Same-Sex Marriage Day in AL

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

Linda has been somewhat "dismissive," perhaps, of some perspectives resulting from training and education in relationship to opinions about homosexuality. If she wanted to cite academic studies, articles, and conclusions drawn across the theological spectrum in this country at the present time, there would be substantial support for her position citing in-depth studies of the original languages, historical perspectives word studies and other hermeneutical tools. Frankly, the only way I see that you can come out with a different perspective is to interject and overlay modern cultural influences and human reason, along with flawed traditional influences. That has the effect of adding substance and context that wasn't there when the text was originally written, which changes the content of the revelation given by the Spirit to the author, and makes conclusions subjective.

I know there are scholars who appeal to the academic side of scripture study to justify their view that same-sex marriage is not wrong or unbiblical, but even in churches that are far to the left on both Biblical interpretation and social issues are seeing opposition to incorporating this teaching into church doctrine.

http://www.virtueonline.org/episcopal-c ... ce-numbers
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... -70-years/

In the Episcopal Church, there is direct correlation between the accelerated drop in attendance and membership, and the church's ordination of gay clergy, and approval of same-sex marriage. An Episcopal church official has called the membership drop "staggering" and one of the articles I referenced above points out that if the drop continues at the current rate, there will be no Episcopal Church in 26 years. That's if the loss continues at the same rate. Unfortunately, for TEC, the losses accelerate each year.

Of course, there are many theological institutions that operate independently from their sponsoring or founding churches, which gives the appearance that this particular view is just one of several "opinions" in the theological community. In fact, those who hold it are a very small minority, and the view is a very recent development among years of church history. The fact is that the view that homosexual behavior is sinful, and thus those who are openly gay or lesbian should not be ordained, nor should the church sanction their partnership, is much more consistently taught, and widely accepted within the church. Linda is reflecting a perspective that she's learned in her church experience which likely came from an academic theological environment which trained the pastors and teachers who influenced her.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

Ed, you better believe I've been dismissive of her comparisons of people in the LGBT community to people who have sex with animals, etc.

Such comments deserve nothing but a dismissal. I'd be equally dismiss comments comparing persons of color to animals or criminals. It is equally vile and objectionable. Her comments are offensive.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

Please do your own digging Ed. Listing sins comparing homosexuality to bestiality etc. is offensive. Sure we are all "animals" in one sense. But comparing loving relationships between two people to having sex with animals is insulting.

[Haruo]

Animal is from the Latin for "those with souls".

[Haruo]

FWIW what I've heard linda complaining about most has been clergy putting her and any who hold that the Bible speaks against homosexuality down on the grounds that they are inadequately educated to make such judgments. Since none of the biblical writers had an MDiv and only Paul is generally believed to have been to seminary, and since there are plenty of scholars on her side of the question, such an assertion is patently pointless, but I would have to have been there to have an opinion of my own as to whether the clergy in question seemed to me to have the attitude linda ascribes to them or whether, in my opinion, she's reading her own stuff into them.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Jon Estes]

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

So now anyone who thinks homosexuality is sin is a "heathen" or at least part of the heathen culture trendsetters.

Would you ( jle or ed) claim the same for anyone who thinks women can speak in church or part of the culture trendsetters wrt women in ministry?

Paul condemned women being anything but silent in church just like homesexuality.

At least be open to honest disagreement about an issue with several pros and cons associated?

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Jon Estes]

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: KeithE writes, Ed, you used he term “heathen” or being influenced by the moving cultural line set by heathens. Not Jon. That is quite inconsiderate of “church people” who feel differently than you do on the subject. Shows a sour attitude towards fellow “church people” supposedly trying to fill the pews.

I agree that Paul condemns homosexuality and not just relationships that are abusive or outside a committed relationship in Romans 1:26-27. In the Cor and Timothy (if Paul be the author), he is rejecting abusive, role playing homosexuality with the 2 Greek words involved (one being passive and one being aggressive). He is reflecting on his culture as a Pharisee of all Pharisees (converted but still under the influence of Jewish law at some points).

But, one has already crossed the line about being totally obedient to Paul’s literal teaching if one allows women to not wear hats when praying/prophesying or even being allowed to speak in church. He also did not condemn slavery. We simply must (if we are to be consistent in biblical application) use judgment / spiritual discernment in applying Scripture today or in any age. At this time in history, science is discovering facts (disputed in some quarters) about homosexuality being inbred in humans as well as animals and many homosexuals are “coming out” from the shadow of hate. Just like there were differing opinions about slavery in American history (among Christians), there are differing opinions (among Christians) about the morality of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. This is honest difference in spiritual discernment among committed Christians. Calling those who disagree with your quite aggressively pointed hatred of the the sin of homosexuality (yes I know you will say you “love the sinner”) “heathens”, or overly influenced by such, is not helpful.

Disagree by all means and state your opinion but be nice to both homosexuals and those more tolerant of homosexuals than you are. Ask your self why this particular sin (if it be such) invokes such language from you (why not the sin of not loving your neighbor, or covetousness or divorce or gluttony or heterosexual lust).

You know one could be equally inconsiderate of your allowing Trudy to preach (Paul said she should be silent in church) or to pray w/o a hat on (maybe she does I do not know).

1 Cor 14:34-35

Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.



1 Cor 11:2-16

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.


Note the underlined is similar to Romans 1:26-27 speaking of the very "nature of things”.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.


What we understand as “natural” changes with both scientific knowledge and cultural forms. Paul is not infallible in discerning what is “natural”.

I say all this to try and show you, Ed and others, that there can be differing opinions among Christians.

Is there a line somewhere that can forever be drawn? I’m not going to expend any effort at such “line drawing” to be apply to others.

Ed: Keith, If you will look at my latest reply to Jon you will see that I am well aware of differing opinions among Christians on this and other issues. Some opinions are right and some are wrong. My opinion is that you have it backwards when you say "Ed, you used he term “heathen” or being influenced by the moving cultural line set by heathens. Not Jon. That is quite inconsiderate of “church people” who feel differently than you do on the subject. Shows a sour attitude towards fellow 'church people' supposedly trying to fill the pews." I believe you are the one being inconsiderate by trying to influence others to accept the practice of homosexuality. And i stand by my observation that the push for acceptance of homosexual practice came from the heathen. Defined as those who worship no God or a god other than the creator of the universe.

In you list of scriptures above I believe you are mixing apples and oranges. I fail to see any parallel in sexual practice and growing or cutting hair. And I have to admit on the hair question I have only a very vague idea of what Paul is talking about.

It is interesting that you seem to consider "Line drawing" as a waste of effort, but are willing to expend considerable time and effort to move the line.

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

Ed I've got a responsibility not to waste my time too. There are no arguments that could be made that would change your mind about homosexuality. We've been around this mountain so many times that it really isn't worth another time around.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Hey TIm, I didn't start this conversation.
And Keith, one thing that I have found minorities dislike is to be "Tolerated".

You guys sure get touchy when others don't bend in your direction.

[Tim Bonney]