American church approves a second gay bishop

The Observer editorial from last Sunday:

"It is now an open secret that many priests have live-in lovers, with parishioners sympathetically keeping quiet. Priests involved in homosexual relations have been more covert, but anonymous polls have repeatedly showed that homosexuality is common among the clergy.It is now an open secret that many priests have live-in lovers, with parishioners sympathetically keeping quiet. Priests involved in homosexual relations have been more covert, but anonymous polls have repeatedly showed that homosexuality is common among the clergy."

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/14/editorial-catholic-priests-celibacy?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:889e75da-43c9-4c4c-963a-2df433692dfa

The sooner that everyone takes the blinders off and realizes that being a cleric is an attractive job option for those who prefer same sex bonding the better for all. The constant denigration of homosexuality from pulpits is yet more 'protesting too much'.

Equality is essential in all human endeavors. Qualified females should never be discouraged from seeking the top job in any business and gender can no longer be an excuse for exclusion.

Lucy,

"Equality is essential in all human endeavors. Qualified females should never be discouraged from seeking the top job in any business and gender can no longer be an excuse for exclusion."

We can have some hope that other churches will allow women jobs from which they are now excluded. Not because the churches will grow any sense of decency or morals of course. But because plenty of churches have difficulty finding people to fill the open spots. As some churches continue to empty, they will be faced with a choice:

1) Stick to their out of date views and shut down due to lack of personnel. Lose income and power.
2) Think up some excuse as to why they are suddenly u-turning on something they've proclaimed for ages.

Those that pick 2) will no doubt claim it to be a sign that the church regards women as highly as men, that it can adopt to modern age, blablabla. But we'll know what practical factors played a role in their decision, that they merely tried to solve one bad situation (lack of interest from men) with another (outdated gender views).

Any church which so blatantly contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture has lost all right to be called 'Christian'. The further people travel from the Bible, the greater their distance from God.

This action by the Episcopal Church should be a cause for repentance, not rejoicing.

"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!"
(Romans 6v1)

Well said,Pastor Philip.

The Bible is clear on such issues and no matter who comes along to distort it to their own satisfaction, God will hold accountable those who have endorsed such decisions.

Would either Pastor P or Brian Thomas, since they are giving an opinion on Christianity and Christians, please point us to CHRIST'S teachings on homosexuality?

I've looked through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at what Christ's words were specifically on this subject, and cant find anything.

#5 RJB, maybe the bit in Mark's Gospel (10v6-8) where although Christ specifically addresses the issue of divorce, he draws upon Genesis 2v24, with its implications for homosexuality? Might Jesus have addressed it there?

God seems to have spoken quite a bit throughout the Bible on the issue. Unless you deny the divinity of Christ, it makes little sense to restrict an examination of his words to the gospels. Even if you do, he upholds sexual morality which by implication means that he supports what the Pentateuch has to say. Is there any reason to think that Jesus would have taught otherwise? I don't see how the burden of proof here rests on anyone other than those who claim Jesus would be happy with homosexual activity.

Upsidedownworld

"Be joined to his wife" isnt in some of the early manuscripts. However, regardless of that, if homosexuality was such a problem for Jesus, I think he might have spelled it out somewhere.... clearly.

Phariseism, hypocrisy, indifference to the poor, wealth, selfishness, corruption, all seem to be pretty high on his agenda. I can see though how the Pharisees etc.. of our own day and age might want to focus attention elsewhere.

upsidedownworld ,
If you were to take this as christs words and gods plan, then why did he create men who were not attracted to women but only to other men (and women to women etc). He either planned this, and if so we are innocent in following his plan, or he made a mistake and if he made one mistake, how many others did he make?

"Might Jesus have addressed it there?" is not a very convincing argument for CHRISTianity if might is the strongest way you can justify CHRISTS stance on the subject.

To be honest I find 'might' a very unconvincing argument to deny me my basic human rights in a society which enshrines freedom from religion as well as freedom for religion.

RJB, could it be that in Jesus' day it wasn't a major issue to be addressed? - the Gen2v.24 principle (and I'm ignoring the 'early manuscripts' plea probably much the same way as Jesus ignored it) held true in the community Christ belonged to & ministered among. There was simply no need to.

It makes poor reading of the Gospels in particular and the Bible in general where we hold Scripture to account rather than letting Scripture hold us to account.

You're right about the Phariseeism etc - so, why are some sections of the church eg the Episcopal church focusing undue attention on homosexuality?

I agree with Golfie.

I'd like to know how Pastor P, Brian Thomas, Jonathan Boyd et al would prefer the church to deal with homosexuals. It's now a widely accepted biological fact that some individuals in many species including humans are homosexual. They are never attracted to the opposite sex, they are drawn romantically to people of the same sex as themselves. Do you really think celibacy works, or is a pastorally sound solution? (See other threads.) Do you really think forcing an opposite sex union works? (See results in real life.)

Why any homosexual would want to have anything to do with this God or this church I do not know? He hates them and wants christians to kill them. Homosexuals are our equals, no more no less. This sect may see things differently that’s why decent people should have nothing to do with it.

God had a view ….and Jesus had a view on this god’s laws, “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law” Jesus . Matthew 5:18. So let us be clear…. This god and this prophet wants gay people murdered. Gays should have nothing to do with them.

Kind regards
DK

PS How many christians even try to keep this god’s laws? It looks stupid because it is stupid. No offence to those who murdered in his name.

Sorry Golfie (#9) for the weakness expressed in the way I used 'might' - I was attempting to frame it in terms of a question to draw out a response, much in the same way I'll ask, do you think the 'Fall' spoiled God's good plan regarding human sexuality? In other words, the mistake isn't God's, but humanity's.

It is essential to take the full canon of scripture(Bible) when dealing with issues such as homosexuality. If you take a look at the the Old Testament book of Leviticus chapter 18, verse 22 you will find God's clear response to homosexual acts. It is further highlighted in the New Testament book of Romans, chapter 1. But please let me say this...it is a one sin amongst many which God detests and is not unforgiveable. Jesus Christ went to the cross to die for the sins of each individual.For those who repent and believe, Jesus gives new life...a life that offers forgiveness and release from the sinful life that God detests.

So precisely how do we know that Jesus was not himself gay? It would make perfect sense. Saul Paulus too, and, sadly, it might make some sense of his intemperate and nasty words on the subject - too bad he was executed in Rome before his Ted Haggard moment.

#14 Brian, either you are wrong or Jesus is.... can't have it both ways.
Regards
DK

It's interesting to note that homosexuality is associated with some sort of biological mutation but I can assure it is not. I have spoken with counsellors who have vast experience in dealing with a number of individuals and there are underlying issues. Many have been professionally counselled and now live normal heterosexual lives.

Brian Thomas wrote

"Jesus Christ went to the cross to die for the sins of each individual."

So let's all indulge ourselves in some sin then. Poor Jesus would surely feel miffed if he had suffered on the cross for nothing. People, let's at least make it worth his while! Any man who doesn't shag his slutty secretary tomorrow is an unappreciative bad christian. It's the least you can do, dammit!

I'm sure those christians who go on nagging others to give up their sinful ways are pissing off jesus to no end. They are ruining the atonement-for-sin-through-suffering industry.

BT

Stop moving the goal posts. I couldnt have made my question any clearer. What does Christ say about homosexuality in the Gospels?

Yesyes Brian, Iris is a longtime contributor here on the Will & Testament blog and she has posted regularly about that wonderful counsellor. We've heard it all before. I know he's very convincing, he has counseled me at one point. It was after listening to Iris had almost turned me gay. My girlfriend was getting seriously worried about me at the time.:(

Nobody's answering my question. What is the church supposed to recommend to gay people? A life of loneliness under the guise of following Jesus? A heterosexual marriage to someone they're not attracted to? Come on, let's hear these great pieces of pastoral advice!

upsidedownworld

Darn tootin we should hold the scripture's to account and especially those who claim to be its spokespeople.

I was recently at the job centre where a group of 17/18 year olds were being made to endure a session on, "What would I need to survive in the desert?" (Maybe the DSS know something about the local effects of global warming which the rest of us dont.)

Number one answer on the flip chart was "A torch." And only at number nine was the suggestion, "Water."

It struck me that none of the youngsters would get very far on 'Family Fortunes'.

But it also made me think of the way some people read the Bible, picking out things and placing an undue emphasis on them while conveniently ignoring weightier and much more relevant matters.

I assume the youngsters at the job centre were extracting the michael to offset the mind numbing boredom and utter frustration of being unemployed, but I cant find a similar excuse for the Biblical Fundies who appear to rejoice in snatching at scripture texts, errecting them into the sole criterion for good and evil and using them to hurt their brothers and sisters.

PK

How do you do it lol? Poor GV seems to get moderated just for having "bad thoughts."

John,

"A heterosexual marriage to someone they're not attracted to?"

Any answers you could ever have about christianity and marriage are answered by Americas best christian, Betty Bowers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

RJB,

"How do you do it lol? Poor GV seems to get moderated just for having "bad thoughts.""

My guess is that the moderator has become fed up with reading through Grahams 'argument by -ism' too the whole time. I remember Grahams exclamation the other day on another thread, 'Platoism isn't a bad word, Mr Moderator!'

It's almost like young Oliver to the people in charge of the orphanage, 'Please sir,....please,.....I'd like some more soup.'


Actually that isn't the explanation, amusing as it would be. The real explanation is of course that me being an atheist, I am absolutely immoral and have resorted to very devious ways to get my way. I told Mr. Moderator what naughty stuff I would get up to with Mrs. Moderator if he didn't allow all my posts pronto. He gave in immediately, not even a hint of resentment. It was almost as if the guy was happy to be off the hook for a few nights.:D

John Wright, is your question not on the same level as, what is the church supposed to recommend to heterosexual people outside marriage?

At the end of the day, and as demonstrated on this thread, the attempt at an answer to your questions re. pastoral advice as given by BT in #17, are always going to be mocked a la PK #20.

romejellybean, do you not think the point you are making applies to homosexuality? The issues of hypocrisy, indifference to the poor, wealth, selfishness, corruption are far weightier than even this. And it is not only the 'Bible Fundies' who 'snatch at Scripture texts' - how many times does one have to listen to the 'people eat prawns etc etc'? If ever there was a Bible section lifted out of context... there's the hypocrisy, no?

PK

Here's your rap sheet so far.

Blasphemy
Foul language
Covetting thy moderators wife

If there is a God, you're for the burny, burny.

Upside

Sure, it applies across the board I guess. A corrupt or hypocritical or selfish homosexual is still corrupt or hypocritical or selfish.

Those are the things which are surely culpable, not the guy's sexuality.

Those of us who are 'out' liberals can welcome this decision whole-heartedly. The American Church really is leading the way in Anglicanism - I am proud to support and endorse Bishop-to-be Glasspool and pray that she will experience all the blessings of the knowledge of God in her ministry.

Liberal Christians take the Bible seriously but not literally - an important distinction. Let me ask my fellow Christian commenters "Are you in the Theological closet? Have you ever wondered if you too might be just a little bit liberal?"

To help you decide here is a quick check list:

Do you think the Bible is man's account of his search for God rather than God's revelation of Himself to man?

Do you think the resurrection is more than a conjuring trick with bones?

Do you think the universe is nearly fourteen billion years old?

Do you find the idea of evolution by natural selection a compelling explanation for the origin of all the diverse life forms on Earth today including man?

Do you have two or more coats?

Do you retain for your own or familial use any saleable possessions?

Do you own your own house (with or without a mortgage)?

Do you have a pension fund, savings or investments?

Have you any form of insurance policy?

If you are a Christian and have answered "yes" to any of the above questions - hooray!! You're a liberal - welcome to the Club.

RJB,

You're accusing people of moving the goalposts, but I can't seem to find any response to my question to you about why you're only accepting Christ's words in the gospels and not in the rest of Scripture.

Even within the gospels he upholds the law and speaks against sexual immorality. Take for example his teachings on adultery and lust. Given that homosexuals could not have married at the time, that would surely have been understood as also serving as a prohibition on homosexual activity.

I also find your comments about giving undue weight to some portion of scripture rather peculiar. If God says that an action is wrong, then does it matter how often he says it? If a question is asked about the morality of an action, how is examining the relevant verses giving them undue weight? Are you yourself not asking for references? What exactly do you propose people do when asked about the morality of homosexuality, that would not involve giving portions undue weight? What reason do you have for ignoring the instances when God condemns homosexual activity?



Golfie,

You seek to excuse homosexual behaviour or blame God by saying that people are hardwired to be attracted to the same sex. I don't see the logic in that argument. The biblical case against homosexuality isn't a condemnation of attraction, but rather a condemnation of lust and action. As a hetrosexual man, you could say that I'm hardwired to be attracted to women, however that does not excuse me for any instances of lust or sexually immoral actions. Unless you're saying that homosexuals have no self-control, but that would seem a rather derogatory accusation to make and one which I hope no-one would be levelling.



John Wright,

My stance on sexual morality is rooted in God's revelation rather than being tied to any particular scientific understanding. If God says that something is wrong, then I'll take trust him on that. As for how to respond to those who struggle with homosexuality, my response would be similar to how I would respond to anyone who isn't married and struggles with sexual issues. I would hope that I would engage with them with love and compassion, remembering that they are made in the image of God and that the cross of Christ can cover their sins, just as it covers mine. I would first and foremost want them to be in a saving relationship with Jesus Christ and as a consequence of that repent of any aspects of their life which are sinful.

I'm hesitant to go into any more detail because it is a very broad question that you ask, much like asking how should the church deal with people who sleep together, but aren't married.

In answer to David Kerr...I suggest you read the Bible, your obviously not familiar with what it says.

In answer to Peter Klaver, Who's the Iris your talking about? I have met and talked with professional counsellors who deal with the problem.

Upside post # 10

Homosexuality wasn't a big issue in Jesus' time.

Are you seriously asking us to believe that homosexuality was an issue all the way through the OT, so much so that it is condemned? Then it amazingly disappears off the face of the planet for thirty odd years while Jesus came along (wandering around Palestine with twelve male friends), and then suddenly becomes an issue again when St Paul wanders in??

John Wright, I've just realised that I missed post 21 where you narrowed down your question a bit more. The one word answer is 'celibacy'. The slightly longer answer is 'the same as anyone who doesn't marry'.

The pastoral answer would no doubt involve this terrible burden that people seem to place on single people, making them feel as if they are incomplete unless they're in a sexual relationship. Jesus himself was a life-long virgin and yet the most fulfilled man who ever lived. The solution to the loneliness of singleness should be found in the life of community. To this end, singles should be welcomed by he church as part of the family. Membership of such a family and relationship with God should ensure that such a person is not alone.

Jonathon Boyd

I accept Christ's words (IN CONTEXT, and I'll come back to this important point when I come to the divorce passage.) I do not view the OT or St Paul with the same seriousness. (Creation, talking snakes, big boats with loads of animals on board, dwarfs killing giants, boiling pots and pans in milk, getting one's manhood chopped, slavery, treating women as inferior to men, etc...)

Who is Jesus talking about when adultery comes up? A group of Pharisees would, without blinking an eye, stone to death a woman caught committing adultery. (Alright for the man, btw!!) This group of hypocrites - who often dismiss their own wives to take on another - think they are justified because they sign a writ of dismissal. Christ is pointing out their hypocrisy, not condemning every couple til the end of time who happen to fall out and cant live together anymore.

And what is the wife to do when her abusive, bullying husband batters her and her kids constantly? You think Jesus teaches that she must stay and put up with it?

Finally, it must be very easy to go through life and not have to actually struggle with moral issues. Just do what it says in the Bible. Cop out, I say. "If God says that an action is wrong..." You say, God says, plenty of other people say, God doesnt say anything at all.

And even Jesus, in quite an an angry outburst, accuses the Scribes and Pharisees of meticulously applying the letter of the Law in small matters, but totally ignoring the weightier matters of the Law. Read the indictment of the Pharisees, that'll clear up your confusion on these matters and give you some idea of what Jesus saw as important.

So prawns and mixed textiles are out, then?

Brian Thomas,

"In answer to Peter Klaver, Who's the Iris your talking about?"

See https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7439661.stm

quote

"I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals - trying to turn away from what they are engaged in,"

RJB,

On the Emmaus road, what was the one topic that Christ felt was most important to discus with his disciples? His presence in the whole of the Old Testament. Surely Jesus is giving great weight to the Old Testament there? Should we not do the same?

What is Jesus talking about when adultery comes up? I would imagine that he’s talking about sex outside of marriage - that is what the word generally means. How else do you interpret Matthew 5:21-32 other than Jesus utterly condemning any sort of sexual immorality? I don’t quite understand why you’re talking about a wife who is abused by her husband - you are familiar with the difference between adultery, divorce and domestic violence aren’t you? Or are you suggesting that if someone is a victim of sexual violence, then the solution to their problems is adultery? I would have thought that getting away from the abuser to a place of refuge would be much more productive and consistent with what Jesus says.

You made an odd statement about people disagreeing about what God has said. If someone has said that God does not condemn adultery and homosexual activity, then I can only see three possibilities: they are ignorant; they are lying; they do not regard the Bible as the word of God. Am I correct in thinking that you at least regard the words of Christ in the gospels as the words of God? Certainly as far as a church response to issues of sexuality goes, the Bible is regarded as the word of God.

As for struggling with moral issues, you seem very quick to attack people and slow to engage with what Jesus is saying. God hasn’t made every moral issue clear and hasn’t laid out direct guidelines on every matter, so there is still plenty of struggling to be done. However, where God has given clear instruction, does it not make sense to do what he says? Or are you saying that there is more virtue in ignoring God’s clear commands? I would assume not, given that you mention his condemnation of the Pharisees. They are condemned for focussing on one part of the law while ignoring other parts. Surely ignoring God’s commands would be very similar to that?

You seem to have fallen into the fallacy of believing that because an issue is not highlighted as the most important matter by God, then it does not matter at all to him, which makes little sense. If a gradation of importance exists in his moral commands, why would it logically follow that even the ‘least’ important ones are ones that God doesn’t want us to follow? Did Jesus not say that he had come to fulfil the law, not to abolish it? Did he not criticise the Pharisees for leaving bits out?

Matthew 5:17-19 (ESV) - “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 23:23 - “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

Luke 16:16-17 - “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.

What is your justification for saying that laws against adultery do not matter?

Even if it was okay to ignore less important parts of the law, why would you put adultery in that category when Jesus took it very seriously?

Matthew 5:27-30 - “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

If that isn’t an indication that Jesus considers it important, then what is?

JB
Thanks for your extended reply.

I suppose an indication to me of the 'weight' some religious people give to matters of sexual morality is that they weigh in on these threads whenever sex comes up, but are posted missing on other issues.

The reason Jesus refers to The Law the way he does is because the Pharisees will attempt to discredit him and accuse him of disrespecting the Law - eh, just exactly what you attempt to do to me above.

"What is your justification for saying that laws against adultery DO NOT MATTER?" Do you see what you've done there? Look, everyone, RJB says that adultery doesnt matter!! Not really what I said was it, Jonathon?!!

And you miss a very important quote from Jesus right bang in the middle of the adultery discourse, "It was because you were so unteachable that Moses wrote the Law down..." Again, selective scripture quoting.

You also must surely know that the Gospel writers deliberately set out to show that the OT is leading up to Jesus. So fixated by this that a genealogy is given to "prove" that Jesus is from the line of David, the royal household.

The pages of the gospel are littered with teachings exhorting people to be compassionate, forgiving, loving, understanding, not to judge. The only issues that are more common than these in the Gospel are Jesus' unremitting and very vocal condemnation of the religiously self righteous.

Jesus continually seems to exhort people to seek a 'purity' of religion, a deeper truth - The Kingdom. He has a very acute understanding of the religio-phile and after 2000 years, they are still alive and well and bullying people just as they did in his day.

Christ speaking to the Church in the Book of Revelation describe those who depart from the Truth so fundamentally that they are no longer part of God's people, but are a "synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9; 3:9). This is why the Reformers spoke about the "Marks" without which a professed church was no true Church, e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith of Presbyterianism speaking of the "catholic or universal Church" says (along with the Baptist and Congregationalist versions): "The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan." (WCF 25:5)

The ECUS undoubtedly comes into this category as well as the Roman Church (which is not Catholic, and has departed from the true Catholic faith). As J. Gresham Machen said when giving the title to his book "Christianity and Liberalism", there is Christianity and there is Liberalism, and they are completely different religions. Liberals no long follow Christ, and so are not Christians (which means a follower of Christ). Christ and His Apostles and Prophets call them false teachers and heretics.

#31 That was helpful. I provide evidence that Jesus supports your god's hatred of gays and your suggestion is "read the bible"?


Regards

DK

RJB, this is a fairly long post. The main point I want to get across is that you asked what Jesus says about homosexuality, I've pointed out his condemnation of sexual immorality and now I think that it's your turn to explain why we should not put homosexual activity in the category of immoral behaviour that should not be a part of kingdom life and what it is that Christ says which convinces you of this position i.e. I want an answer to your own question which takes into account the facts that I have presented. For more details, read on.

Firstly, I'm not sure I follow all of your points. Could you possibly expand a bit on some of them?

You say that the Gospel writers deliberately set put to show that Jesus is the fulfilment of the OT. I agree that they did that, having been taught that very truth by Christ himself. However, I don't understand how you're relating that to the issue at hand, namely the church's response to homosexuality.

I'm also not sure where you're going with the purity of religion thing. Yes, Jesus was looking to establish the kingdom, but he also seemed to have an idea of what life in the kingdom looked like and as far as I can see, he upheld the moral law as a guide to kingdom life.

As for quoting scripture selectively, I' not sure what point you were trying to make with the bit I supposedly left out. What is the significance of saying that people were unteachable and therefore the law had to be written down? I don't see how that invalidates anything I said.

Finally, your position on the relative importance of laws and the consequences of this baffles me. You asked what Jesus has to say about homosexuality. I pointed you in the direction of his teachings on sexual morality. Your dismissive response was to say that there are more important issues on the law, as if relatively speaking, sexual morals don’t matter as much. I followed up by pointing to places where Jesus insists that even the lesser requirements of the law must be kept. As far as I understand it, this means that just because there may be more important things in the law than issues of sexual morality, doesn’t mean that sexual morals don’t apply o that Jesus doesn’t expect his people to adhere to them.

In your last post, your response was simply to say that you never said that laws about adultery don’t matter. If they do matter, then isn’t this a settled issue? Surely if what Jesus says about sexual morality does matter, then when he condemns lust and adultery and upholds Old Testament morals, then we can conclude that kingdom people should not be engaging in homosexual practice?

I'm concerned that you may be losing sight of the issue. Originally you asked what Christ said about homosexuality. My answer is:
* Christ spoke as part of the Godhead in the Old Testament, providing a model for human sexuality in Genesis 1-2 and giving clear commands, including a condemnation of homosexual practice in the moral law.
* Christ upholds the Old Testament teachings in the gospels by referring directly to teachings on sexual morality and generally by saying that the Old Testament is about him.
* Christ goes further than the moral law by teaching that lust is as bad as adultery and taking that so seriously as to verbally mention Hell twice in the same pericope.
* Christ continues to speak by his Spirit through the teaching of the apostles throughout the rest of the New Testament.

In every instance, a moral standard for sexuality is upheld which excludes homosexual activity as good. I’ve replied to your original question, so what your response to that? Do you think that I have in someway misunderstood what seems to be a clear prohibition in the law; do you think that I have misunderstood Christ’s teaching on the law; or do you think that Christ speaks elsewhere in a way that overrides what I have said above? I’ve made the case for saying that Christ speaks against homosexuality; what is the case for saying that he approves of it?

As an aside, I’d like to now address some of the accusations you make in post 38. You suggest that the weight people give to issues can be deduced from the threads they tend to post on. If I recall correctly, people were castigated for speculating about Will’s sexuality on the basis of the frequency with which he blogs about the subject. Contributions for a blog only ever make up a small fraction of a person’s life and I would be very reluctant to conclude much about what matters to people purely on the basis of which threads they contribute to. I spend more time listening to Bruce Springsteen than Stuart Townend CDs, but I would consider praise songs to be much more important. I think that the issue of child abuse is very serious and am appalled by the way the Roman Catholic church has responded to it, but I haven’t posted on the many threads on the issues because I don’t see what I could add that would be of any value.

You also suggest that I accuse you of disrespecting the law and in doing so am acting like a Pharisee. You yourself have admitted that you don’t give much weight to the Old Testament and seem keen to play down clear prohibitions in relation to sex, preferring to talk about people response to the law (i.e. the hypocrisy of the Pharisees), rather than the content of the law (which is what you originally asked about). I would call that a misplaced emphasis that is in danger of dismissing clear commands out of a desire to avoid hypocrisy, rather than disrespect. I hope that clarifies what you fear I might think of you and your position.

More generally, this highlights a concern I have with the way you conduct these sorts of discussions. You’re very quick to call me a Pharisee and the last paragraph of each of your last two posts implies similar things and has a general tone of sneering superiority. How can you say something like ‘Read the indictment of the Pharisees, that'll clear up your confusion on these matters and give you some idea of what Jesus saw as important.’ without sounding smug? Could you possibly tone down the rhetoric and personal attacks and instead focus on the facts and interpretation of the facts? After all, it as you who asked what Christ says about homosexuality - I assume the question was genuine and therefore think that you would be better served by looking at the answer I have given and addressing it, rather than calling people names and acting as if you have all the answers.

Jonathon B

Okay, I'll try to explain my view.

Two consenting adult men get into bed together and 'DO' things with each other.

Two consenting adults (one man and one woman) get into bed and do things with each other.

Two consenting governments get together and, beginning with applying sanctions, but then moving on to all out war, murder up to 1.2 million innocent people.

Your type of "Christianity" asks, "What were those two men up to in bed?"

JB

Lol, just read your last post to the end. Keep the head, I'm not Satan incarnate.

Okay, here is my problem - why do you people have such a problem with sex? Thats about as plainly as I can put it. (Look at what is being discussed on other threads. Dont you see a connection at all?)

RJB, again this is a long post, but I wanted to make sure we're on the same page. I have however provided a short summary of the key issue as well. If you want a direct reply to the issues in raised in your most recent posts, you can skip down to the bottom of this post after reading the short summary.

The short summary is that I want to know if you think that I have answered your original question by sufficiently articulating Christ's views on homosexuality. At the root of this issue is whether Christ's views are authoritative for Christians.
* If they are, then do you think that I have accurately presented them?
* If they are not authoritative, then in what sense can it be called Christianity?

If you want a more thorough analysis of where we are and how we can move forward, then let's review the debate so far so that we can see how to move forward with some sort of civilised discussion.

Your first contribution to this discussion was post 5 where you asked if anyone could 'please point us to CHRIST'S teachings on homosexuality? I've looked through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at what Christ's words were specifically on this subject, and cant find anything.' From this I surmised that you wanted to know what Christ says about homosexuality. If I've misunderstood you, then please correct me.

In posts 6 and 7, a couple of us started to give an answer, but it wasn't well fleshed out so you responded in post 8 by saying 'if homosexuality was such a problem for Jesus, I think he might have spelled it out somewhere.... clearly.' This is very consistent with your first post and an entirely reasonable reply asking for better quality and quantity of evidence.

In post 14, Brian Thomas brought in statements about homosexuality from the wider canon of Scripture. I feel that this was relevant, but in fairness to you, it did not directly address your specific question which was about the gospels and you responded in post 14 by saying 'Stop moving the goal posts. I couldn't have made my question any clearer. What does Christ say about homosexuality in the Gospels?' By this stage, it seems fairly clear you want to know what Jesus says in the gospels about homosexuality. Couldn't really be much clearer that this is what you're looking for, could it?

In post 30, I questioned why you would restrict an examination of Christ's views to what he says in the gospels. You replied in post 34 by saying 'I do not view the OT or St Paul with the same seriousness.' From this it would seem that you view the gospels as more authoritative than the rest of the Bible. I disagree with that, but it's not really the issue you originally raised, which still in post 34 seems to be what does Christ say about homosexuality in the gospels, yes?

In post 37 I quoted portions of Matthew and Luke concerning sexual immorality and Christ's view of the law, positing that Christ was upholding the Old Testament moral law with its views on sexual morality, which would include condemnation of homosexual acts. Christ even seems to go further by condemning lust, even warning about hell.

I would have thought that this would directly address your original question, but in post 38 you seemed dissatisfied and raised several issues.
i) Undue weight was being given to certain parts of the law.
ii) I was selectively quoting scripture and had missed out a 'very important quote', which was "It was because you were so unteachable that Moses wrote the Law down...".
iii) The gospel writers were deliberately trying to prove that the OT leads up to Jesus
iv) The gospels call us to be 'compassionate, forgiving, loving, understanding, not to judge.'
v) It is vital to know what it means to be in the kingdom because 'Jesus continually seems to exhort people to seek a 'purity' of religion, a deeper truth - The Kingdom.'

So, you had an initial question about what Christ says in the gospels about homosexuality, I provided what I believed to be the kind of evidence you were looking for and you responded with five objections. Let's take each of them in turn.

i) Undue weight being given to certain parts of the law. I replied in post 41 by saying that Christ was concerned for the whole of the law. You originally asked what he says about this area of the law and I provided an answer. How important this area of the law is irrelevant since we were discussing what he says, rather than how important it was to him. Additionally, I pointed out that in teaching about lust, Jesus warned of hell, indicating that this is an important matter anyway.
ii) I was selectively quoting scripture. In post 41 I asked you explain the significance of what you called 'a very important quote'.
iii) The gospel writers connecting Jesus with the OT. In post 41 I agreed that they were doing this and suggested that Christ himself made that claim, therefore they were right to do this. I then asked you what the relevance is to Christ's views on homosexuality.
iv) The gospel call to be compassionate, etc. In post 41 I did not address this particular issue, so I will address it now. Your original question was about Christ's views on homosexuality. Do you regard posting Christ's views i.e. answering your question as an attempt to judge in a way that is contrary to the message of the gospel? If so, why did you ask the question? If not, then how is your comment relevant?
v) The importance of the kingdom. In post 41 I suggested that Jesus taught that the moral law had a bearing on kingdom living.

That leaves you with five issues to address:
i) Jesus considered the whole law important and highlighted sexual immorality as an issue that put people in danger of hell.
ii) You have yet to explain the significance of your 'very important quote'
iii) You have yet to explain the relevance of the gospel writers connecting Jesus with the Old Testament.
iv) You haven't shown how the message of the gospel precludes stating Christ's views on an issue - the very question you wanted answered.
v) Kingdom living involves adherence to sexual ethics.

At this point, I would like to remind you of your frustration in post 19 at people moving the goalposts and ask whether your replies in post 42 and 43 contribute to a discussion of what Christ thought about homosexuality or follow up on any of the issues I've highlighted above?


A reply to the specific issues of posts 42 and 43:
As far as I understand post 42, your response to me giving Christ's views is that Christianity has its priorities wrong. What I want to know is:
1) why do you think that me answering a question you asked about homosexuality shows anything about my priorities?
2) are you positing this as an argument against what I'm claiming as Christ's views on homosexuality?

As for post 43, you posed two questions:
a)'why do you people have such a problem with sex?'
b) Do I see a connection with other threads?

In order to properly answer you, I think I will not some more details:
a) Firstly, who are 'you people'? If I'm supposedly speaking on behalf of someone, I would like to know who it is. Secondly, what problem do 'we' supposedly have with sex? Speaking for myself, I'm married, enjoy sex and think that it's a great gift from God. I object to homosexual activity on the basis that Christ objects to it - which I believe was a claim that triggered this whole debate in the first place. Were you suggesting that there was some problem beyond this that I a unaware of?
b) I don't see the connection. It would be plainer if you actually spelt it out.



As a postscript, in the same spirit as the aside of post 41, you've called me plenty of names and accused me of being self-righteous in a rather smug manner. In response I asked you to tone down the rhetoric and focus on the debates. Your response in post 43 was to laugh and say that you're not Satan incarnate. My question here is whether you genuinely think I'm attacking your character and accusing you of being the devil, or if you're simply trying to play the victim after dishing out so many attacks?

JB is it fair to simply state that your god, hates all gays and wants christians to kill them, his son hates all gays and wants christians to kill them, and therfore you hate all gays and i presume...... well feel they should be treated differently?

I actually read the laws of the bible in the same way. God hates fags. Hard to accept such an exteme'Westboro church' like position in the 21st century, but I suppose we should thank you for reminding society why we need to look again at this intolerant sect in its many forms.


Again I repeat myself when I say, why would any gay person want to be associated with a group of people who hold such exteme views?

Regards
DK

JB

Thanks for the extended reply and sorry if I ruined your Friday night.

(Thats the second time I've thanked you, btw.)

I've looked back through our exchanges and actually, if there's an air of intellectual superiority, its in your posts. You certainly very sarcastically question my ability to distinguish between divorce and adultery.

You ask me who "you people" are. They are you, Brian and Pastor P. You actually refer to them in one of your posts.

No you havent given me an acceptable answer to the question I asked regarding what Jesus says about homosexuality. An acceptable answer to that question would be - "Absolutely nothing."

You do attempt to put words in his mouth though by immediately appealing to the OT and St Paul.

Nowhere am I saying that "God says you can just do what ever you like sexually.." I think there are rules but I think that people who use the Bible as their reference point to form these rules are wrong. They are especially wrong when they begin to use those rules to penalise others.
I also certainly think that Jesus was against exploitation, sexual or otherwise.

Which brings me to why this subject is connected to other threads. The threads I was refering to specifically are the ones concerning child abuse and cover up in the RC Church. I think you knew that.

They are connected because there we see the carnage which happens when we allow religious people to dictate to society what its sexual mores should be. I say OUT! Take your Biblical notions about sexuality away and leave society alone.

I hope that has further clarified where I'm coming from.

What really amazes me, is! why so many so-called "smart people" clearly go completely over the top when it comes to fundamentalist people giving their opinion on the gender issue.

They keep on talking and talking about "a god", they say, doesn't even exist, but yet use the term like... your god!, then they go on to say... this so-called myth causes people to murder in his name.

To really say that "a god" is the cause and effect of murder is total pan loaf, especially if a myth told you to do it, unless, it was an act of a myth, when it comes to trying to claim insurance for a natural occurrence.

"People" and things not a myth, is the causality of murder and many things, including politics "which does" sadly, makes us liars, one & all, plus race, gender, religion but the main underlying themes are money, sex, greed, revenge, power, so on.

Back to adam & steve, if the earth was PROCREATED through cavemen, why? the heck do we celebrate Mother's day.

ps... even if it was in a private cave.

Brian,

These counsellors are wrong, and are in direct contradiction with their own professional bodies. It is interesting that these counsellors take the proof of their views from the same place you do, not from real life, open minded study or science.

If you want to know about homosexuality, talk with homosexuals. Why talk to counsellors when homosexuality is not a disorder?

Do you believe you could be made homosexual by a good talking to?

RJB, I increasingly get the impression that you're not interested in debate. You've effectively said that if I answer your questions in a way that doesn't match the answer you would give, then you're not interested in hearing it, regardless of the evidence. Additionally, you refuse to answer crucial questions I have asked of you, in spite of my willingness to answer your questions. This cannot meaningfully be called debate or civilised discourse unless you start accepting evidence and answering questions.

In post 44 I highlighted two things that I felt to be the crux of the issue.

'At the root of this issue is whether Christ's views are authoritative for Christians.
a) If they are, then do you think that I have accurately presented them?
b) If they are not authoritative, then in what sense can it be called Christianity?'

You haven't directly answered the first, but would I be correct in saying that you don't think that Christ's views are authoritative since you don't want to hear what they are?
As for the second, I've no idea how you define a Christian and you have yet to shine any light on the matter.

I have addressed your latest and reiterated various matters which require clarification and/or answers below.

'You ask me who "you people" are. They are you, Brian and Pastor P. You actually refer to them in one of your posts.'

I referred to them once maybe? And never my recollection suggested that I we in a position to speak for them.

'No you havent given me an acceptable answer to the question I asked regarding what Jesus says about homosexuality. An acceptable answer to that question would be - "Absolutely nothing."'

Let me get this straight - you asked what Jesus says about homosexuality and had already decided that if anyone gave an answer different to the conclusion you had already reached, then it would be unacceptable? Isn't that the very definition of being closed-minded? You had decided in advance that you didn't want to hear any evidence that would be contrary to your position and yet had the gall to accuse other posters of moving the goalposts, as if you were the one genuinely interested in debate.

'You do attempt to put words in his mouth though by immediately appealing to the OT and St Paul.'

Tell you what RJB, if you decide you want a debate, rather than a bunch of yes-men who agree with everything you say, then why don't you directly address the evidence I provided, rather than making broad claims.

In post 5, you said:
'please point us to CHRIST'S teachings on homosexuality? I've looked through Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at what Christ's words were specifically on this subject, and cant find anything.'

I provided Christ's words from Matthew and Luke - exactly what you asked for. How is this evidence not acceptable? Do you think I'm wrong about them being Christ's words or from the gospels? If so, then it should be fairly easy to prove I'm wrong since I gave references - just post what the references really say and I'll be shown to be in error. Alternatively, do you think I've misunderstood Christ's words? If so, then why not take one of the quotes, exegete it and expose the error in my interpretation.

'Nowhere am I saying that "God says you can just do what ever you like sexually.."'

Nowhere did I suggest that you had.

'I think there are rules but I think that people who use the Bible as their reference point to form these rules are wrong.'

Do you think that Christians who use the Bible as their reference point for morality are acting in a Christian manner?
Do you think that Christians who use the words of Jesus as their reference point for morality are acting in a Christian manner?

'They are especially wrong when they begin to use those rules to penalise others.'

Penalise in what way? Are you talking about church teaching on morality, the exercise of church discipline, participation in the democratic process of forming laws or something else?

'I also certainly think that Jesus was against exploitation, sexual or otherwise.'

Ok. Why? Not that I disagree, but I've provided significant scriptural evidence for what I believe to be Jesus' views. I don't recall you providing any so far.

'Which brings me to why this subject is connected to other threads. The threads I was refering to specifically are the ones concerning child abuse and cover up in the RC Church. I think you knew that.'

I suspected, but could not know for certain. As for seeing the connection - which is where I said the problem was - I just don't see it.

'They are connected because there we see the carnage which happens when we allow religious people to dictate to society what its sexual mores should be.'

Really? How is the Catholic Church representative of all religious people? How is their religiosity an inditement of biblical morality? I'm pretty sure that a biblical approach to sexuality would condemn peadophilia. I biblical approach to justice would also condemn the culture of secrecy. A biblical approach to sex, come to think of it, would that there would be no priests and that ministers wouldn't have to be celibate.

Your argument is no better than saying 'Muslims will responsible for 9/11, therefore religion is all about violence,' or 'Stalin killed millions therefore atheists should never be given any power in case they try to kill us all.'

'Take your Biblical notions about sexuality away and leave society alone.'

Who was trying to impose biblical notions of sexuality on society? As I recall, this was originally a discussion of whether the church should ordain practicing homosexuals. You asked if Jesus said anything against homosexuality. How does providing a Christian rationale for opposing such ordinations on the basis of Christ's words amount to an attempt to impose notions of biblical sexuality on society? Aren't you moving the goalposts?

'I hope that has further clarified where I'm coming from.'

There were 5 issues from the thread a whole which I felt you had yet to address and here in this posts still haven't addressed. If you simply answered the questions I have asked - a courtesy I have done you thus far - then that would provide much clarity.
i) Jesus considered the whole law important and highlighted sexual immorality as an issue that put people in danger of hell.
ii) You have yet to explain the significance of your 'very important quote'
iii) You have yet to explain the relevance of the gospel writers connecting Jesus with the Old Testament.
iv) You haven't shown how the message of the gospel precludes stating Christ's views on an issue - the very question you wanted answered.
v) Kingdom living involves adherence to sexual ethics.

Finally, I asked a few questions in response to posts 42 and 43, most of which have not been answered, so I'll ask them again:
1) why do you think that me answering a question you asked about homosexuality shows anything about my priorities?
2) are you positing this as an argument against what I'm claiming as Christ's views on homosexuality?
3) what problem do 'we' supposedly have with sex?

JB

Please stop throwing dozens of questions at me in extremely lengthy posts then criticising me for not answering ALL of them. Its extremely irritating to attempt to answer what I see as your important questions, then be told in the first paragraph of your next post that they werent the important ones and that I'm avoiding the issues.

I will get back to you when I have time on your latest series of questions.

JB

Just looked at how many questions are there in your last post. The amount is actually oppressive. Here's what I suggest. Ask me ONE question and I'll answer it. Then feel free to ask another and I'll answer that too. And so on.

I think you (might) agree that, given the volume of stuff I'd have to write to adequately answer your last post I'd have to write for a week. (And if I didnt, I'd get another post straight back saying that I havent answered 'the important' questions.)

RJB, I'm breaking my post in two. This first one contains the question and the second contains general comments on the discussion and your complaints in your last two posts.

Are Christ's views authoritative for Christians?
* If your answer is yes, then it would be reasonable to include in your response an analysis of the evidence I have presented for saying that Christ did not approve of homosexual activity.
* If you answer if your answer is no, then it would reasonable to include in your response a clarification of what you understand Christianity to be, if it is not following Christ.

NB that looks like a lot, but it's simply a clarification of what I would consider to be a reasonable full answer, depending on whether your response is positive or negative.

RJB, I've highlighted in the past what I consider to be the important questions and called you to ask for not answering them. I'm not objecting to you not answering all of them, I'm objecting to you not answering any of them. You say that it's irritating and oppressive to be faced with so many questions. All you're doing there is criticising yourself because each of my numbered questions is in fact a counter to an issue that you yourself raised. The vast majority for them are in fact seeking clarity about what you have written such as instances where you claim that a verse is significant, but don't say what the significance is or say that I have a problem with sex, but don't say what the problem is.

It is disingenuous to raise a multitude of issues and then complain when I address each of them. If you only wanted one question to answer, then you should have raised your issues one at a time. Similarly, if you say something is important, but don't say why, that it is disingenuous to claim that you are being oppressed when clarity is sought.

Incidentally, there are two reasons why my posts are lengthy
1) I answer each of the questions you raise. If you asked fewer questions, I would post fewer answers.
2) You don't answer my questions, therefore they build up. If you answered questions as they are raised, you wouldn't end up with massive pile to address.

JB

AAAAh! Instead of one long one, here's two shorter ones!

Is Jesus' teaching authoritative for Christians?
For some, yes, for others, no.

Should it be?
When you can prove that a. Jesus existed, b. He was the Son of God, c. He rose from the dead, then I'd think that his teaching - if accurately recorded - is certainly authoritative and binding on everyone, not just those who call themselves Christian.

I have put a number of points to you and attempted to answer your questions, directly on the subject of Christ, and I'm becoming weary of you claiming that I have answered none of your questions.

In my initial question I ask about Christ and his words on homosexuality. I ask this question of people who claim to be Christians, followers of Jesus Christ. Not Old-Testamentians, not St Paul-ians. Christians. What does Christ say about homosexuality? Nothing.

(You assume that Jesus was a virgin, and I guess, that he wasnt homosexual. There are plenty of scholars who would dispute either of those assumptions - his relationships with Mary of Magdala and the disciple 'he loved.')

You then respond by broadening the subject to sexual ethics in general. Christ's words on adultery, the OT's words on homosexuality and St Paul.
Again, answering your question about what value I put on the OT and St Paul in comparison with the Gospels, I answer you directly and state that I put higher value on the Gospels than I do on the rest of the Bible.

I also challenged your interpretation on Christ's words about adultery stating that I believe his words were more about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who will kill a woman for committing adultery while themselves using a writ of dismissal to rid themselves of THEIR own wives while taking on another. I state quite clearly that this discourse, in my opinion, is not Jesus setting out hard and fast rules banning divorce and remarriage for everyone for all time. It is a criticism of the Pharisees and their hypocrisy.

I also alluded to reading the scriptures 'in context.' I am clearly stating, I think, that a literal reading of the Bible has no authority over anyone, including those who claim to be Christians, because a literal translation does not take into account the context of the time, the bias of the writer, the intention of the writer, the reliability of the writer, who the writer is writing for/to, the fact that some scripture passages are contradictory, sources, later additions etc.. etc..

Matthew is clearly talking to Jews, Luke is clearly talking to gentiles. These facts have to be taken into account when attempting to discover the meaning of the texts for us today. "Jesus said.." is a very different thing from, "Jesus said to the Pharisees..." (as in the account of the Prodigal Son, a story full of extremely relevant details if you are a Jew, not quite so, if you are not a Jew.

I challenged you when you were quote mining about adultery and said that you had missed out an extremely relevant verse where Jesus states that "it was because you were so unteachable" that Moses wrote down the law. Clearly, Jesus was approaching the OT with a bit of common sense, indicating that there is a higher law than simply what happens to be written down. This directly challenges your assertions about, "not one dot, not one iota.." Its not just my opinion, its there, written in the same ink as the passages you quote at me.

Again, I hope that these points clarify my position on 'authority' of Christ's teaching. I havent really said much that isnt already in my above posts.

Finally, the reason that your posts are lengthy has very little to do with me not answering your questions. If you cut the attitude and the constant (unjustified) remarks about me not answering you, your posts would be a lot shorter.

RJB, I'm about to head out, but will answer one thing before I do. I'll get back tot he rest later.

'I challenged you when you were quote mining about adultery and said that you had missed out an extremely relevant verse where Jesus states that "it was because you were so unteachable" that Moses wrote down the law. Clearly, Jesus was approaching the OT with a bit of common sense, indicating that there is a higher law than simply what happens to be written down.'

I can't seem to find your quote. Could you give a reference?

Incidentally, could you refrain from derisively calling this 'quote mining' since you're the one one who asked for quotes?

Hi JB

Do you mind if I cut in with a few observations?

First of all I would like to say a few things about RJB. I reckon Christ is quite likely to see him as a bit of a Nathaniel - a commendably straight talker; and a Peter, courageous, strong, committed, passionate. He also has a major God given passion for the poor and oppressed.

None of that is to suggest he is faultless. Personally, I just wanted to show him some respect. He is a breathtaking work of art, created by an infinite God in His image - how can I not show him commensurate respect? I’m not saying you don’t, I’m just making a personal point.

Next I just want to say, I have come to the point where I believe RJB's worldview would seriously differ from the authors of the NT in respect of the divinity of Christ, salvation and the OT, that does not mean he does not have important truths we need to hear on relating to homosexual people and the poor. On the contrary.

I do think we “orthodox” believers HAVE got an emphasis issue on homosexuality. No its not fair to criticise us for engaging in discussion on the very frequent occasions W&T provocatively puts the normalisation of homosexual practise in the church on the agenda.

But I do think we as a church often drop the cold text like a brick on all sorts of people weighed down with all sorts of sin, when they have already heard it all before and feel bricked in (yes I know, Peter Morrow IS beginning to rub off on me :) )

Where is the freedom Christ promised? Do we really know it? Can we share it?

I think we have a reflex action to clobber homosexual folk while in practise we pass a blind eye to all the mental and none mental heterosexual adultery in our culture and church. How should we treat this issue? How much grace, patience and forgiveness has God on this? Perhaps that would give us a clue for relating to the homosexual people issue too?

Our attitude of mercy also sets the level of mercy Christ will show us, let’s remember.

We're just not being consistent and I think the lack of humility may hinder people from hearing us. The other thing which has struck me is that Christ did not actually come to teach us the difference between right and wrong - on sex or anything else.

By his example, he did not just offer a once size fits all morality to every person he met. He met, he listened he understood.... and yes he rebuked cleansed and forgave too. But it was personal, it was love. Its not watertight, but you get broad strokes of it. Just look at the tenderness and grace he showed to the woman at the well and the harlot who poured perfume on his feet.

That is not to say there is not a legitimate place for abstract, robust, constructive discussion adnd even rebuke.

What I am saying is that unless we have walked through life as a homosexual person you will probably find it very difficult to understand the daily struggles it entails in a conservative society like NI, especially if you seriously want to follow Christ.

Also, I have personally found that it can be quite different to understand that everyone is made in the image of God and quite another to live it – even towards ourselves – that sounds like a cliché but it is true.

Another point is that as Andy Comiskey (a former gay man and now a Christian leader) has pointed out, the basic tools for homosexual people to walk ever closer with Christ are the same discipleship tools as for the rest of us (that’s because we are all equal in God’s eyes of course – flawed images of God) - Forgiveness and healing; deep communion and fellowship support; real, edifying worship; lifetime discipline in these matters. Many of his charges go on to live fulfilled heterosexual lives, they say. It is cynical to assume they are all lying but it should not be a requirement of fellowship.

The problem is, I don’t know how qualified we are to “teach” homosexual folk unless we are really up to speed on these things personally. Is it possible we could do more harm than good? I don’t know, I’m just asking. Its a discussion forum.

And that is not suggest for a second that heterosexuality should be a requirement for acceptance by the church. However the church must empower and support those struggling with mental or actual sex outside of marriage.


Now that said, RJB and I have had some hum dingers of debates on this subject, just like the one above, except I am not just so articulate as you.

Pt 2 follows.

OT

I asked for quotes attributed to Christ on the subject of homosexuality. You've still to provide them, JB.

JB

The quote is Mt 19 v8. (Also in Mk.)(I have seen at least three translations - Because you were so unteachable, because you were so hard of heart, because of your stubbornness. Which only goes to show that, even in a small sentence like this, Christians translate differently and take differing meanings from it.)

RJB,

Weren't you complaining about the volume of posts being oppressive and asking for time? Yet here you are bombarding with me with posts and demanding information I've already given you. I provided the quotes in post 37 and since then I've been objecting to the fact that you have addressed my interpretation of the quotes.

As far as translation goes, different people use different principles and there are generally several ways you can translate something from one language into another.

Concerning the verse itself, it's rather different to your original description which is why I couldn't find it. Your description was 'Jesus states that "it was because you were so unteachable" that Moses wrote down the law.' In fact there's nothing about writing down the law, but rather an exemption to the law being permitted because of hardness of hearts. Now that I know which bit you're ferrying to, I'll respond to it along with the rest of post 54 in a while.

I'll probably work off the ESV and look at the Greek as well.

JB

"Here you are bombarding me with posts and demanding information I've already given you."

I have looked back on my last three posts. Where is this "demanding information" you refer to? I cant find any demands.

I responded to YOUR demand that I answer your questions (even giving me a choice of a. or b., either, or. But I wont allow you to pigeon hole me like that. You asked me for a scripture reference, I then gave it. If I hadnt, I'd have been not answering your questions (again!!) I did, and now I'm "bombarding" you with posts.

I cannot find any demands I make on you at all. All I see in my last three posts are a series of statements made by myself in response to questions you demanded I answer. I havent demanded anything at all, JB, except perhaps asking where the quotes are from Jesus on homosexuality, which you still haven't provided, btw.

No one is demanding a response to my points in #54, least of all, me. If you wish to respond to them, thats completely up to you.

OT,

I agree with much of what you say about a response to homosexuality, however our current discussion is much more foundational. As I'm sure you understand, it is difficult to form a response in lieu of a firm foundation.

RJB,

'Is Jesus' teaching authoritative for Christians?
For some, yes, for others, no.'

I find this confusing. You go on to say that if Christ existed, rose from the dead, etc., then his teaching should be binding on everyone. Given that we were talking about the church's response to homosexuality and these caveats you mention are core beliefs of Christianity, then as far as they are concerned, shouldn't every Christian be bound?

'In my initial question I ask about Christ and his words on homosexuality. I ask this question of people who claim to be Christians, followers of Jesus Christ. Not Old-Testamentians, not St Paul-ians. Christians.'

Christ believed in the Old Testament and gave authority to Paul. Both the Old Testament and Paul's epistles are recognised as Christian Scripture. However I am willing to limit the debate to what Christ says and affirms and believe that I did so by quoting only from the gospels in post 37.

'What does Christ say about homosexuality? Nothing.'

This is known as 'begging the question.'

'You assume that Jesus was a virgin, and I guess, that he wasnt homosexual. There are plenty of scholars who would dispute either of those assumptions - his relationships with Mary of Magdala and the disciple 'he loved.''

I love my friends, but that doesn't mean I want to sleep with them. Those scholars are in a minority and have very weak arguments. There is much more evidence in favour of saying that Christ had no sexual relations than saying that he did. However this is a side issue.

'You then respond by broadening the subject to sexual ethics in general.'

Actually it was more a case of saying that Christ spoke out about sexual immorality and that the definition of sexual immorality he was using covered homosexuality.

'Again, answering your question about what value I put on the OT and St Paul in comparison with the Gospels, I answer you directly and state that I put higher value on the Gospels than I do on the rest of the Bible.'

Your feelings about the OT are irrelevant. If Christ affirms an OT view, then it doesn't matter what you think of it - it's still Christ's opinion and that was what you asked for.

'I also challenged your interpretation on Christ's words about adultery ... I state quite clearly that this discourse, in my opinion, is not Jesus setting out hard and fast rules banning divorce and remarriage for everyone for all time. It is a criticism of the Pharisees and their hypocrisy.'

You seem to be referring to an entirely different discourse - I was talking about the sermon on the mount where Jesus says that lust is as bad as adultery. There was nothing about Pharisees and hypocrisy; rather he was saying that deliberate sexually immoral thoughts place a person in as much danger of hell as sexually immoral actions. This is a clear condemnation of sex outside of marriage, rather than occurs in an action, or in the head. Given that people would have understood marriage to be between a man and a woman, this leaves no room for homosexual activity to be acceptable.

'I also alluded to reading the scriptures 'in context.' I am clearly stating, I think, that a literal reading of the Bible has no authority over anyone,'

I don't see the connection with our discussion. I read the Bible in a historical-grammatical manner, taking into account the audience and the genre, etc. If you have a problem with the way I've interpreted a particular passage then by all means discuss that. General comments like this have little value.

Incidentally, a contextual reading of Scripture will factor in what the writers and characters understand of the Old Testament, so your own hermeneutic demands that we consider the Old Testament.

'I challenged you when you were quote mining about adultery'

You asked for quotes from Jesus about homosexuality; I provided some relevant passages. I don't understand how this is equivalent to quote mining about adultery.

'you had missed out an extremely relevant verse where Jesus states that "it was because you were so unteachable" that Moses wrote down the law.'

It's not my job to provides quotes that you think are relevant; I was providing quotes that I thought were. By all means do that, but if you do then I would appreciate that you continue in the same vein as this post (saying why it is significant), rather than the original post (where you did not).

'Clearly, Jesus was approaching the OT with a bit of common sense, indicating that there is a higher law than simply what happens to be written down. This directly challenges your assertions about, "not one dot, not one iota.." Its not just my opinion, its there, written in the same ink as the passages you quote at me.'

In an ideal world, divorce would not exist. A concession for it exists with the law to deal with problems that arise within marriages, which would not exist in an ideal world. The law does not exist to provide a license for divorce on demand, which is what the Pharisees were using it for. I assume we agree on this?

However, homosexuality is very different. It is something that is prohibited, rather than something reluctantly allowed. Things may be allowed which are not ideal, in order to limit evil. What is your argument for saying that homosexuality would not be allowed in an ideal world, but is prohibited in the law in order to limit evil? It seems more reasonable to assume that things which are prohibited are prohibited precisely because they have no place in God's plans for the world.

People forget quibbling over this or that vowel. There is no place in modern life for gender exclusion, it is the right of every human to expect equal rights of liberty and opportunity.

Stop picking and choosing biblical quotes as justification for being mean to others.

Deuteronomy 23:1 ESV

.... No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord ...

--- Perhaps that is the reason that there has not been a mass rebellion against corrupt clerics.

RJB,

'I havent demanded anything at all, JB, except perhaps asking where the quotes are from Jesus on homosexuality, which you still haven't provided, btw.'

Strangely enough, that was exactly what I was referring to and for the umpteenth time I point you in the direction of post 37. Is homosexuality singled out anywhere? No. However if Jesus condemns sexual immorality and affirms the Old Testament view of morality, then by implication his condemnation includes a condemnation of homosexual activity. I've told you this several times now.

I have to agree with JB here. This god has strong views on what should happen to men who lie with other men, I presume the same goes for women. Jesus, and i suppose his followers are signed up to this ot law.

I actually believe all men/women are equal unlike these teachings. What I still do not understand is why any gay person would want to belong to this sect? What do you think RJB?

Regards
DK

A gay person, and I respect all gays, joining the christian sect is like a person of colour trying to join the Klan. It baffles me. Why would they want to?

Regards

DK

ctd

JB & RJB

Now that said, RJB and I have had some hum dingers of debates on this subject, just like the one above, except I am not just as good a debater as you JB.

If RJB is asking an honest question about what the gospels says about homosexuality, and I will believe he is, then I might add the following points;-

1) The starting point of scripture on homosexuality is not the specific proof texts but the creation and purpose of sex and marriage, in Genesis. Christ affirms these verses by quoting them literally when he is teaching on divorce. This marriage is seen throughout scripture as the norm for sexual intimacy. There is no hint that any other model is affirmed anywhere in scripture. (Polygamy is at times tolerated/regulated but never advocated and is always presented as problematic).

2) Biblical lifelong monogamous marriage is not just a model for personal relationships but also for God’s relationship with Israel in the OT and Christ’s relationship with the church. It is the warp and weave of the entire bible, including the gospels. The divine tripartite design is not “consenting adults” but lifelong heterosexual monogamy in all three.

3) The OT teaching on forbidden degrees of sexual practise were not detailed in the gospels, they were givens. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. There was no need for Christ to detail them all.

4) Similarly Christ frequently affirmed Moses and the Prophets. (The response to Helio’s joke about prawns and mixed fibres is adequately dealt with in Romans, Galatians and Hebrews which also set down required NT boundaries for our enjoyment of sex.)

5) There are many practises today we assume that Christ would/does oppose for our protection which were not specifically mentioned in the gospels; eg drug abuse, racial discrimination, child slavery and trafficking, embryo research, care of orphans, elder abuse etc. Just because he does not address them specifically does not mean he does not have specific wishes regarding them.

6) Will be corrected, but worth noting that while homosexual practise is ancient, as far as I understand it, gay identity and marriage are very modern western constructions. That could also help explain why these aspects specifically are not discussed in the gospels.

7) Christ affirmed the story of Noah and the flood as historical events; the flood was precipitated by forbidden sexual relations between the sons of god and human women which produced perverted creatures, followed by mass violence; this sexual perversion precipitated the flood;- https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6&version=NIV

8) Christ affirmed the historicity of his judgement on Sodom. Sexual perversion was certainly a part of the city’s wickedness (alongside oppressing the poor) and a clear reason why Christ himself destroyed it (Ezekiel 16 and Book of Jude). It was THE Angel of the Lord which came down to survey the scene before the destruction, denoting Christ.

9) The book of acts is actually the sequel to the gospel of Luke – there is no credible argument for putting them on separate footings. And Acts clearly shows the engrafting of Paul into the church by Christ. So it is then logically difficult to make Paul’s epistles- and those of other gospel authors like Peter (the voice behind Mark) and John- redundant.

10) Likewise, it is hard to place the OT on a lower footing than the gospels when Christ quotes from it so often as his authority.

11) If we use the “consenting adults” standard for all our sexual preferences we have already dispensed with the standards Christ has set on adultery, fornication, divorce and lust and have declared our intention to live by our own arbitrary standards regardless of what we find Christ may have said. And that being the case there is no solid standard for insisting on “consenting adults” anyway.


12) Lastly, there seems to be a serious argument to say that when Christ spoke of fornication, it would have been understood by his audience that this would have included homosexuality and other degrees of sex forbidden by the OT law (Thayer’s lexicon);-
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=KJV

13) The issues of the OT views on slavery and the place of women, are major subjects in themselves which can be put into context. But let's deal with one issue at a time.


JB, RJB, I’m sure you may well be needled by some of the things I have said and not said, but please accept that I intended no offence or denigration of your characters, but was rather trying honestly to engage with some very important issues objectively.

A fellow, flawed image of God.

OT

PS John Wright – what is pastoral advice from the church to lonely homosexual people? The first thing is that community *should* be offered to combat loneliness - and often isnt (oh no, sounding like PM again). Unmarried heterosexual people are also called to celibacy for their own protection. As JB says, just because Christ was a lifelong virgin does not mean he led a lonely life.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

OT

Thank you for trying to be a Henry Kissinger and for your words about me. That was nice of you, (listing what you see as my good points, and not listing the bad.)

There are two things you say in that post which, imo, are the best and most profound you have posted on here.

“Our attitude of mercy also sets the level of mercy Christ will show us, let’s remember.”

And,

“Christ did not actually come to teach us the difference between right and wrong – on sex or anything else. By his example, he did not just offer a one size fits all morality to every person he met. He met, he listened, he understood… and yes he rebuked, cleansed and forgave too. But it was personal, it was love. Its not watertight, but you get broad strokes of it. Just look at the tenderness and grace he showed to the woman at the well and the harlot who poured perfume on his feet.”

I think that is beautiful, profound, wise, and true to who Christ was and what he was all about.

I have never been able to view the whole of the Bible, - everything I’ve read in it, separated from one text, “But Master, how often should we forgive, seven times?”
-“No, I tell you, seventy times seven!”

It is the cornerstone on which all else hangs. Take away that text and the whole thing collapses in a heap of rhetoric. It costs, that one. It is why the Gospel has survived, why Jesus is remembered.

PS – And I’m smiling here, OT, eh, “A beautiful woman created in the image of God” poured perfume on Jesus’ feet, not “a harlot.” (The point being, she may have been whatever a harlot is supposed to be, but, “He met her, he listened to her and he understood her. I think he saw a beautiful woman.”)

I believe "Christians" should get off the case of gay people and others they consider rejects or unworthy. (70x7) I also believe that Christians do not have permission to make the Christian Faith look ridiculous as some seem determined to do.

DK

"What do you think, RJB?"

I'm no longer sure, David. The certainties I used to have about life/politics/religion are no longer there. Just maturing, at long, long last.

I still have this inkling though that when church goers tell certain groups of people that they are not welcome (or at least make them feel that way), that they need to be challenged on that. Actually, maybe even ridiculed on that. But maybe I'm wrong.

Walking away doesnt seem like an appropriate or adequate response.

OT

Christ also criticizes the Olt Testament.

I've already mentioned where he says that it was because 'you were so unteachable.'

It was unthinkable for anyone apart from the High Priests to go behind the veil of the Temple. Jesus applauds David for not only going behind the veil, but for taking the sacred bread and giving it to his men. They were hungry.

The Pharisees who criticize the apostles for eating corn on the Sabbath - breaking OT law - Jesus slaggs off that attitude. "The Sabbath was made for man... not man for the Sabbath."

Its simply not true that Jesus was devoted to OT Law. He was actually very critical of those who applied it without 'compassion.'

RJB, none of those examples are criticisms of the Old Testament law.

The first example I have covered, so I won't waste your time by repeating it before you've had a chance to respond.

The second example about David does not involve a criticism of the law, but rather the way the Pharisees applied it.

The same goes for the third. The sabbath is a good thing, meant to benefit us, The Pharisees were using it as a safejacket to prevent good being done when it was supposed to be a liberating thing guaranteeing that everyone would have time to spend resting and worshipping. If anything, Jesus is affirming the goodness of the sabbath laws.

Criticism of application of the law is not the same as criticism of the law itself.

On the subject of compassion, if we have been designed by God for particular kinds of relationships, then one element of compassion will be leading people to see and enjoy that, simultaneously leading them away from harmful relationships that are contrary to our design and harmful to our relationship with God.

Compassion doesn't mean telling someone they're right or that their actions are good. Compassion can involve showing someone that there are actions are wrong and harmful. Disapproving of homosexual activity can be done in a compassionate manner; it doesn't require that you not make a homosexual welcome in church and I certainly hope that I would welcome any homosexual into church and show them love. Ultimately love for Christ and love for neighbour requires a sharing of the gospel. If someone chooses to follow Christ then that will lead on to discussing what a faithful kingdom lifestyle looks like and quite frankly, sexual immorality has no place within that.

Obviously many oppose homosexual activity or even homosexuals themselves out of bigotry, fear, hatred, etc., or even claim to have gospel motives, but show no sign of compassion. That does not mean, however, that one cannot oppose homosexual activity for compassionate reasons and in a compassionate manner.

OT, re: post 66, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion and would wholeheartedly affirm the points you make therein. It never occurred to me that anything you've said could be a denigration of anyone's character.

#71
“If someone chooses to follow Christ then that will lead on to discussing what a faithful kingdom lifestyle looks like and quite frankly, sexual immorality has no place within that.”

Did this not all start with Abraham hooking up with his maid and Lott’s daughters finding other uses for wine other than enhancing a good meal?

“I certainly hope that I would welcome any homosexual into church and show them love.”

It is uplifting to hear these words but how can you follow your god and your prophet when you disobey them? I’m very confused.

Some people say Christianity is really Paul’s created religion. I was wondering are there any good books on Paul? Do we have any academic texts on his life?

Regards
DK

DK

i read your posts 64 and 65 with interest. and while you were asking your questions to other commentators, i hope you don't mind me stepping into your conversation and offering my own responses.

first, a general comment. (i'm not speaking here about anything you have said, just the overall conversation.) this discussion, as so often happens, has for the most part been about texts, and not about people. at worst, this makes the bible a blunt tool, or indeed scapel sharp way of excluding others. my own benchmark is that any scriptural interpration that does that is running counter to the message of the text as a whole.

and, as so often happens, the discussion where it is about people is exactly that, it is 'about' others. it's not a conversation 'with'. and i think we need to be cautious when we start talking about others. the experience of others is all too easily misrepresented.
by my reading, in this conversation, it would be easy for someone to walk away with the assumption that to be Christian and gay is either an oxymoron, or that the only way one can be both is if one is celibate. while there are definitely those, and possibly a majority, of Christians who hold both those views, they do not speak for the whole, but their own. nor indeed can it be assumed that they speak for God. they speak for themselves. just as I do.

in that light, in response to the two of your comments, i'd offer:

64. i'd rephrase that. "this is what the biblical authors have God say." i acknowledge that not all Christians consider that an adequate statement of scriptural authority, but there are many who do not read the Bible as a literal text with a single interpretation.

nor do all readers consider that voice of God in the bible to be strict or clear on these issues. i have thought repeatedly through this conversation of the Ethiopian eunuch - considered by many to be the 'first convert' and suggests that things are far less obvious than others would state. that the Bible is maybe telling a far more radical story than we might think and that non-'normative' gender experience and identity is depicted throughout both testaments. that the Bible is not telling an exclusively 'straight' story.

in response to comment/question 65:

i think it's important not to mistake the Christian 'sect' as a monolith, or a monotheistic god as a one size fits all. just as there are many denominations, practicing Christians can and do have vastly differing views of what God believes, and how to interpret what the Bible says. for example, even those who think the Bible is indeed very clear in what it says do not necessarily interpret it as the undiluted word of God but a historical text written by particular people, at a particular time. e.g. it is an often misogynist or oppressive text, because people were, at the time of writing, just as today, misogynist and oppressive in their attitudes and practice.
others say it is unclear or even contradictory, and say we frequently misunderstand the intention of the text, or what was actually being described. that a literal interpretation is all too often a misinterpretation.

allowing a Christianity that calls for literal or fixed interpretation of the Bible to stand as the definition of the sect as a whole is to ignore the reality that there are those who think differently and consider themselves 'faithful and believing Christians'.

thus, it is entirely possible to be gay and Christian and see no conflict in that identity. if nothing else, because there is a difference between God and the church.
there are individuals and churches who do not hold the views expressed in this conversation. who believe that sexual orientation is in no way in conflict with faith, or that gay people, Christian or not, should be denied being in relationship with others. or indeed even denied the right to marry.

although i feel it's maybe an unsuitable analogy in the first place, i'd respond to your comment that it is like a person of colour joining the KKK, by saying:
that would only work as a statement if one was talking about a church that believed gay people should be physically punished or killed for being gay. that is certainly what is so frightening for gay people in Uganda and other African countries right now. becasue that's exactly what is being pushed as what God wants.
and there are gay people everywhere who have been excluded from churches and made to feel less than human or less worthy of love and dignity. that's not in question. but that is not the whole story. Ms Glasspool's ordination is one example/evidence of that.

a second way of responding to your question might be this:
'we don't believe in the God you have identified here as being God.'
many believe in a God who made all people in God's image and no one is a mistake, an aberration, or that God would want to deny anyone the experience of loving another human and being loved, or only include people in the love of God if they meet certain conditions.
and a third kind of response:
it's not as if someone decides they are gay and then decides to join the church and want to be included. LGBT people are already in the church. all too many are, in their coming out, then excluded. or told they can only be a faithful Christian if they play by certain rules. but that is not the whole story either.
there are not only churches who seek to have LGBT persons fully included, and extend the radical welcome of the gospel, but those who go further still and say, "you are already included. it's not for straight Christians to decide who's in and who's outside the church. there is no 'you', or 'they', in the church there is only 'we' and 'us' and the doors are never meant to be closed to any human being. that Christianity is a radical attempt to live without dividing lines between people.
and where, in the face of civil injustice, if one is in a place of privilege, in this case as a heterosexual, then one as a Christian is to intentionally place oneself alongside anyone who is oppressed or marginalised, ie in this case LGBT people. to actively work to have lines of division erased and dismantle one's own power and privilege. to refuse to be treated with that unearned privilege simply because one happens to be straight or experiences one's gender identity as the supposed norm.

anyways, just wanted to throw those thoughts into the mix because, as an alternative perspective, it might be evidence that this discussion is not representative of Christianity, but only of particular individual views within Christinity.

i'm not suggesting you have to agree with *any* of my thoughts, I just wanted to acknowledge that Christianity is not homogeneous. and as often happens on this blog i find myself having far more in common with the 'non-Christian' perspective rather than 'Christian' voices here and feeling, 'they do not speak for me or many people I know'.

it's not difficult to believe it is possible to be gay and Christian because of what "God says", it's difficult because of what people say.

sorry for the length of this response,

best wishes.

Thank you, Cary for your time and interest. You have given me a great deal to think about and so I am going to do that throughout the day, then comment.

Can I say that the chance to have such a discussion is only possible because of blogs such as will and testament and for that I am grateful. Can I also say the tone of your post is spot on and perhaps I can learn from that.

Regards
David

JB,
Opposing homosexuality with compassion may be the way you try to excuse bigotry. It does not change the fact that it is bigotry,

What you guys are really telling me is that Jesus was a bigot and you agree with him.

Homosexuality is simply normal. I can tell you that, and I can tell you that my feelings for people are equally as strong and real and valid as yours. It would also be true that, if I bother to think about it, I find heterosexual activities unfathomable. That lack of understanding of how men can sleep with women does not give me the right to preach at them that they are wrong, I simply let them get on with it and treat them as full equal people.

This is why I have difficulty with people who tell me they follow this really good guy called Jesus who is so obviously bigoted and flawed.


Jesus/gods lack of understanding of the human condition is probably the best evidence that he did not create us. To me that means that if Jesus did exist and the bible is a reflection of his words then he is a con artist as well as a bigot. Not a great role model.

You have no moral or legal right to oppose homosexuality, with or without compassion, freedom of religion comes with freedom FROM religion.

What I am entitled to is respect for me and my relationships as I respect everyone else, full equality in both actions and thought. The christianity which is described here is flawed in that it cannot offer respect for all people. If the bigotry was removed from religion, maybe it would not exist in society.

Golfie

Now you are touching on why I asked the question initially, "What does Christ say on homosexuality?" Nothing! But he has much to say on those who judge others harshly or who point condemning fingers at others.

Some 'Christians' still just dont get it. They will trawl OT passages to find texts to justify their prejudice while glancing over passages like, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."

Cary

Thanks for your enlightening post. The point of engaging with and challenging those who would use the Bible to discriminate against others is to let them know that they do not have a monopoly on the Bible. To let them know that it is not their exclusive property.

It is also important, I think, to challenge individuals or structures which view people, not as living, breathing human beings, but as 'units of immorality.'

Cary - thank you for one of the most thoughtful contributions to the topic I have ever read. I feel it is incumbent on me to repeat my own position to substantiate some parts of your argument.

I am a Christian who believes that God has no interest whatsoever in human sexual activity. I believe that the Scriptures are of interest, it is profitable for us that we meditate on them regularly, but they do not possess any command authority.

Christians have to figure out for themselves how to reflect the love of God that is in Christ to all the world. I see this as requiring me to affirm not just that homosexual orientation is perfectly natural but that homosexual acts which reflect the love of two people the one for the other are entirely pleasing to the Christ I know.

RJB, you said earlier that if you replied to every question I asked, you'd need all week. Now that you've found the time to reply to half a dozen other people, I was wondering if you were planning on responding to my post? I'm not asking in order to pressure you into a hasty reply - rather, I think that what I say has some bearing on your continued insistence that JEsus has nothing to say about homosexuality.

I'd also like to ask if your reply to Golfie indicates that you don't think I'm a Christian and think that I'm a prejudiced bigot? OBviously the two of us have been rubbing each other up the wrong way and OT has very gallantly tried to calm things down a bit. Following his lead, I apologise for anything I've said that may have hurt you and forgive you for whatever you have said that has hurt me. In that spirit, I wonder if we might refrain from casting aspersions on one another's character or judging whether the other is a Christian or not, especially on something which is a matter of morality rather than a matter of salvation.

1. How can you Procreate offspring from anal intercourse, even within the simple order of nature this cannot be turned on its head.
Reference... Romans 1:6-28:.

2. Keep to scripture NOT emotionalism.

3. No more! gospel, according to "Saint Elton John" please.

One of the problems with online discussions such as this is that people understand the nature of the conversation differently and don't have human faces in front of them to show emotion - whether that's seeing the emotion of the writer or the emotion of the reader. Some people come here expected an academic discussion, others are looking for something less formal. Some are prepared for dispassionate discourse, simply analysing the facts, others have their hearts invested in everything that is heard and said. Consequently wires can get crossed and hurt can be cause. For my part, I apologise if my approach has conflicted with the approach of anyone else and caused them - I'm thinking primarily of Golfie here, but doubtless there are others affected.

Clearly there is a significant number of people here who feel that homosexuality is perfectly natural, that opposition to it in any form is bigotry and who interpret discussions of sexual morality as personal attacks, which is entirely understandable given the history of the world we live in and the attitude of homophobia that pervades many religious groups. However I believe that it is possible to hold that homosexual activity is immoral without being a bigot and instead showing compassion. I understand that some posting here may have been victims of bigotry, but please give those of us who reject bigotry a chance to air our views and explain why we disagree with you.

After all, what is bigotry? Fundamentally, it's a form of intolerance isn't it? A hatred for people with different views and a refusal to allow their views to be aired or lived out. Is it possible to think that an action is immoral without necessarily hating the person doing the action? Surely it must be, otherwise anyone who holds a moral view would be a bigot. We recognise that there is a distinction between having morals and being a bigot.

So what is that distinction? I would suggest there are three factors which help us distinguish. Firstly, there is a decision to hate and secondly there is opposition to identity e.g. racists are bigots because they hate people who are black, sectarians are bigots who hate people of another culture/creed/religion, homophobes are bigots who hate people with a homosexual orientation. Thirdly, there is a feeling of superiority over others: whites are superior to blacks, Prods are better than Catholics, etc.

This is where I think that an authentic Christian response to homosexuals is differs from bigotry. Firstly, there should not be hatred, instead there should be love and compassion for the person. Secondly, opposition should be directed towards the actions, rather than the person. Thirdly, Christians should be humbled by the cross and have no room for thinking that they are superior to anyone. Paul often reminded Christians that there was no room for boasting.

If any of you would like to respond to this, then I welcome discussion on the matter and think that if you disagree with me and insist that opposition to homosexual acts is bigotry, then it might be helpful to define your understanding of bigotry and explain why opposing homosexual activity is bigotry, but having opposing something else seen as immoral isn't.

I image that one possible response would be the possibility of homosexual orientation being a wholly natural thing and that homosexual actions are a part of identity. I would have three things to say to such a response:
Firstly, an inclination towards an activity doesn't nullify its immorality for instance alcoholism is still a bad thing, even if someone is genetically disposed towards it.
Secondly, bigotry is surely dependent on the understanding of the alleged bigot. If they do not see activity as bound up in identity, then they cannot be said to oppose or hate a homosexual's identity when they disagree with their activity.
Thirdly, I would hate to restrict someone's identity to little more than their sexuality. It seems to me that that is precisely what homophobes and bigots do - that they can't see the person; all they can see is the orientation. I look on homosexuals as follow creations of God, made in his image, fallen and broken, in need of grace and healing.

Even if you can reluctantly accept what I'm saying, maybe you still it's unfair to ask that homosexuals refrain from homosexual activity, however nothing more is asked of them than of unmarried heterosexuals and there are promises of rich fulfilment and companionship extended to all, that rise above even that which is offered by marriage and sexual relationships.

I hope that this goes someway towards helping those who are hurt by homophobia understand how some of us can say that we think your actions are wrong without hating you and indeed extending the love and grace of Christ in all sincerity.

Parrhasios, do you mind if I ask you the same question that RJB and I have been mulling over - do you think that Christ's words are authoritative for Christians?
* If you do, then do you not think that his words about sexuality (let's forget the specifics of hetro/homo for a moment) indicate an interest by God? Do you not think that the very way we are described in Genesis shows that God is deeply invested in our sexuality? After all, his first command was to go forth and multiply i.e. have sex!
* If you don't, then what is a Christian if Christ has no authority over them? The word seems to become meaningless.


Cary, I have addressed some of your points in my previous post, but one further thing I would add is that in order to know how to talk to people, to know what is going to be god and helpful, it is necessary to turn first to God and see what he has revealed in scripture. From reading the rest of your post, it seems that that would not be an adequate response in your eyes because some people read the Bible differently to others, however that requires a significant dilution of the Bible's authority and becomes hard to see how those views can authentically be Christian as the common basis for Christianity is removed. A Christianity that discards the Bible is little more a a vague deism that picks and choses what it wants.

JB

I didnt reply to anyone. Nobody asked me a question. I did however contribute to other threads which are dealing with a subject which is pretty close to me.

Do I intend responding to your post? I assume you are referring to the longest of your posts where you ask what I called, "an oppressive" amount of questions. No, I dont. I have responded to a lot of your questions but, apparently, you feel they weren't responses.

Do I think that you are a Christian? I think that you certainly think that you are a Christian. I think that you probably do a lot of things that I would admire and respect. But I think that your views on homosexuality are wrong.

Do I think that you are a prejudiced bigot? Well this is really coming to the crux of the matter. No, Jonathon, I dont see you as a prejudiced bigot. I would guess that you are probably a very caring father, loving husband and a man who would rather do someone a good turn than a bad turn. Probably a very good neighbour too.

And I would suspect that if a homosexual man came to you and asked for help (maybe he was homeless, skint, beaten up, terrified, anxious), I think he probably couldnt have chosen a better human being to seek help from. I think you would be a gem in that situation.

I also think that you would never, ever say to that unfortunate man, "I'll only help you if you promise not to sleep with another man next week."

I think Jesus would do the same.

JB

For what its worth, I wrote 83 before I read 81 and 82.

RJB, I meant reply in the broader sense of responding to something someone else had said, rather than the specific sense of addressing a question. And I reiterate what I said about not intending to pressurising you, but rather reminding you that our discussion impacts on what you were saying for others e.g. what you said about Jesus never saying anything about homosexuality as if it as a settled matter.

'Do I intend responding to your post? I assume you are referring to the longest of your posts where you ask what I called, "an oppressive" amount of questions. '

No, you're thinking of post 44. I was talking about post 61. Just to recap, in post 44 I asked you clarify your comments on a large number of issues. You objected to the number of questions this constituted and we agreed to start again with one question. I believe your exact words in post 51 were ' Ask me ONE question and I'll answer it. Then feel free to ask another and I'll answer that too. And so on.'

I asked you in post 52 if Christ's views are authoritative for Christians. You gave a lengthy reply in post 54 and I engaged with what you said with the similar length post 61. You have yet to reply to it.

The main issue seems to be Christ's view of the Old Testament. If Christ affirms Old Testament morality, then surely that his significant repercussions for a Christian view of homosexuality? I've provided an interpretation of Christ's words on the Old Testament and presumably your comments about Jesus' view of divorce constitute the meat of your response. I've provided an interpretation of Jesus' words, so perhaps I way forward would be to come back at my interpretation. Alternatively, how about engaging with my interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, perhaps by elaborating on how you read that passage if you don't think that Jesus is holding up Old Testament morality?

RJB, I'm interested in continuing to discuss, but only if we're engaging with each other's views, rather than reiterating claims. you keep saying that Christ says nothing about homosexuality and I keep saying that he affirms the Old Testament and by implication speaks about homosexuality. We can't both be right and the truth has implications how each of us (and others) respond in love to homosexuals.

JB #81
Christians seem to be struggling with belonging to a group with texts that advocate violence against people who choose to love someone of the same gender. It is a difficult position to defend. However, when Christians try to maintain that this group is in some way good or moral then it becomes impossible to defend. One simply cannot belong to a group with writings that advocate violence and believe this group to be good. It is mass delusion.

I agree with Paul, Christians should not boast.... but perhaps for a different reason.


This post is not intended to sound harsh, I just cannot grasp the logic of the loving Christian position.

Kind regards
DK

David Kerr, I'm not sure what you've been told about Christians, but I certainly don't see any justification for violence against someone just because they choose to love someone of the same gender, therefore I have not experienced this inconsistency or delusion you mention.

Jonathan,

I think you mean well but do you have any idea how insulting it is to be told you are fallen and broken when it is something innate and beyond your control to alter (even if I wanted to). If only you could understand the results of homophobia - depression, suicide etc. It does not matter how nice you make it sound, it is still a denigration of me as a person.

Whilst I have no right to tell you what to believe, you have no right to denigrate me based on your beliefs. If you believe that homosexual acts are immoral, then don't do them. I deserve the same right to believe that homosexual acts are not immoral and to be free from pressure to believe otherwise and from discrimination due to my beliefs and actions.

You say that nothing more is asked of us than unmarried heterosexuals, that is complete nonsense, unmarried heterosexuals can get married, there is no compunction to lifelong celibacy. To me it is immoral to enforce celibacy. In the UK at the moment homosexuals can still not marry even though marriage is a civil institution. Why can we not marry? People pushing their beliefs and their morality onto others even when the others share neither. So basically the 4 Million (very conservative number as many do not admit their sexuality) Homosexuals in the UK must live in enforced celibacy to please your god.

Homosexuality is perfectly natural, that is not just my opinion as a homosexual, it is also the opinion of the governing bodies in the UK and USA of Psychiatrists and Psychologists. They say nothing is broken and that trying to change sexual orientation is useless and can be dangerous.
It is a very short step from telling me I am broken to trying to fix it, you cannot.

Being openly homosexual and having shed the bonds of christianity,I have very few problems or conflicts about my identity, but I do have immense empathy and sympathy for homosexuals who are too scared of the moral majority and the church to come out. Many live lonely, fearful and unfulfilled lives, many live in a heterosexual relationships to conform, so ruining two lives and far too many end their own lives at a very young age because of the mental conflict and hatred which homophobia creates.

On one thing I agree with you, I am passionate about this, and I take the attacks personally (which they are) for whilst my sexuality is only one component of a very complex person, it is an important component.

Whilst hoping around Williams blog I came across a posting which quoted from a book, and it really resonated with me. I hope the original poster will forgive me for repeating it here.

______
I wonder if any of the contributors to the blog have read John Howard Griffin's Black Like Me. It is a strange book, dated, but powerful.

I think it would do heterosexual posters no harm whatever to peruse it before posting on the topic of homosexuality. I would like to quote a passage from it (the emphases are mine) and suggest we substitute appropriate terms referring to sexual orientation for those referring to skin-colour.

The Negro's only salvation from complete despair lies in his belief ... that these things are not directed against him personally, but against his race, his pigmentation. His mother or aunt or teacher long ago carefully prepared him, explaining that he as an individual can live in dignity, even though he as a Negro cannot. "They don't do it to you because you're Johnny - they don't even know you. They do it against your Negro-ness,"

But at the time of the rebuff, even when the rebuff is impersonal ... the Negro cannot rationalise. He feels it personally and it burns him. It gives him a view of the white man that the white can never understand; for if the Negro is part of the black mass, the white is always the individual, and he will sincerely deny that he is "like that", he has always tried to be fair and kind to the Negro. Such men are offended to find Negroes suspicious of them, never realising that the Negro cannot understand how - since as individuals they are decent and "good" to the coloured - the whites as a group can still contrive to arrange life so that it destroys the Negro's sense of personal value, degrades his human dignity, deadens the fibres of his being.

JB

Okay. I surrender.

RJB, I'm not looking for a 'surrender', I'm just looking for you to engage with the issue. I'm eager to hear your interpretation of Christ's words so that we can answer the question you asked back in post 5.

You told Cary that 'The point of engaging with and challenging those who would use the Bible to discriminate against others is to let them know that they do not have a monopoly on the Bible.'

Are you now turning your back on your convictions and refusing to engage with someone who wants to talk? Or have you decided that you don't want your own views challenged? Given the amount of time you've given to debating the issue, I'd like to think that do genuinely want to engage, but if you walk away, what am I (or anyone else for that matter) supposed to think?

Golife, I'm just about to head out and therefore don't have time for a full reply to your post (I fully intend to get back to you later), but wanted to clarify one thing before I go.

When I talked about fallen, broken people, I said fellow fallen, broken people - I include myself in that number along with all mankind. I'm not singling out homosexuals and anyone who does singles out homosexuality as a special sin or any nonsense like that certainly is providing reasons to call the a homophobe. I think your actions make me a sinner, but I also know that I am a sinner, like everyone who has ever lived. Being a sinner doesn't make you any different to me, or make God's view of you any different.

I know these is a deeply personal issue, but please try not to pre-judge what I write, otherwise with the best will in the world, there's no way you can receive compassion, even when I offer it.

I'll write more later.

RB #87

Leviticus 20:13 (New International Version)

13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

RB .... Would you explain what is good about this part of your belief system?

Regards
DK

John D - I think sex is about a lot more than procreation. Having grown up on a farm I am well aware how common same-gender mating is in the animal kingdom so, certainly in the sense of being found in nature, it is incontestable that homosexual behaviour is natural.

I think though, on the human level, there is a lot of quite muddled thinking on this issue. The position of the Roman Catholic Church, effectively that sex exists solely for procreation within marriage, has the virtue of logical consistency even though it flies in the face of biology. Protestant thinking generally permits and endorses the idea of enjoying sex simply as a physical pleasure and has no problems with the use of contraception. To my mind, if you admit that sex may be enjoyed for pleasure, then it is contrary to natural justice to exclude one group of people permanently from the enjoyment of that pleasure.

DK, a common view within the reformed tradition of Christianity - the closest thing to a group that I would identify with - would be that the Old Testament law can be split into three categories: moral, ceremonial and civil. The ceremonial laws were fulfilled by Jesus and no longer serve a purpose for Christians; the civil laws were intended purely the running of ancient theocratic Israel; and the moral laws provide universal guidance on how to live a life that is pleasing to God. The distinctions aren't perfect and there is some blurring of the edges, particularly where the issue of punishments come up. Again, a common view would be that the morals provided constitute a universal code, whereas the punishments are how ancient theocratic Israel was to deal with breaches of the moral code. These views seem to make sense of the way the New Testament handles the Old Testament laws. I've only really skimmed over the concepts here, but if you want more information I can recommend resources and even engage with you on the subject to a certain extent.

Under this method of interpreting and applying the law, the moral principle that homosexual activity is wrong would still apply today, however the response to breaches of the law would be different - in fact the New Testament seems to encourage Christians to let the state handle justice in this sense.

One very good reason for thinking that the moral law in general is still important is that Jesus seems to have a high regard for the ten commandments and boil down the law to loving God and loving neighbour, which are themselves Old Testament summaries of the law.
One very good reason to believe that the moral code still applies here even if the judicial response does not is that the law seems to stem from the creation ordinances of Genesis 1-2.
One very good reason to think that the judicial response is not the same is that nowhere do we see other nations being encouraged to adopt Israel's judicial practices, nor do we see Gentile Christians being expected to adopt distinctively Jewish practices.

This explains the role of Leviticus 20:13 as a moral guide, but doesn't explain why the punishment was a good thing even in ancient theocratic Israel. Answering that question requires an examination of transgressions against God and his laws in the Old Testament. Sin is portrayed as an affront to God and rebellion against his good and just rule which is deserving of death. It's also portrayed as something with consequences beyond the individual. Adam and Eve's sin affected all of creation; mankind's continued sin resulted in the Flood; Aachen's sin during the conquest of Canaan resulted in defeat for Israel; the sinful lifestyle of the people who were not driven out of the land was infectious and often led the Israelites astray. Sin is a very bad thing and consequently wilful sin had to dealt with strongly. The Old Testament establishes God's right to do this as Creator and his rightness in doing it as a perfect judge. This context is vital to remember when reading the Law.

Golfie (apologies for spelling your name wrong last time),

As I read your comments, you clearly come across as someone who has suffered greatly and received little in the way of compassion. It is entirely understandable that having been faced with rampant homophobia, you would be suspicious of anyone who claims to 'hate the sin but live the sinner' - I imagine that such words must ring somewhat hollow. However, please don't tar every Christian who disagrees with homosexual activity with the same brush and instead give us an opportunity to dialogue with you.

I'm glad that you affirm my right to my beliefs and I in turn affirm your right to yours. I have no intention of trying to bullying you into changing them and even if it was within my power to compel you to change, I would not do so - I see no point in moralism and believe that any change a person effects is of significantly more value if it flows from the grace of Jesus Christ.

Just as I have no desire to change your mind by force, neither do I wish to discriminate against or pressure you. The context of this debate is after all the actions of people who identify themselves as part of a church and the issue I have been addressing is what Christ thinks about the morality of homosexual actions. I consider it very unwise to discuss a response to an issue until the foundational matters are settled. Suggesting how to treat someone who carries out a particular action without first considering what God thinks of the action would be very inconsistent for a Christian. I certainly haven't advocated forcing any beliefs, morality, actions or restrictions on anyone.

If you bear in mind that context, then you'll understand the response a bit better. For instance the issue of whether homosexuality is a natural thing in this world is irrelevant in terms of discerning its morality because this is a fallen, imperfect world and natural inclinations do not trump revelation from the Creator God. Obviously as a non-Christian, it is your right to ignore what God says, but when Christians are deciding what their stance on homosexual actions is, his words are of supreme importance.

Let's turn this round for a moment and consider some of the things said on this blog about God and Christianity. Under your logic about homosexuality and identity, I would have every right to be aggrieved at many of the things people have said, to call them bigots and to say that I have been the victim of many personal attacks. However, I have said none of these things because I understand that the premises people are operating from are substantially different to me therefore the assault is on my belief-system, rather than me, therefore although my belief-system is a very important component of who I am, I know that the attacks are not directly personally at me. Does that make any sense?

I tried to outline some of these difference in my previous post, but maybe this makes it a little clearer. In fact I asked a question about the nature of bigotry in that post which I don't see an answer to here. Given that you're still insisting that I am a bigot, I wonder if you could address that question? I feel that the question is particularly pertinent given that you're drawing a comparison between racism and attitudes towards homosexuals - an issue that I directly addressed in my comments about bigotry.

If we're going to insist on recognising the dignity of human beings, then surely a part of that means listening to each other, however much we disagree, and sharing our understanding of issues and even individual words. I hope that my engaging with you and responding to the issues you raise, that I can demonstrate that although I disagree with your actions, I still affirm your dignity and worth as a human being. I simply ask that you do the same for me by engaging with what I say and responding to some of the questions I raise.

Jonathon - # 82.

Do I think that Christ's words are authoritative for Christians?

No, not in the sense I think you mean. I think we have no absolutely clear idea what Christ's words actually were but we have, in the Bible, a dynamic picturing of Christ the living Word. I do not see that Christ as an authority, rather more as an eternally relevant example. He is a pattern the details of which we access through encounter and meditation. We encounter Christ to this day, as he told us, in the hungry, the thirsty, the immigrant, the naked, the ill, and the imprisoned. What we learn from meeting them, interacting with our identification of the heart of the Gospel, shapes what we can become.

What is a Christian if Christ has no authority over them? 

A Christian, I believe, is not under authority rather he lives by grace and should be a vessel of grace. A Christian is one who glorifies God by allowing the light of the suffering Saviour to shine through his words and deeds.

By the way, I do not think you are in any way personally bigoted and I regard your understanding of Scripture as entirely historically warranted - it is simply an understanding I do not share. If you hold to the view of Scripture you advocate and did not advance the arguments you do I would consider you either callous or remiss. What Golfie says, however, is of the utmost importance - you cannot advance those views without causing the gravest hurt to many people some of whom will be extremely vulnerable. How you resolve that dilemma would, I fear, tax even the wisdom of Solomon. I am glad I do not face it.

#94 JB

With respect,JB. I simply asked what was good about these words? Dress them up, excuse them away (bet most christians wish they could) deny them all you want, they are there and act as a sign post to something pretty nasty. Some christians have evolved from this position others still want to read it as stated. Non christians have serious problems with these words. Sorry.

Regards
DK

DK, I order to understand what is good, a certain amount of context is required. Not everything can be spelt out in one or two sentences. This doesn't constitute dressing the words up, excusing them away (which I wouldn't want to do) or denying them. Given that earlier you asked for an academic account of Paul's life, I thought that you might be willing to listen to an explanation. I won't make that mistake again.

JB,
as the word bigot is such a pejorative word, and I really should not throw it around lightly, I will give you my view of its definition and so the context within which I use it. Please bear with me as I am not a philosopher.

I regard bigotry as having two components. The first is that there is a belief or opinion which an individual holds. The second is an action to denigrate , belittle or cause discrimination against those who hold differing views or are the actual subject of the belief. So I mean that one has to actually carry out an act of bigotry to be a bigot (if you see what I mean). In other words, to me, the holding of a belief or view is not on its own enough to define someone as a bigot.

So the definition then revolves around what is an act of bigotry. An act of bigotry is any act which causes distress, harm, denigration, intimidation etc. or directly discriminates or allows discrimination towards someone of an opposing view. The measure of whether it has caused any of these impacts is in the feelings of the person on the receiving end (intent has nothing to do with it, it is only the impact felt). It is very similar to the way we look at harassment in the workplace. We are all allowed to hold whatever political, moral views we like, but if we behave in a way which makes other people feel harassed, then we are guilty of harassment even if we do it from love. So the test is did the individual feel that an act took place and could that person rightly be offended by such an act.

This is where I get to the separation of sin and sinner, it matters not that you intend there to be a separation between the act and the person, it is whether the person feels that they have been denigrated is the test of a bigoted act. I do not believe in sin, so my terms of reference are different from yours. I believe that sex and sexuality are expressions of each other, therefore sin and sinner are an incomprehensible argument to me. If you tell me that god, and heterosexuals find physical homosexual acts distasteful - that at least I understand. I find even the thought of sex with a woman distasteful, but would never treat any heterosexual differently because of it.

And here is the point, eventually --- If you deny me full equal civil rights, the right to chose who I love, the right to marry (civil marriage not Civil partnership), bring up children, the right to live free from harassment, discrimination and violence in all parts of my life because of your beliefs then I would have to say you are a bigot. If you do not then I would say you are not a bigot. At the moment I do not know how you would have voted on such issues so If I did label you a bigot then I apologise, I had absolutely no justification for doing so.

I think if you look at the latest entry on Williams Blog about the guest house, I would describe that as an act of bigotry. One question, don't feel you have to answer it as there is so much stuff going on here already. Is it regarded a sin to let others carry out actions that the bible says are sinful, is it a sin to live and let live?.

Surely one's beliefs should be respected also. It all appears one sided It's all about who makes the bigger noise and it's certainly not the Christians.What about a little respect of our beliefs...other faiths certainly seem to get it!!

We are not allowed to say anything because society wants to furtherance itself from it's Christian heritage..perhaps that's why it's in such a big mess.