern context" of same sex relationships is different seems to have no reason behind it that I can see, so I am not sure what it is supposed to mean.
This in no way represents the Churches understanding of this, and never has. THe fact that some people continue to claim that it does is bizarre, since it is quite clear historically that this is not how the Church has understood the Bible. It rather makes me wonder if they have simply been very badly educated, or are being deceptive? I can't think of any other explanation.
It's only when they feel that they have to convince us to agree to the rightness of their position, or of their recent re-interpretation of the Bible, and/or that Christianity has been operating on nothing but plain prejudice for almost all of its history, that they make it necessary to present the counter-argument.
Morality is somewhat subjective. There were very few, if any, monogamous homosexuals in committed romantic relationships in the Society that the Scriptures were presented to when the Scriptures were written which addressed homosexuality. Homosexual behavior most likely occured within the context of orgies, rape, child abuse, etc. as distasteful as it may be to talk or think about.
I'm presenting my own perspective, not TEC's teaching or anything representative of TAC. In fact, I was taught theology in RC schools, and the perspective that I have presented here is obviously not informed by my RC education. Neither do I intend to be deceptive.
Let me tell you about the real Jesus Christ then.Since I believe Jesus was an open homosexual, I find this entire subject rather laughable. I cannot help but wonder what He would say to the gay-bashers on this board.
Since I believe Jesus was an open homosexual, I find this entire subject rather laughable. I cannot help but wonder what He would say to the gay-bashers on this board.
To JasonV,
Let me tell you about the real Jesus Christ then.
What kind of justification could you possibly have to affirm that Jesus was an open homosexual?
Cunctator: since your faith icon not Anglican, you are only permitted to make posts in fellowship on this forum. You are not allowed to debate, even if some claims that Jesus was gay.
Oh maybe that pretty fellow John, the one Jesus loved so much. Only John is singled out as "the" beloved. At the last supper, it seems suggestive that John leaning on Jesus' inner tunic (basically his underwear) referred to a pederastic relationship.
Yeh, we read the DaVinci Code, too. It's fiction, you know.
If Jesus had been homosexual, it still wouldn't prove anything one way or the other as far as the topic of this thread is concerned. We do need to stick with the topic.
Since I believe Jesus was an open homosexual.... John leaning on Jesus' inner tunic (basically his underwear) referred to a pederastic relationship....It would be more than sufficient proof that Homosexuality is not "sinful" if God the Son had a male lover. Or are you suggesting that Leviticus and Paul trump Jesus Christ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?