The Ordination of Practicing Homosexuals

[kiwimac]

Nope, it's your argument not ours. Homosexuals are not 'intrinsically disordered', they are, just like heterosexuals, a normal part of the sexual spectrum and just as able to be ordained.

As for Romans 1, the passage is about homosexuality as a PUNISHMENT for idolatory not homosexuality per se. Moreover I accept the Bible contains the words of God but I do not believe it to be the 'Word of God' [tm] as only Christ is so described.

 

[Albion]

Moreover I accept the Bible contains the words of God but I do not believe it to be the 'Word of God' [tm] as only Christ is so described.

This is what it comes down to.

All the rest of the disagreements are secondary.

While you will use the Bible (or misuse it as the case may be) you don't necessarily believe it. You don't consider it to be authoritative. That being so, your theology is based upon whatever you feel in your heart for whatever reason. Naturally, if you are sympathetic to homosexuality, you will consider nothing in the Bible to be an impediment.

But for us who do consider the Bible to be the Word of God (which, BTW, the scripture does say of itself), we have to be guided by it.

Why this makes folks like you furious, I can't really appreciate. You form your own churches, so no one is keeping you from acting as a clergyman. Whatever the secular laws happen to be, that is not part of what we believe doctrinally. There is no reason to demand that we agree with you, not any more than you'll defer to our honest judgment in these matters.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To kiwimac,

Nope, it's your argument not ours. Homosexuals are not 'intrinsically disordered',

Nope I didn’t say that anyway. Same sex relations are disordered, both by the fact that there are two sexes in the species for sexual activity, sexual reproduction being the reason, and God created male and female for that purpose.

they are, just like heterosexuals, a normal part of the sexual spectrum and just as able to be ordained.

so the answer is no they are not for a church that is honouring God.

As for Romans 1, the passage is about homosexuality as a PUNISHMENT for idolatory not homosexuality per se.

Sorry but you are simply outside reality. Men with men instead of the natural with women as Romans describes is homosexual rather than heterosexual. idolatry is what is also described.
I fully agree with Albion, to me also you do not appear to believe the Bible and you misrepresent it in the way I have illustrated above.

 

[kiwimac]

God alone is inerrant, the Bible is not. God used human beings to write the scriptures down and in so doing got both God's words as well as human opinions and prejudices in there too (unless you ascribe to the theory that God removed the authors free-will and they became nothing more than living dicta-phones.)

As for Romans 1, the passage is clearly about heterosexuals being punished for idolatory by being made into homosexuals.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: 25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

 

[Albion]

God alone is inerrant, the Bible is not. God used human beings to write the scriptures down and in so doing got both God's words as well as human opinions and prejudices in there too (unless you ascribe to the theory that God removed the authors free-will and they became nothing more than living dicta-phones.)

As a matter of fact, the Bible tells us that they DID write as they were inspired by God to write. They were not merely moved to start putting down in black and white their own thoughts about God.

As for Romans 1, the passage is clearly about heterosexuals being punished for idolatory by being made into homosexuals.

If so, then homosexuality cannot be considered "normal," although that is what you said it is.

 

[JasonV]

So the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true?

Do you employ this type of logic in everything you do?

 

[Paoli]

So the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true?

Do you employ this type of logic in everything you do?

Is the Bible True? Unquestionably, the single greatest evidence lending to the veracity of the Bible's claims of divine inspiration is the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Consider this: if man were able to clearly and consistently foresee the future, would the billion-dollar Las Vegas gambling industry exist? We're willing to bet it wouldn't. As man by himself is unable to foresee future events, prophecy is a reasonable indicator of supernatural inspiration. The Bible purports to contain more than a thousand inspired prophecies. The vast majority of these prophecies have already come to pass and can be verified by secular histor

 

[Albion]

So the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true?

Do you employ this type of logic in everything you do?

I never employ that kind of logic any anything I do.

I was asked if I subscribed to the idea that the writers of the Bible books wrote as they were inspired to write. I noted that, according to their own words, they did.

 

[JasonV]

I never employ that kind of logic any anything I do.

I was asked if I subscribed to the idea that the writers of the Bible books wrote as they were inspired to write. I noted that, according to their own words, they did.

Each and every epistle and writer claimed inspiration?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To kiwimac,

God alone is inerrant, the Bible is not.

How do you know?
I agree God alone is inerrant, but that is because I believe in the same God whose Biblical testimony must be inerrant in matters about God, or where would those ideas come form?

God used human beings to write the scriptures down

How do you know? I know because I believe the scriptures that claim humans were inspired by God to record the scriptures.

and in so doing got both God's words as well as human opinions and prejudices in there too (unless you ascribe to the theory that God removed the authors free-will and they became nothing more than living dicta-phones.)

Human prejudices are recorded by the writers who wrote according to what they heard from God or by inspiration. The Bible is a collection of history, poetry, prophecy and above all records what God told people like Moses and what the Son of God told the NT disciples.

As for Romans 1, the passage tells you what homosexual practice is, it is
Exchanging the truth of God for a lie. (the truth of God is that in the beginning God made them male and female for this reason a man… shall be united with his wife and the two become one flesh, Gen Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5)
It is a dishonouring of the body (1 Corinthians 6)
It is un-natural and against nature ( the human species has two sexes for sexual activity for reproduction)
It is unseemly and error.

Read Leviticus 18 and 20, these are the practices pagans do, God said don’t do these things the pagans do.

With respect unless you can provide a dozen or so passages which countenance same sex relations all you are doing for me is show the level of your disbelief of the passages that exclude and condemn same sex relations.

 

[kiwimac]

Then I suggest you find someone else to dialogue with. I have no ability to accept prejudice gussied up in religious disguise. Frankly I will not worship a God who condemns as intrinscially disordered people who are a normal part of human life.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To JasonV,

So the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true?

Well the Bible does say it is true, and of course it records Jesus affirming the scriptures and what He said. So you are saying it isn’t true, otherwise I can’t see your point.

Do you employ this type of logic in everything you do?

No but I do when it comes to the Bible because I believe it is the revelation of God.

Which comes back to the same question for you, how apart from the Biblical tstimony can you test what revelation you receive from God.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To kiwimac,

Then I suggest you find someone else to dialogue with.

I have, that’s why I came to the forum.

I have no ability to accept prejudice gussied up in religious disguise.

I have, that’s why I came to the forum and that’s exactly how You’re your arguments.

Frankly I will not worship a God who condemns as intrinscially disordered people who are a normal part of human life.

God doesn’t condemn anyone, He gave His only Son so that whoever believes will have eternal life (John 3:16) and wishes that none should perish but come to repentance 2 Peter 3:9 Which god are you referring to?

NB Some of the things I am tempted by are not what I have chosen but what come naturally to me. But mu identity is in Jesus Christ and not my desires!

 

[JasonV]

To JasonV,
Well the Bible does say it is true, and of course it records Jesus affirming the scriptures and what He said. So you are saying it isn’t true, otherwise I can’t see your point.

No but I do when it comes to the Bible because I believe it is the revelation of God. [/color]

Which comes back to the same question for you, how apart from the Biblical tstimony can you test what revelation you receive from God.

I have started a new thread. Please reply there.

 

[brightmorningstar]

No JasonV, your new thread merely asks further questions it does not address the questions put to you...
How apart from the Biblical tstimony can you test what revelation you receive is actually from God?

 

[Healed_IHS]

I am pro. The way I see it, the Biblical Saints did an admirable job of trying to guage God's feeling on this. Unfortuantely, technology wasn't around back them for them to understand that homosexuality was neither by choice nor something unchangeable (as the American Psychological Association tells us). Just as back then they said schizophrenia was due to demons because, until the mid 1960's or so, no one knew about the neurotransmitter Dopamine and how too much of it causes schizophrenia.

The Biblical authors did the best they could, they were just wrong.

 

[PaladinValer]

I find something very strange...

I see that certain people who have not posted in a long, long time pop up only to debate this one issue.

No other worthwhile contributions; just single-topic posting.

As it has been said by most liberals, moderates, and conservatives, there are so many other more important issues. Sex seems to be the top thing on the minds of both ultra conservatives and ultra liberals.

Yet the problem with both is this: the former are so uppity over one violation of 1.10 that they almost never if not never say anything about the violation of the same canon over the issue of executing homosexuals in Uganda...even its primate won't even take a stand and, like a bishop should, denounce the legislation due to its violation of 1.10.

Likewise, the latter are so adamant over Uganda's bill violating 1.10 yet ignore their own. They want thier cake and eat it too. Yes, +Robinson is now validly ordained and cannot have his ordination removed...that doesn't mean that you all can go and say "may as well go on with another one."

When the logs are removed, then we can finally have dialogue and discussion. I'd like to actually see people on all three sides denounce both, giving neither violation a "worse than the other" treatment.

I do condemn both. I condemn this nomination of a non-celibate Homosexual. I equally condemn Uganda's law that will effective legalize the murder of non-celibate homosexuals. I do endorse the finalized Covenant and, if I recall, I'm the only one on STR who actually posted in that particular thread with an affirmative.

 

[Yab Yum]

Sex is always going to be a hot button issue. It's one of the four Fs - fight, flee, feed and ... find a mate. It's a very, very ancient gene.

 

[TimRout]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has undergone a clean up
following staff action. We apologize if
one or more of your posts is missing
and thank-you for your patience.
MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[MKJ]

I am pro. The way I see it, the Biblical Saints did an admirable job of trying to guage God's feeling on this. Unfortuantely, technology wasn't around back them for them to understand that homosexuality was neither by choice nor something unchangeable (as the American Psychological Association tells us). Just as back then they said schizophrenia was due to demons because, until the mid 1960's or so, no one knew about the neurotransmitter Dopamine and how too much of it causes schizophrenia.

The Biblical authors did the best they could, they were just wrong.

One hears this a lot, but I guess people just don't think about how very unlikely it is. I seem to recall this argument being made in the EFM course, which makes me wonder if they botherd to actually check with anyone who could comment on the ancient and medieval understanding of sin.

But put it this way. Saying that they thought homosexuality was just a free choice with no relation to the body or biology means you would have to believe a number of other things that are pretty silly.

1. The people that believe this mustnever have actually felt attracted to someone of the same sex themselves. If they had they would realize that attraction was not a "choice".

2. They must have never met anyone else who had, or not believed them.

3. They likely had never been attracted to anyone else inappropriate, allowing them to compare same sex attraction to other kinds of inappropriate attraction.

4. They must not have ever suffered from other sinful tendencies that have their origin in the body, which would allow them to extrapolate the principle to same sex attraction. Anger for example, or gluttony.

The Early Church understood quite well that many predilections to certian behavior had their origin in some way in the body. The exact mechanism is and was irrelavent - they knew people feel violent anger, lust of all kinds, jjelosy and envy, etc, not normally because they choose to, but because these feelings somehow arise, undesired, from the body or the mind. In some cases these feelings are simply misdirected, in other cases misordered, and in many cases we fail in our attempts to control them. The Church has always seen this as a result of the Fall.

Choosing to persue these things has been what is percieved as a sin for the individual, and the amount of sin involved is mitigated by our human inability to totally control ourselves in many cases. The feelings themselves and our lack of complete control were not seen as a sin by the individual, but were understood to be a result of original sin.

I'm not sure why anyone ever thought it is plausible that the people of the Early Church, medieval period, or whatever, had a totally different experience of being human than we do.