Church of England coalition to tackle liberals [Archive]

View Full Version : Church of England coalition to tackle liberals

Iosias

6th July 2007, 12:09 PM

Senior Church of England conservatives are plotting a new coalition to mount their biggest offensive yet against their liberal opponents over issues such as gay priests.

According to insiders, they are planning talks at this week's General Synod aimed at uniting a broad spectrum of evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics to act together during crucial debates.

Supporters of the new movement believe that it could gain the backing of up to half of the Synod, the Church''s "parliament", frustrating the efforts of liberals to promote their agenda. Its leaders are expected to include prominent clergy and lay people within the Synod and the Archbishops' Council, the Church's managing body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/06/nsynod106.xml

ProdigalSeeker

7th July 2007, 07:11 PM

The entire problem with barring homesexuals as clergy is that homosexuality is a sin. Period. No worse, no better- then raping a child. Adultery, lying, wishing harm on someone... all sins according to the above pattern. So, who are we to say that one sinner cannot be clergy (homosexual) while another (adulterer) can? God detests both. While I am neither homosexual nor an adulterer... there are acts that I do that I am POSITIVE God detests... should I not be ordained because I do not always put God first in my life? If we use that at the litmus test of ordination... there would be A LOT of job openings.

EvAng

8th July 2007, 08:38 AM

ProdigalSeeker

8th July 2007, 10:02 AM

No-one is saying that a sinner is barred from ordination however someone who says that a sin is not sinful and/or continues in that sinful lifestyle should not be ordained.

Absolutely. However, some of the people already ordained are guilty of the sin of "pride" thinking they are better or not as bad as "those people".

karen freeinchristman

8th July 2007, 10:24 AM

No-one is saying that a sinner is barred from ordination however someone who says that a sin is not sinful and/or continues in that sinful lifestyle should not be ordained.
I would go so far as to say that EVERY ordained person sins in some way or another that they recognise as sin, but repeatedly commit.

EvAng

8th July 2007, 12:25 PM

I would go so far as to say that EVERY ordained person sins in some way or another that they recognise as sin, but repeatedly commit.

Ordination is open to all repentant sinners who meet the conditions set out in Scripture:

1 Timothy 3 "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

Titus 1:5-9 "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."

Aymn27

8th July 2007, 03:51 PM

Church of England coalition to tackle liberals

I sure hope they use some sort of padding..that could get rather dangerous ;)

ProdigalSeeker

8th July 2007, 05:20 PM

Nice...

I am pretty sure "blameless" means something totally different then as it does today. No man is blameless.

ebia

10th July 2007, 02:43 AM

I would go so far as to say that EVERY ordained person sins in some way or another that they recognise as sin, but repeatedly commit.
And also fails to recognise the sinful nature of something that is, in fact, sinful.

norbie

10th July 2007, 02:55 AM

But Jesus also tells us that before you come to the Altar of God, make up first with your neighbor, make good first is the point here so I think if the liberals restore themself and make good first, like renouncing homosexuality and confessing they were wrong, only then God will forgive I think. You can't live in sin and think, "God forgives anyway" so don't worry. And this is wrong and I hope the CofE don't relax on this.
Just my thoughts

artybloke

10th July 2007, 05:38 AM

Why would they reject something that isn't sinful?

brightmorningstar

10th July 2007, 06:31 AM

Dear artybloke,
Nothing is sinful if one ignores the truth recorded in the Bible.

artybloke

10th July 2007, 06:36 AM

Just because you read the Bible as a Pharisee's handbook doesn't mean we all have to. Just because you ignore the context of the Bible doesn't mean we all have to. Just because you're homophobic doesn't mean we all have to be.

norbie

10th July 2007, 05:45 PM

Why would they reject something that isn't sinful?
And do you realy believe homosexuality is not sinful?:o

Camden202

11th July 2007, 03:17 AM

Just an observation: Is the entire Anglican Communion OBSESSED with SEX????? Specifically, Homosexuality??

Question: Does it really matter??? In all likelyhood, no, and here is why.

SIN is essentially defined as the act or inevitable conclusion of disobedience to the will of God.

Since the dawn of time homosexuality has existed. Indeed there have been many civilisations which have taken it too extremes in relation to religon.....and THAT is the issue here.

Prior to Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt the common practice among the 'slave' population was to assist their masters in religious observances. Some of these Israelite slaves were influenced by this Paganism.

The Pagan practice of religion was centred (in this case) upon the Pagan god... "BAAL". The main crux of Baal worship was to participate in Homosexual and bi-sexual activities whilst in the 'presence of Baal' (i.e the Idol of Baal). Homosexual acts were considered to be a part of the 'sacrafice', what is due to Baal....the Idol was the physical embodiment of the Baal god, you could SEE it, FEEL it...it was a representation of a known quantity.

The ferver to which the pagan civilisations continued to worship these Idols and to obsesse with the see/feel/know religous concept (and indeed priestly scholarship) continued and was not disapated when the Israelites left Egypt under Moses.

So in a historical context you have these various Israelites who are effectively followers of this paganic religious cult of BAAL... who have taken the opportunity to leave Egypt with Moses.....Yes, they leave it behind and through Moses are bought back to God ("I AM")...

However everything seems to be going along nicely except for the fact that the Israelites are wandering around the desert, seemingly for generations, with no other plan than to go to the land which "God" has promised them as revealed by Moses. This is a critical juncture.... because you have to realise that the people who left Baal... expected just to wander around for a short time, go to this "promised land" and settle down; they did not expect to be camped in the desert for at least 2 generations.

Thus...they began questioning.. 'who is this "God" '... and 'what do we know of this "God" '... and "why can't we 'see' this "GOD"; we could 'see' Baal, so why not THIS 'God' "..... and so on.

This is WHY we have the incident of the Golden Calf related in Exodus 32.

The actions of the people in demanding to 'see' the God that Moses claims is their God... conflicts with what was previously understood and practiced by the people in Egypt... something they could See/Touch/Know......the people in the desert knew nothing of God, there were no priests.... there was no lessons daily from Moses about what God does/acts/is etc...

So the people build the Golden Calf. Aaron must surely have thrown his hands in the air and said to himself "oh well, the majority have spoken, I dont want to get killed in a riot, I'll let Moses work it out..."....

So now, in the Desert.. the people have a 'god' who they "KNOW"... and "SEE".

This is one of the reasons that explains why after the Golden Calf was destroyed, that Moses gives the people the lecture about what IS known about "God"... and then God institues the "Tent of the Meeting" (in the Temple, Holy of Holies..)

So in essence what we have here... is a people who have been lead AWAY from God, been disobedient to the will of God... ignored God's directions.... not been loyal to God and been unfaithful to God.......ALL because of the human trait of needing to see the physical evidence of God's existance. Hence reverting to the Baal Idol worhip practices... which included Homosexuality.

This is the foundation.... the cornerstone for God telling Moses... that Homosexuality is a Sin and an Abomonation.

The reason God says this surely reflects the fact that God does not require such activities in order for his people to worship/praise him...nor does God wish his people to fall into disobedience and unfaithfulness toward him by commiting such acts in the worship of an Idol.

But more importantly... God... is not Baal.... God is God and requires certain things of his people. Obedience, loyalty, faithfulness etc...... A homosexual act is not reminicient of any of these attributes, rather it is a desire of the flesh...and it is THAT desire which causes the disobedience, unfaithfulness and conflicts with loyalty.

God does not WANT the desire of the flesh as found in a Homosexual act to allow the person(s) involved to lust and continue to do such acts WHEN SUCH ACTS IGNORE AND DETRACT from the obedience, loyalty and faithfulness to God by the people involved. That is the SIN

The act itself is NOT sinful...it is the potential outcome of a continuation of the act that presents the greatest threat to God. This is of course a quirk of humanity, an ajunct of 'free-will'.

Paul of course knew the Jewish position, he understood the foundation (golden calf) and he wrote out strongly against it.

But I ask you... do you or should you take it quite literally... then condemn every human being who has commited such an act?? Is it automatically a one way ticket to Hell Fire and Brimstone???? No, I don't believe it is.

The essence of a homosexual "Sin" against God is the continuation of such activities to the oblivious and ignorance of God himself, what God requires of the person etc. To live an entirely homosexual life (the 'life' thus becomming the 'Idol') whilst also acknowledging God's existance but ignoring God... is Blaspheming the Spirit - which we know to be the greatest of all Sins (straight to hell, no salvation).

However, this is my inevitable conclusion. A person CAN BE homosexual, they can commit homosexual acts... but if that person is wholly upright, obedient to God and everything that comes with it... that person is wholly loved and justified before God.

Why... because the homosexual person IS NOT like the Israelites who built the Golden Calf. The person acknowledges God, adheres to God and does not make or use their homosexual tendencies or actions in absentia of God... his son Jesus Christ... or the Holy Spirit.

Those within the Anglican Church should be ashamed and weep.... for their 'literal' reading of the Bible without understanding the foundation behind why the writings exist in the first place... is .... not of God.

I can hear Jesus weeping for the Anglican Church... saying "Father... forgive them, they know not what they do"

Domine, Non Sum Dignas - "Lord, I am not worthy"

brightmorningstar

11th July 2007, 04:43 AM

Dear artybloke,

Just because you read the Bible as a Pharisee's handbook doesn't mean we all have to. Just because you ignore the context of the Bible doesn't mean we all have to. Just because you're homophobic doesn't mean we all have to be.
No I dont read the Bible as a Pharisee's handbook, when I read the Bible I see the Pharisees mostly disagreed with Jesus, though not always.
The text, its content and context is something I have presented at length and in detail on this issue for months on this forum, your comment about ignoring it is not true. As I have very good homosexual friends I dont mind being homophobic. Why are you ant-Christian then if you dont beiieve what the Bible says?

brightmorningstar

11th July 2007, 04:55 AM

Dear Camden202,
I agree with some of the things you say but I think you are missing some crucial fundamentals.

However, this is my inevitable conclusion. A person CAN BE homosexual, they can commit homosexual acts... but if that person is wholly upright, obedient to God and everything that comes with it... that person is wholly loved and justified before God. No, the person cant be wholly upright or wholly obedient if they commit homosexual acts willfully. However all people sin and fall short at some point. We are justified by Christ alone,(Roamans 5 and many times wriiten in the NT) God has already shown He loves us through Jesus, (John 3:16) but Jesus makes it clear that we will be judged as to whether we love God (John 15, Matthew 25)
The issue here is not that homosexuals are sinners, they are no more so than all hetersoexuals are, but that some are claiming homosexual practice is not a sin.

I can hear Jesus weeping for the Anglican Church... saying "Father... forgive them, they know not what they do" Which is fair enough if people dont repent and receive the forgiveness Jesus has made available by His blood and death on the cross, then as Christians we should pray for them. But on the cross of course His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins, one of which is same-sex sex.

brightmorningstar

11th July 2007, 05:06 AM

Dear prodigalseeker,
The problem is having homosexual clergy or heterosexual clergy, it is having clergy that live out, teach and believe in heterosexual and homosexual sins.

brightmorningstar

11th July 2007, 05:10 AM

I think the problem is some are now looking for a solution to the solution, the solution having been identifed as either the Communion complies to Lambeth 1.10 according to Windsor.

Camden202

11th July 2007, 05:33 AM

Dear Camden202,
I agree with some of the things you say but I think you are missing some crucial fundamentals.

No, the person cant be wholly upright or wholly obedient if they commit homosexual acts willfully. However all people sin and fall short at some point. We are justified by Christ alone,(Roamans 5 and many times wriiten in the NT) God has already shown He loves us through Jesus, (John 3:16) but Jesus makes it clear that we will be judged as to whether we love God (John 15, Matthew 25)
The issue here is not that homosexuals are sinners, they are no more so than all hetersoexuals are, but that some are claiming homosexual practice is not a sin.

Which is fair enough if people dont repent and receive the forgiveness Jesus has made available by His blood and death on the cross, then as Christians we should pray for them. But on the cross of course His blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins, one of which is same-sex sex.
Brightmorning Star,

How can you say this "The issue here is not that homosexuals are sinners, they are no more so than all hetersoexuals are, but that some are claiming homosexual practice is not a sin."

Yet you ignore the Biblical truth (as I have painstakingly outlined in my post above) that homosexual practice BY ITSELF is not a Sin .......

Quite simply the whole issue here is that you have no justification for calling homosexual practice a 'sin' unless you substantiate WHY it is 'sinful'....

I have outlined for you in my post WHY and HOW homosexuality is sinful....and no where does it say or draw any conclusion that the act by itself is a 'Sin'.

How can you take or accept a 'literal' interpretation of the Biblical verses in relation to the issue... if you cannot comprehend or understand the foundations of why they are there in the first place.

No one is arguing with you that we are all sinners, whatever sexual orientation ... thats a given, but you have no right to overlay this generality and tangentically overlay it into something as specific as Homosexuality.

Frankly, I am saddened and appauled that you could read my post (above) and still read those verses 'literally'.

To read them 'litterally' is to be fundamentalist and extreamist... and that is not healty. Nor is it Christ like.

I pray that you re-read my post and open your heart and think about it, reflect upon it.

What will you ask Jesus when you go to heaven "Lord.. why is that man here, he is Gay... an abomination... why is he here beside you".....

This is what Jesus will say

"Because I love him as much as I love you...he gave as much to me as you gave to me.... he accepted me the same way you accepted me..... he has every right to be by my side"

Does being 'gay' make you the least of God's children? No...it does not and the sooner the Anglican Communion recognise it.. the faster we can all move on to more important things and rid ourselves of this 'obsession'.

EvAng

11th July 2007, 05:34 AM

Camden202

11th July 2007, 05:45 AM

[ Deleted by Camden202 ]

God Bless

norbie

11th July 2007, 07:07 AM

Dear Camden202, can't you understand this, that to receive Jesus mercy and forgiveness of sin we have to be out of this sining, we have to repent and are sorry for our sin. God will not forgive a sin if we still continue in it.
the faster we can all move on to more important things and rid ourselves of this 'obsession'.
No, deffently no to this. If the Anglican Church would go to this extreme acceptance there would be at least 50% living the church, myself included.
This would be the end of the Church.

ebia

11th July 2007, 07:25 AM

Dear Camden202, can't you understand this, that to receive Jesus mercy and forgiveness of sin we have to be out of this sining, we have to repent and are sorry for our sin. God will not forgive a sin if we still continue in it.

Each of us, without exception, has sins that we don't recognise, let alone 'repent' of, so I guess we are all toast and the whole project is a waste of time. Or maybe, just maybe, God is big enough to cope with that too.

the faster we can all move on to more important things and rid ourselves of this 'obsession'.
No, deffently no to this. If the Anglican Church would go to this extreme acceptance there would be at least 50% living the church, myself included.
This would be the end of the Church.
There are plenty of other things that we manage to disagree about whether or not they are sinful without pronouncing each other apostate. Why the fixation with this one?

brightmorningstar

11th July 2007, 07:55 AM

Dear Camden202,

Yet you ignore the Biblical truth (as I have painstakingly outlined in my post above) that homosexual practice BY ITSELF is not a Sin ....... The Biblical truth is that same-sex sex is a sin in itself. The Biblical passges make it quite clear that the practice is as sin, some also say and that pagans do it. I dont accpet your assumption.

Quite simply the whole issue here is that you have no justification for calling homosexual practice a 'sin' unless you substantiate WHY it is 'sinful'.... I have substantiated it, Genesis 2, Matthew 19 Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6-7 and Hebrews 13 clearly excludes the practice acording to God's purpose in creating woman for man, and Genesis 19, Judges 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2 and Jude condemn it as sin.

So I have justified it whether you like that justification or not, what I want to see is your justification for it from scripture, then I will tell you whether I accept your justification or not.

Frankly, I am saddened and appauled that you could read my post (above) and still read those verses 'literally'. I literally read what the verse texts says and then understand what they mean in context. I am not bothered whether you are appalled or not as I think you are denying what the verses clearly say.

To read them 'litterally' is to be fundamentalist and extreamist... and that is not healty. Nor is it Christ like. On the contrary to reject them is to be a non-believer

What will you ask Jesus when you go to heaven "Lord.. why is that man here, he is Gay... an abomination... why is he here beside you"..... I dont expect to be asking Jesus, I expect Jesus to be asking me to account for what I have said and done. If you are happy to give account for yourself, fine. ... I'll stick with what Jesus has already plainly taught us.

:)

brightmorningstar

11th July 2007, 07:58 AM

Dear ebia,
Each of us, without exception, has sins that we don't recognise, let alone 'repent' of, We may not recognise we do the sin, but we recognise what sin is because Jesus has told us and the Holy Spirit convicts us. ... its one of those things that makes us Christians.

Camden202

11th July 2007, 08:07 AM

Dear Norbie,

What you are saying is a generalisation.

I have previously in my (painstaking) post not only defined 'Sin' as we all know it... but demonstrated how and why Homosexual behaviour is consistent with 'Sin.

I would have hoped that by explaining the theological foundation of Homosexuality/Sin.... that it would be sufficient for those who rely on "literal generalisations" to at least grasp why they cannot rely on a literal interpretation (based on zero understanding) and still make the same pronouncments.

I have said it before and I will say it again... the act or behaviour of being homosexual is not a 'sin' against God, nor is it consistent with the biblical foundation thereof UNLESS that behaviour or act is the CAUSE or inevitable outcome of blaspheming the spirit.

That is, a person who is homosexual and who knows God exists, understands the nature of God.... yet 'denies' God prefering to adopt a "homosexual lifestyle" which is devoid of God. It is thus demonstrable that the Act BY ITSELF is not a Sin... but that God does not wish for such a fleshy desire to come between his creation and obedience to his will.

It is that 'desire' that is a Sin.... not the Act or behaviour in isolation.

If the Anglican Church thinks that there are not homosexual people who are God fearing regular church goers.... then I am afraid that the view is delusional and pure fantasy.

I doubt that 50% of the church would 'leave'...do you deny your own faith and beliefs simply because there is a change in understanding of and ancillary issue (which is not even a fundamental or essential aspect,e.g salvation, Articles of Faith, Creed etc).

As you are aware, given that your in Australia, there has already been a schism of sorts in the form of the TAC. Personally I disagree with groups such as Forward in Faith, Anglican Church League or any other paratheological-political group..... Im Anglican and I am for 'Jesus' and thats the end game for me.

My question is... if it is your view that you would rather not be a part of the Anglican Communion if that communion was welcoming of homosexual people.......why do you think that this particular issue is sufficiently important for you to deny the remainder of what you understand about what it is to be Anglican???

How can being insular and 'fundamental' about an issue which is generalised and literal (not understood either theologically or even in in its rawest biblical foundation) be an appropriate way for the Anglican Communion to move forward in a Christ-like fashion. Simply it can not.

Camden202

11th July 2007, 08:18 AM

Brightmorningstar,

You wrote:

"The Biblical truth is that same-sex sex is a sin in itself. The Biblical passges make it quite clear that the practice is as sin, some also say and that pagans do it. I dont accpet your assumption."

Your comment is a complete contradiction.

On one hand you say that the act (same-sex sex) is ITSELF a sin......yet on the otherhand you claim biblical authority to pronounce the PRACTICE as Sin.

1) Yes, the 'practice' is a Sin and the reason is because it is a desire of the flesh... as such it detracts from obedience to God... THAT IS THE SIN... NOT the Act.

2) You suggest that the biblical foundation (which is theologically and historically based) is not relevant because it relates to pagan practice (i.e Baal worship).... to deny this is to live in fantasy land, practice a lie and make pronouncements about literal texts that are pure delusional.

If you have a problem with how I have outlined (painstakingly) in my original post in this matter..then address the substance of that post and demonstrate WHY it is incorrect. You might find it very surprising when you reflect upon it... that your current 'literal' viewpoint is a generalisation.

I am not here to say that one side is wrong or the other is right.... but I urge EVERY intelligent thinking Anglican to LOOK at the foundation behind this, and judge for yourself.

I cannot accept that Jesus came to save the world... but somehow the world wants to exclude homosexuals from his saving grace.

Camden202

11th July 2007, 08:21 AM

Brightmorningstar,

You wrote: "I have substantiated it, Genesis 2, Matthew 19 Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6-7 and Hebrews 13 clearly excludes the practice acording to God's purpose in creating woman for man, and Genesis 19, Judges 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2 and Jude condemn it as sin.

So I have justified it whether you like that justification or not, what I want to see is your justification for it from scripture, then I will tell you whether I accept your justification or not."

The very first post I made in this thread was a painstaking exergesis of the foundation of this very subject.

It is clear that you have not read it. I would urge you to read it and I would be interested in your thoughts..

God Bless.

Camden202

11th July 2007, 08:28 AM

Dear Camden202,

I literally read what the verse texts says and then understand what they mean in context. I am not bothered whether you are appalled or not as I think you are denying what the verses clearly say.

brightmorningstar,

Sometimes the bible requires you to not just read it literally, determine the context.... but to also understand the theological foundation and historicity of the text itself.

On this particular subject it is extreamly easy to ignore the theological context and historicity and simply 'point and shoot'.

Your stated understanding of the literal and contextual issues are valid, justified even... IF these were the only elements which you apply to the text; but they are not.

The problem I have is this: that the Anglican Communion seems to be ignoring the biblical foundation (sin-effect) and soley relying on 'text and context' to the exclusion of others. In doing so alienates people who are no less acceptable to Jesus than the people making the pronouncements.

I again refer you to the very first post I have made in relation to this issue/thread.

Could I ask you to read it and to give me your thoughts.

God Bless

Camden202

11th July 2007, 08:51 AM

brightmorningstar

11th July 2007, 10:13 AM

Dear Camden202,

Thanks for your reply.
1) Yes, the 'practice' is a Sin and the reason is because it is a desire of the flesh... as such it detracts from obedience to God... THAT IS THE SIN... NOT the Act. I see what you are saying but the scripture says and indicates both as sin. This is where you are missing half of what the scripture says.
God gave the law which said don’t do what defiles (ie Lev 18) and Jesus points out that sin leads to death.(ie John 8) So disobedience leads to death.
Jesus also teaches that if we obey His teaching we love Him. Its not just that pagans disobey but that disobeying is pagan, its not just that pagans sin but that sin defiles and leads to death. Same-sex sex is error which leads to death (Romans 1) and same-sex sex is what pagans do (Leviticus 18)

But I agree with you that disobedience is sin but furthermore, as to Baal, see in Numbers 25 that it was sexual immorality that seduced the Israelites into worshipping Baal or Peor, but see also that when the Israelite and the pagan had the spear driven through them God’s honour was restored., an atonement had been made.

Now
1) Trying to use a discourse from Matthew 19/Mark10 which clearly relates to 'divorce of husband and wife' and Jesus discussion thereof is not a pretext which supports your view. The pretext being that "what God has joined together let no man put asunder"; with the obvious reference to marriage in the Judaistic tradition.
Sorry you are still disputing my evidence, my evidence, Matt 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6-7, Hebrews 13 is not about the divorce but relates to Genesis 2, God made woman for man, it was for this reason that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. What I am asking you is where is your evidence for a same-sex relationship in the OT and NT Covenant as God’s purpose? Then I will tell you whether I accept it or not.

God Bless

Camden202

11th July 2007, 11:38 AM

Dear Camden202,

Thanks for your reply.
I see what you are saying but the scripture says and indicates both as sin. This is where you are missing half of what the scripture says.

God gave the law which said don’t do what defiles (ie Lev 18) and Jesus points out that sin leads to death.(ie John 8)

So disobedience leads to death.

"So disobedience leads to death".....this is my exact point.

The scripture does not indicate 'both' as Sin.. infact it doesn't even have plurality. It is singular and the Pauline exergesis of the OT writings (i.e Judaistic understanding) are one and the same understanding which ... as I keep saying has a foundation in 'disobedient practices' (e.g Baal worship-homosexual activities which MAKE UP Baal worship).

This leads me back to what I was demonstrating in my very first post... and which I reiterated to you in my exergesis of Judges 19.... that homosexual actions are NOT by themselves sinful.... it is when such actions detract from God (blaspheming the spirit, ignoring God, disobeying God) when they become sinful.

This is the foundation theology behind the Golden Calf incident. Or do you think that it was just as simple as a few Israelites holding hands around a Golden Bull singing 'heil Baal'??? NO... it was NOT that simple, clearly there is more too it.... I have tried my best to explain to you in simple terms an aditional part.

Have you ever asked yourself... WHY God even bothered to give Moses the instruction found in leviticus (viz homosexuality)???? Clearly theres something behind it... I have tried to simply explain it...

But your chosing to ignore it and just run with the generalisations found in a literal reading (with context).

I would urge you again to read your Bible... consider what I have written here... read my original posting, my exergesis on Judges 19..... and pray.

It is only in understanding that we can accept that homosexual people are not lesser christians (or christians at all), as this seems to be the prevailing attitude in sections of the Anglican Communion.

Camden202

11th July 2007, 11:52 AM

Sorry you are still disputing my evidence, my evidence, Matt 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6-7, Hebrews 13 is not about the divorce but relates to Genesis 2, God made woman for man, it was for this reason that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. What I am asking you is where is your evidence for a same-sex relationship in the OT and NT Covenant as God’s purpose? Then I will tell you whether I accept it or not.

God Bless

1) Yes I am disputing the methodology your using trying to tangenticaly attach Genesis 2 to Matt 19/Mark 10.

The reason being is because even on a literal/contextual/theological/Judeao historical view... they relate directly to the question put to Jesus, and that question related to Divorce (Man and Female breaking up).

To give further substance to my point I would ask you to find ONE reference where Jesus specifically says "The act of homosexuality is a sin".... or anything remotely close.

The fact is that at no juncture did Our Lord discuss it, talk about it or even mention it... let alone expound it. This is despite the fact that large sections (as you have pointed out) of the early OT make direct reference to it. So the opportunity was there, particularly from the Jewish Sects who were trying to 'trip him up'.... the opportunity existed... but it didn't ever occur.

If it was good enough for Jesus ... why is it not good enough for the Anglican Communion to accept?

Matt 7 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and the measure you use, it will be measured to you." (Jesus)

Again... I have no doubt Jesus is looking at the Anglican Communion.... with tears in his eyes...... as are many Anglicans who do not understand how their own brothers and sisters in Christ can behave as they are right now.

The Anglican Communion has enough issues to deal with without obsessing over sex. Clearly we have to embrace those within our community leaving our generalisations of literal interpretation of scriptures behind us.... and do what Christ himself instructed us to do "love one another... as I have loved you".

God Bless.

brightmorningstar

12th July 2007, 03:15 AM

Dear Camden202,

So disobedience leads to death".....this is my exact point. and I agree with you but sin is what the disobedience is because it defiles. Mark 7, Matthew 15. Your argument doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge this. If disobedience is the sin, then what constitutes disobedience? Well we can see because we are told and same-sex sex as part of sexual immorality is one of those manifestations of disobedience.

You make the assumption same-sex sex is not sinful in Judges 19, yet Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 and 20 tells you the practice is error, defiles and against the knowledge of God.

It is only in understanding that we can accept that homosexual people are not lesser christians (or christians at all), as this seems to be the prevailing attitude in sections of the Anglican Communion. Of course not, some Christians who have same-sex attraction know the truth that same-sex sex is error to God’s purposes and therefore sin.

) Yes I am disputing the methodology your using trying to tangenticaly attach Genesis 2 to Matt 19/Mark 10. As its quoted I don’t see how you can make that statement. And you missed Ephesians 5 etc. The divorce issues is explained by Genesis 2, the Pharisees hadn’t grasped it, neither have you. Its why the Christian church has always realised that sex is supposed to be within a faithful marriage.

To give further substance to my point I would ask you to find ONE reference where Jesus specifically says "The act of homosexuality is a sin".... or anything remotely close. Sorry I cant keep showing you what you refuse to believe, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality it’s a modern perversion, unless you can come up with some scripture, one single reference where Jesus countenances man and man in sexual union , you don’t have any substance to your argument.

Camden202, the Christian churches uphold the teaching that sex is to be within a faithful man/woman marriage, and sex outside is sin, including specifically where same-sex sex is error. The Anglican Communion believes this too, Lambeth 1.10. I don’t accept your revisionism I think its major disbelief and has no part in a Christian church.

artybloke

12th July 2007, 05:32 AM

Scripture is clear that homosexuality is sinful.
Only to those who've already decided that it's clear. People with blinkers, that is.

Camden202

12th July 2007, 06:49 AM

Sorry I cant keep showing you what you refuse to believe, Jesus never mentioned homosexuality it’s a modern perversion, unless you can come up with some scripture, one single reference where Jesus countenances man and man in sexual union , you don’t have any substance to your argument.

You say that homosexuality is a "Modern Perversion".... perhaps you just like ignorning history.

1) Macedonian Greeks
2) Romans
3) Pre-Exodus Israelites
4) Chaldeans
5) Babylonians

Should I go on?? or do you need further examples throughout history to demonstrate that it is NOT a "Modern Perversion"........ Paul was an educated Jew of the Pharisee Sect, his writings reflect the Jewish OT understanding and biblical foundation.

Yet your claim ignores this and prefers to use the Pauline Epistles statments on this issue to the exclusion of the very foundation upon which they stand.

What is bizzare is that you make biblical references to Pauline Epistles. This is AFTER I made the succinct observation that EVERY Pauline reference was based/founded in the Judaistic understanding of OT Writings....

You cannot claim biblical precedence or superiority of Pauline Epistles to the exclusion of OT writings.

You claim I have not demonstrated 'direct' support from Jesus ("love one another as I have loved you" is not good enough??)....Yet you fail to demonstrate any directive from Jesus to support your claim, relying upon Jesus discourse on Divorce (Judaistic understanding). So your again using a tangent in support of a claim.

I on the other hand gave you the historicity of the theology BEHIND the very reason God bothered to mention it in Leviticus in the first place.

There is nothing in Genesis 2 which relates in any way to homosexuality. Genesis 2 relates to a discourse of Man and Women. God does not make any pronouncement and to tangentically link the two and make the claim that you have is absurd.

I have accepted your previous reference which you gave Judges 19... I expounded it to you demonstrating that it is obvious from the text the 'crowd' were Baal-ite and this is supported by the statement found in Judges 19 30:31 "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt", clearly referring to the Israelites abandoning pagan practices and comming back to God.

Yet you ignore this, you fail to address this, acknowledge this... and it simply does not support your view Biblically.

It is a tragedy that the wider Anglican Communion is not 'inclusive' but rather 'insular' on this issue.

God Bless.

EvAng

12th July 2007, 07:04 AM

Only to those who've already decided that it's clear. People with blinkers, that is.

No, those faithful to Scripture.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1:26-32 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Jude 1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

:preach:

See also this (http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Homosexuality/).

Camden202

12th July 2007, 07:11 AM

Dear Camden202,

and I agree with you but sin is what the disobedience is because it defiles. Mark 7, Matthew 15. Your argument doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge this. If disobedience is the sin, then what constitutes disobedience? Well we can see because we are told and same-sex sex as part of sexual immorality is one of those manifestations of disobedience.

********

I APOLOGISE UNRESERVEDLY IF THE CONTENT OF THIS POST OFFENDS ANYONE - IT IS NOT MY INTENTION.

********

I am amazed that you are using Mark 7 and Matthew 15 to support your discourse.

Both Mark 7 and Matthew 15 deal with the Pharisees and their obsession with 'clean and unclean'.

So your trying to compare homosexuality to the Jewish rite of purification, observance of the Sabbath, religous dietary restrictions and every other 'ritual' that was has since been debunked (mostly by Pauline writings, but also directly by Peter)????

The only link you have is the last minute "adultery(Exod), sexual immorality (Lev)" part of both texts.... the discourse does not run into a wholescale biblical condenmation.

In terms of 'sexual immorality' that may include.... masturbation, beastiality, pederasty, fornication etc etc etc

So on that basis.... EVERY human being is 'sexually immoral' at one junction or another... SO why is there such a venom in relation to homosexuality to the exclusion of say... masturbation or... fornication???

Can you imagine if every male Anglican was completely honest with themselves and God in relation to sexual immorality (specifically masturbation), you would need to 'take a ticket' and get in a que, stand around for hours just to GET to a confessional box....let alone MAKE confession. "Forgive me father for I have been sexually immoral.... I have masturbated 5 times this week"........

Quite simply the attitude of the wider Anglican Communion in relation to homosexuality and everything that holds it together is duplicious.

Male Anglicans continue to masturbate just as homosexuals continue in their activities......So why isn't the Anglican Church split on the issue of ongoing 'masturbation' by male Anglicans?? It's the SAME Sin as 'homosexuality' (sexual immorality)... but it isn't an issue?? Why not???

Whats the difference between masturbation and homosexuality? Maybe masturbation IS a homosexual act???? Theres a tangent.....

The wider Anglican Communion is OBSESSED with homosexuality.. but give tacit approval to masturbation... THIS is duplicous.

It demonstrates that the wider Anglican Communion would rather be exclusionist rather than inclusive.

Here again.... history repeats itself... where certain members of the Anglican Communion have become Modern Pharisee's.

Again, I can hear Jesus say "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do".

God Bless

brightmorningstar

12th July 2007, 07:20 AM

Dear Camden202,
You say that homosexuality is a "Modern Perversion".... perhaps you just like ignorning history.
Well how can I be ignoring history when throughout the thousands of years of the Biblical times same-sex sex is described as going on and wrong?

I think you need to define what you mean by ‘homosexual’ before you ask where the Bible mentions it. I think you will find that the definition includes orientation and practice, I don’t think the Bible addresses the orientation directly.

Paul was an educated Jew of the Pharisee Sect, his writings reflect the Jewish OT understanding and biblical foundation. Again this is only part of the Biblical story, Paul was an expert in Greek philosophy, living in Tarsus, a Roman citizen and knew Roman law and culture, and an expert in Jewish law having trained under raban Gamaliel. However Jesus revealed Himself to Paul and the gospel. Paul did not learnt from men as such. Therefore his writing relfects what Jesus revelaed to him, thats what Paul says. If you are saying his wriiting reflects the Jewish understanding, I would point out it also did while he was Saul and perdsecuting believers, what you seem to have implied is that his writing doesnt reflect the Christian understanding of the OT. Jesus pointed out to the Jews that they searched the OT scriptures but couldn't see evidence of Him. Perhaps you could calrify what you mean there.

There is nothing in Genesis 2 which relates in any way to homosexuality. So if God made woman for man for the purpose explained, how could He have meant man to be with man. You know a petrol station is made for cars to fill up with petrol, one could fill the car up with water, but the purpose of the petrol station is petrol. I would say homosexual practice relates to Genesis 2, it isn’t God’s purpose.

It is a tragedy that the wider Anglican Communion is not 'inclusive' but rather 'insular' on this issue. Absolutely not, the church cant endorse the sin Christ has saved us from, why many homosexuals in the church will tell you that. Its not a question of sexuality, it’s a question of belief.

Now unless you can come up with some evidence to support your argument I have no intention of just listening to your disbelief and rejection of the scripture I cite.

God Bless.

EvAng

12th July 2007, 07:20 AM

********

I APOLOGISE UNRESERVEDLY IF THE CONTENT OF THIS POST OFFENDS ANYONE - IT IS NOT MY INTENTION.

Please remember that we have an 11 year old on STR and such explicit language is not acceptable. Thank you :thumbsup:

Camden202

12th July 2007, 07:22 AM

No, those faithful to Scripture.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1:26-32 "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Jude 1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

:preach:

See also this (http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Homosexuality/).

Again... your using a circular argument to justify your postion.

EVERY Pauline writing, even Jude... is BASED in OT Jewish Theology.... do deny this is to ignore a central truth of the Christian Faith... that the New Testament is a fulfilment of the Old Testament.

You cannot have one.. without the other.

Perhaps you can explain WHY God chose to give the discourse in Leviticus which you use.... and you can explain the theological and historical foundation of it.

I have done this previously... you ignored it and continue with this generalisation based on litteral reading (but you fail to explain the context).

Again... I would be interested in what you observe as the theological and historical foundation (OT) of your view.

God Bless.

EvAng

12th July 2007, 07:26 AM

Again... your using a circular argument to justify your postion.

:scratch:

EVERY Pauline writing, even Jude... is BASED in OT Jewish Theology.... do deny this is to ignore a central truth of the Christian Faith... that the New Testament is a fulfilment of the Old Testament.

Who is denying that?

You cannot have one.. without the other.

NT without the OT and vice versa? :amen:

I have done this previously... you ignored it...

Oh right well which post is it and I will have a read of it. :)

EvAng

12th July 2007, 07:33 AM

Homosexuality: A Biblical Analysis

By: Brian Schwertley (http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/s36p1327.htm)

This is an age of increasing acceptance and approval of homosexuality. Homosexuality is portrayed by many in government, in public education and in our colleges and universities as just one of many normal, legitimate lifestyle choices. Those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle on moral and religious grounds are usually portrayed by the intellectual elite, the media and the entertainment industry as ignorant bigots who are full of hatred, “homophobic,” and so on.

It is true that some people hate homosexuals. Some people even engage in “gay bashing.” But it must be remembered that people who engage in such activities are sinning against God; they are not at all living in accordance with the law of Christ. The true Christian loves the homosexual and shows it by treating him in a lawful manner, according to the law of God (1 Jn. 5:3). Slander, violence, hatred and scorn should never be the attitude of a Christian toward the homosexual; Christians should protect homosexuals from personal attack. Yet, while the Christian should love the homosexual by treating him lawfully, he must also love him by being biblically honest with him. A person’s attitude toward homosexuality must not be shaped by our changing, pagan culture but by God’s inspired, infallible revelation, the Bible. The Bible offers hope to the homosexual because it speaks the truth and proclaims forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ.

The Creation Ordinance of Marriage

In order to have a proper understanding of human sexuality one must go back to the beginning of mankind. In the beginning God created one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve). God did not create two men (e.g., Adam and Steve) or two women (e.g., Eve and Yvette). God created Adam first from the dust of ground; He then created Eve from Adam’s rib. Eve was created to be Adam’s wife. The Bible says they were naked, yet they were not ashamed. God’s creation of one man and one woman to be husband and wife is the pattern or paradigm for God-sanctioned, normal, moral, blessed sexual relations. “The marriage union is God-ordained, and its sacred precincts must not be polluted by the intrusion of a third party, of either sex” (F. F. Bruce).

Jesus Christ quoted Genesis 2:24 as clear proof that polygamy (having more than one wife) and divorce (except in the case of adultery) are condemned by God (Mt. 19:5). The Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said that there is only one moral, legitimate outlet for man’s God-given sex drive—marriage (1 Cor. 7:2). Monogamous, heterosexual marriage is the only way to have sex without sin and guilt. “Marriage is honorable among all, and the [marriage] bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4 [all Scriptures NKJV]). Anything contrary to the creation ordinance of marriage between one man and one woman is unacceptable before God and sinful. The Bible condemns all sexual activity outside of monogamous, heterosexual marriage: homosexuality, premarital sex, polygamy, adultery, bestiality and so on. “Let no one deceive you with empty words,” says Paul, “for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 5:6).

The Law of God

God’s moral law clearly condemns homosexuality of any kind: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.... If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13). Apologists for homosexuality try to circumvent the clear, unambiguous statements of God’s law with blatant Scripture-twisting and excuse-making arguments.

Some argue that the law of God does condemn homosexuality; they teach that God’s law is just a human record of ancient Jewish custom and prejudice. These people deny the Mosaic authorship of the law and are ethical relativists. Their argument must be rejected because Christ and the apostles accepted the divine authorship, infallibility and absolute authority of the Old Testament (Mt. 22:39-40; Jn. 10:35; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). If you reject God’s law by saying it is only the purely human ideas of ancient Jewry, then you cannot claim Christ as your Savior. You must believe either that Jesus was mistaken in His view of God’s law or that He was a liar. Be forewarned: Jesus Christ is God (Jn. 1:1, 8:58-59); He cannot be mistaken or lie (Num. 23:19).

Others teach that the laws condemning homosexuality were meant only for the nation of Israel. The Old Testament laws passed away with the coming of Jesus Christ. This view is popular among those who claim to be “evangelical homosexuals.” This view is totally unbiblical. When the New testament says that Christians are dead to the law, it means that Christ has fulfilled the law (the covenant of works) for the believer, and removed the curse of the law through His sacrificial death. Christians who are united to Jesus Christ in His perfect sinless life and His sacrificial death are raised with Christ and enabled by His Spirit to live unto God. Paul says that “the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (Rom. 7:12). Christ did not get rid of the moral law. He obeyed it perfectly for the believer. He died to remove the guilt of sin and He sends the Holy Spirit so believers have the power to obey God’s law. If Christ did away with the law in the sense that homosexual apologists assert, then there would be no need for Him to die, for if there is no law, there is no sin and guilt. The only laws which are no longer binding are laws specifically tied to the land of Israel (e.g., the jubilee) and the ceremonial laws. The ceremonial laws pointed to Jesus Christ and His work through types and figures. God’s moral law and the civil case laws based on the moral law are still in force. God’s law is based on His nature and character; therefore, it is absolute, unchanging and eternal.

It is obvious that the prohibitions against homosexuality have nothing to do with the sacrificial system; they clearly are not ceremonial in nature. Furthermore, if the laws against homosexuality were only meant for the nation of Israel, then why is homosexuality condemned in Sodom, over four hundred years before the nation of Israel existed: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh [homosexuality], are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7)? Although Sodom was generally characterized by wickedness, Genesis 19 presents homosexuality as the last stage of debauchery. The men of Sodom desired homosexual relations with Lot’s guests and were willing to rape them if necessary. God wrought total destruction upon Sodom. Sodom was not destroyed because the inhabitants were inhospitable, as some claim. Just being inhospitable would not explain such a total judgment by God. God utterly destroyed the city; only Lot and his family were spared.

Some homosexual apologists argue that God’s law only condemns male cultic prostitution. They argue that modern homosexuality has nothing to do with the idolatrous, pagan homosexuality practiced in ancient times. God does clearly condemn male prostitution and the cultic fertility rites associated with it; Deuteronomy 23:17-18 does apply to cultic prostitution. But Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 do not mention cultic prostitution at all. “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 20:13).

The attempt to consolidate all the prohibitions against homosexuality into only one which deals with ancient cultic prostitution reveals an obvious pro-homosexual bias by these interpreters. They are forcing the biblical text into a pro-homosexual mold. They are being dishonest with the clear intent of God’s Word. They are reading their own pro-homosexual presuppositions into God’s law. It is illegitimate to condense three distinct prohibitions (Lev. 18:22, 20:13; Dt. 23:17-18) into one. Pro-homosexual interpreters know this but do not care, because they are not interested in the truth; they are only interested in justifying their wicked, perverted behavior. Furthermore, their interpretation could be used to justify having sexual intercourse with sheep and goats, because bestiality was also part of ancient cultic fertility rites. Don’t be deceived. God is against homosexuality in all its forms, both cultic as well as personal.

The arguments in favor of homosexuality are nothing more than pitiful excuses for a behavior that God hates and will clearly judge. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Homosexuality was condemned by God, centuries before the giving of the law (e.g., Gen. 19). It is explicitly condemned by God’s law (Lev. 18:22, 20:13). As will be shown, it is also clearly condemned in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul.

The New Testament

The New Testament agrees with and confirms the Old Testament’s condemnation of homosexuality. Could any passage of Scripture be more clear in its condemnation of homosexuality than Paul’s statement found in the first chapter of Romans: “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;...who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them” (Rom. 1:24-28, 32).

Apologists for homosexual behavior try to circumvent Romans 1 by claiming that Paul was only condemning homosexual lust and promiscuity not monogamous, loving, homosexual relations. The problem with this pro-homosexual interpretation is that Paul doesn’t even hint at such an idea in the text. This idea has to be read into the text because it is clearly not there. Paul was an expert with intricate ethical problems. His condemnation covers all forms of homosexual behavior: promiscuous, monogamous and otherwise. If homosexuality is allowable under certain conditions, then are lying, murder, slander, and other sins listed by Paul also allowable under certain conditions? Would homosexual apologists also argue that sex with goats and sheep is permitted if the relationship is loving and monogamous?

Other apologists say that Paul was only referring to Greek cultic prostitution. But the text says nothing about Greek cultic prostitution. Paul was focusing on what happens when people push God out of all their thoughts and worship idols. Paul was discussing personal moral behavior. When people abandon God, their personal behavior becomes perverse. If Paul only condemned Greek cultic prostitution, then why did the early church condemn all forms of homosexuality? Why is it that every branch of the Christian church and every Christian denomination has condemned every form of homosexuality for nearly two thousand years? It has only been since the 1970s that homosexuality has begun to receive acceptance in society. It is no accident that the churches which have changed their views are usually part of liberal denominations which reject the divine authority of the Bible. If Christ and the apostles accepted monogamous homosexuality, then why was it universally condemned in the apostolic church?

EvAng

12th July 2007, 07:33 AM

The Pederasty Theory

The most clever attempt to repudiate Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality is the pederasty theory. This view states that Paul, following Greek culture, was only condemning the sexual and emotional exploitation of young boys by men. This view assumes that Paul was only a product of the pagan, Greek culture of his time. But the Bible clearly teaches that Paul wrote under the supernatural direction of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 3:15-16). To understand Paul’s worldview, one should not look to pagan Greece or Rome but to the Old Testament, the teachings of Jesus Christ and the other apostles. Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality is fully consistent with, and a continuation of, God’s law revealed to Moses. Pederasty is wrong and is condemned by God because it is a form, or subset of homosexuality. It is also sinful and evil because it is a form of sex outside the bonds of lawful, monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Homosexuality is wicked, no matter what the age of the participants. Paul condemned such wicked, foolish thinking long ago: “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:8-10).

Act and Orientation

Any discussion of homosexuality would be incomplete without addressing the difference between act and orientation. Many homosexuals will say, “I was born a homosexual—God made me this way; therefore, my thoughts, desires, and lifestyle should not be condemned.” If some people are born with a predisposition toward homosexual behavior, does that somehow make their homosexual lusts and behavior acceptable to God? Absolutely not!

The biblical doctrine of original sin teaches that all men are born with a sinful nature or disposition. The first man, Adam, was the covenant head and representative of the whole human race before God. When Adam sinned, the guilt and pollution of sin passed to the whole human race (Rom. 5:12, 17, 19). Every person (except Jesus Christ who was conceived by the Holy Spirit) is born with a sinful nature. It is wrong to say, “God made me a homosexual (or a liar, or a murderer),” because sin did not originate with God but with man (i.e., our forefather Adam).

The fact that all human beings are born with an orientation (or proclivity) toward sin does not excuse sinful lusts or behavior. The Bible says that all men are born liars (Ps. 58:3). Yet the Bible also says that lying is a sin (Ex. 20:16, Dt.5:20); it further says that liars will not enter the kingdom of God (Rev. 21:27). If some people are born with a proclivity toward theft, homosexuality, murder, bestiality, sadomasochism, mutilation etc., that does not somehow excuse their sinful behavior. The argument that orientation towards homosexuality somehow makes it acceptable to God could be used to excuse all sinful behavior. Such an argument destroys personal responsibility; it renders God’s law meaningless and salvation through Jesus Christ unnecessary. All men will be held responsible before God for every sinful thought, word and deed, regardless of one’s orientation. Blaming God for one’s sinful behavior may make the homosexual feel better, but it will be ineffective on the day of judgment, when all unrepentant homosexuals are cast into hell (1 Cor. 6:9-10, Rev. 21:27). Furthermore the Bible teaches that man cannot blame God for his sinful behavior, because God doesn’t tempt man. Man is drawn away by his own lust: “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death” (Jas. 1:13-15).

Some argue that homosexual acts are indeed immoral, but homosexual feelings and desires for some are inborn and therefore unavoidable and not sinful. The Bible does teach that it is not a sin to be tempted (Christ was tempted, yet He never committed sin, Heb. 2:18). What is sinful is when a person dwells upon that which tempts him, fantasizes and makes plans to engage in that sinful behavior. The Bible clearly teaches that it is not only a sin to commit evil acts, it is also a sin to have immoral desires, lusts and thoughts.

Jesus Christ forbade heterosexual lust in Matthew 5:27-29. Jesus said that when a man looks upon a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her in his heart (Mt. 5:28). The idea of condemning only the outward act but not the inward lust was a doctrine of the Pharisees; Christ strongly condemned such false teaching (Mt. 5:21-22, 15:19-20). The Apostle Paul in forbade ungodly fantasies, lusts, and evil desires (Col. 3:5). Paul said that Christians must sanctify (i.e., make holy) their very thoughts (Phil. 4:8). James said that if desires are not controlled, sin will follow (Jas. 4:1). Inward, homosexual lust is condemned in Romans 1:24, 26, 27. The prophet Isaiah said that repentance must extend to one’s “thoughts” as well as to one’s “way” (Isa. 55:7). Since the Bible condemns sinful lusts and sinful acts there can be no such thing as a Christian homosexual—or a Christian murderer or a Christian thief. If a homosexual becomes a Christian, he must put away both homosexual acts and thoughts; therefore, when he becomes a Christian, he ceases to be a homosexual. He may still be tempted at times but he refuses to dwell on, fantasize about, and commit such abominable deeds. “Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy; meditate on these things” (Phil. 4:8). “We should not lust after evil things as they also lusted” (1 Cor. 10:6).

Conclusion

The Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality is very clear and very strong. God says that homosexuality is an “abomination”; that means that God hates, abhors and thoroughly detests homosexual behavior. The Old Testament teaches that people who are convicted of the crime of engaging in homosexual behavior should be put to death (Lev. 18:22, 20:13). The New Testament is in full agreement: the Apostle Paul says that homosexual behavior is “worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32). This is not the opinion of man but the clear teaching of the Word of God.

The people who claim to be compassionate toward homosexuals by excusing and approving of their perverse behavior are liars and false teachers. Their attempts to reinterpret the Bible to make it accepting of homosexuality are nothing more than pitiful excuses made for those who do not want to repent. They are leading homosexuals down the broad path which leads to destruction (Mt. 7:13). They are the true enemies of the homosexual community.

Your only hope is to accept what God says regarding your sinful behavior. If you are going to repent of your sins and believe in Jesus Christ, you must first be convinced that your behavior is wrong, wicked and deserving of judgment. After Paul says that homosexuals are excluded from God’s kingdom he says, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). There were Christians in the church at Corinth who rejected their former homosexual lifestyle and were delivered of their sin. They repented and believed in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ, as He is presented in the Scriptures, is the sinner’s only hope of salvation: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Ac. 4:12). If you believe in Him, all your sins will be forgiven. “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame’” (Rom. 10:9-11).

Christ’s sinless blood removes the guilt and curse of sin. His sinless, perfect life is given as a gift to those who believe in Him. When Christians appear before God on the day of judgment they will be clothed with Christ’s perfect righteousness. Believers go to heaven solely because of the merits of Jesus Christ. When Christ rose from the dead on the third day, it proved that His sacrifice was acceptable to God the Father. Christ rose victorious over sin, guilt, death and hell for everyone who places his trust in Him. After His resurrection Christ as the divine-human mediator was made king and Lord over everything in heaven and on earth.

“Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord” (Ac. 3:19).

http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/homosex.htm

Note: I have edited out the more explicit statments in this article.

Camden202

12th July 2007, 07:35 AM

Absolutely not, the church cant endorse the sin Christ has saved us from, why many homosexuals in the church will tell you that. Its not a question of sexuality, it’s a question of belief.

Based on your logic, you are saying that a Homosexual person cannot know Jesus, cannot comprehend his saving grace, etc etc???

And the reason you give is that the "church cannot endorse the sin"....

I dont think you will find ANY homosexual person who wants the Anglican Church to endorse them... they are not 'marketable'..... the Anglican Church has a christian obligation and duty to include anyone ... inclusive, not exclusive.

You can sit in the pew behind them.. make any snide remark you like... declare them a sinner... do whatever you like, but you have NO right to exclude them from the Anglican faith.

But if a homosexual person, believes in the same things I do as an Anglican... professes the faith... then I welcome them as I would any other person.

The last thing I want to see is what happened in Sydney when Cardinal George Pell refused to give homosexual's communion AND refused to give communion to ANY ONE WHO SUPPORTED THEM....

The Anglican Church HAS an obsession. The obsession is no more than a result of a duplicious concentration of a literal fundamentalist reading of biblical scripture, ignoring EVERYTHING else... whilst giving tacit approval of similar sins by not condemning every other sexual immorality with the same venom.

How can anyone in the Anglican Communion justify such duplicity?

brightmorningstar

12th July 2007, 09:25 AM

Dear Camden202,
Based on your logic, you are saying that a Homosexual person cannot know Jesus, cannot comprehend his saving grace, etc etc??? On the contrary I have said many Christians who have same-sex attraction do. Its not logic but reading what I have said. See my post #35.
But you have seemingly ignored what I actually wrote, that the church cant endorse the sin Christ has saved us sinners from, why many homosexuals in the church will tell you that. Its not a question of sexuality, it’s a question of belief.

And the reason you give is that the "church cannot endorse the sin".... yes, surely you don’t believe the church should be endorsing sin do you?

I dont think you will find ANY homosexual person who wants the Anglican Church to endorse them... they are not 'marketable'..... ‘endorse them’? I don’t think so, neither is that what I said, it’s the sin of same-sex sex that the Anglican church cant endorse. Besides I commit sins as well but the church doesn’t endorse my sins.
the Anglican Church has a christian obligation and duty to include anyone ... inclusive, not exclusive. It already does. Take the Zaccheus Fellowship for example http://www.zacchaeus.ca/AboutZacchaeus.html (http://www.zacchaeus.ca/AboutZacchaeus.html) these are included.

You can sit in the pew behind them.. make any snide remark you like... what snide remark?
declare them a sinner... do whatever you like, I would assume all Christians know they are sinners, I would have thought that was one way we could tell that our minds are renewed.
but you have NO right to exclude them from the Anglican faith. Who says?
Secondly, I think what makes a Christian is faith in Christ, whether as Anglicans, or Roman Catholic or whatever. Surely people who are Anglicans believe what Anglicans believe, yet you seem to be telling me on this matter you don’t.

But if a homosexual person, believes in the same things I do as an Anglican... professes the faith... then I welcome them as I would any other person. What about the homosexuals in the church who think you are wrong, how do they share the same faith as you? You see just claiming someone believes something doesn’t make anyone a believer, one has to test what they are claiming is the truth against the scripture.

The last thing I want to see is what happened in Sydney when Cardinal George Pell refused to give homosexual's communion AND refused to give communion to ANY ONE WHO SUPPORTED THEM.... Well as we have to answer to God and not homosexuals or any other humans, can I point out to you that I haven’t yet seen you justify same-sex sex with any scripture, yet if you look at 1 Corinthians 5 and Ephesians 5, one could justify this. What you have claimed may be outright disobedience to God.

Camden202

12th July 2007, 10:15 AM

Well as we have to answer to God and not homosexuals or any other humans, can I point out to you that I haven’t yet seen you justify same-sex sex with any scripture, yet if you look at 1 Corinthians 5 and Ephesians 5, one could justify this. What you have claimed may be outright disobedience to God.

Yes.... the Phariasee's made the same style of pronouncements to Jesus. (Claim may be outright disobedience to God)

Again you use a New Testament reference. Pauline reference at that. This despite the fact that I have painstakingly provided you with an exergesis of OT foundation which is the BASE of the very reference you use.

Let me ask you.... What came first, The 'Golden Calf' incident?? or the instruction in Leviticus which you rely on (and upon which ALL Pauline discourse on the subject is based)...

The ANSWER... is THE GOLDEN CALF came first!!!!!

So ask yourself... why did God then give the instruction in Leviticus? It was a direct result of the Golden Calf Incident - Baal Worship, disobedience.

Why?? Because God expected that they left these practices behind when they left Egypt. The very first post I made on this thread outlined this painstakingly. Again, you ignored the chain of events and just went straight to a generalised/literal regurgitation of Leviticus.

It is not the action of homosexuality that is the problem or the foundation of the Levitican discourse, it is when those actions detract from the persons relationship with God.... disobeying his will... THAT is Sin, THAT is the crux.... the 'sexual immorality', the 'sinful desires of the flesh' (as are mentioned in Pauline texts).

Clearly... you fail to draw the dots. I can't help you there its something you have to grasp yourself.

Again... I can clearly justify my discourse using biblical scripture and what is known historically and using bibilical theologlical foundations to demonstrate it with effect.

I urge you to look past the oft used generalisations and the tangents and to look squarely at the chain of events, the discourse and understanding of those events... and to draw your own conclusions... not just regurgitate a 'party line'.

I find it remarkable that you cannot accept Homosexual Christians for who they are. They have every right to live their lives as you do. Why should they supress themselves just because someone with your view on biblical texts wants to feel comfortable.

As I said before.. there are alternate 'sexual immoralities' which members of the wider Anglican Community do not with to address... even lightly, however on this issue the very method and approach is not Christ like... but venemous.

Again... what came first, the Golden Calf incident in Exodus... or the Levitical instruction?

Clearly the instruction was a result of the incident (as there is zero mention prior to)... and you have to understand the incident to even remotely understand the nature of the instruction.

If God had wanted to make the levitical pronoucement prior to the Calf Incident, he had every opportunity, but he did not. So ask yourself... WHY??? Clearly God's purpose in the Levitican discourse has clear and marked reference to the golden calf incident in Exodus.

Please give consideration to it... think upon it ... and pray.

God Bless

Colabomb

12th July 2007, 10:18 AM

Please remember that we have an 11 year old on STR and such explicit language is not acceptable. Thank you :thumbsup:

Who is your son?

Secundulus

12th July 2007, 10:19 AM

I dont think you will find ANY homosexual person who wants the Anglican Church to endorse them...

Then what is behind the movement for the church to bless homosexual marriage?

Camden202

12th July 2007, 10:35 AM

Then what is behind the movement for the church to bless homosexual marriage?

That depends on the 'type' of catagory you put the issue in.

In a liberal society (western) there has always been a strong secular(Non-Religosity) political push for 'rights' 'equality' etc.

It is a bit like the line used during the French Revolution 'liberty' 'equality' 'stupidity'.......

The Political push I believe has no real standing on theological grounds. The very basis of the push revolves around a libertarian 'equality for all' secular notion.

That notion is not and has not been supported within the Christian Community.

So what the people beind the push are asking the Church to do is to ignore the Sacramental tradition (which in the UK goes back to the Ecclesia Anglicana) and to 'institute' or alter the understanding of the Sacramental tradition to meet what is surely a secular view of equality.

Now your sitting there saying im contradicting myself and being hypocritical because on one hand I am inclusive... on the other hand I am excluding the very people I include with regard to their rights etc.

But I say this to you.... the very heart of Anglicanism is found in our traditions. These people KNOW this and seek to impose and overlay secular politics upon the pre-existing traditions. This does not mean that we have a right to exclude them, indeed they ought to be included...

Do they have a right to do this?? No.. because it comes back to the separation of Church and State. The Church is not the State... the State is not the Church. What the majority of the State wish to legislate is fine within the nation... but the Church is not a functionary of the State.

The expectation that the ebodiment of the Church is the same as the State is sheer Hubris. They have shared values... but the way in which these values are upheld and enacted are not and will never be the same.

There will always be secular political differences. But the Church will remain constant.

Just a few random thoughts.

God Bless.

Secundulus

12th July 2007, 10:39 AM

That depends on the 'type' of catagory you put the issue in. . . .

We agree on every point except where you say, "That notion is not and has not been supported within the Christian Community."

It is being pushed hard enough in the Anglican Communion that it is threatening to schism the Communion again.

Camden202

12th July 2007, 10:54 AM

We agree on every point except where you say, "That notion is not and has not been supported within the Christian Community."

It is being pushed hard enough in the Anglican Communion that it is threatening to schism the Communion again.

Yes.. it is being pushed hard.

But the push is directly as a result of Secular Politics.

Is it right for the Church to bend to the whims of secularisation?? No of course not.

There are two distinct issues here and quite often they get overlayed (as was the case with Ev's two page cut-and-paste found previously).

1) The Sacrament of Marriage (Man and Woman)

2) The Church's position on Homosexuality.

What you are finding in the apparent schismatic push is that these two issues.... with very different and quite opposing theological foundations..... are being 'forced' together.

I believe the foundation of this 'push' is a direct result of the desparate attempt of the 'anti-homosexual' lobby within the Anglican Communion to justify their stance by running off on a tangent and pointing to the biblical text of Genesis 2, Mark 7 etc which relate to the union of Man and Woman.

The 'pro-homosexual' union take this and then secularise it and say 'well if its good enough for you.. equality for all, lack of direct scriptural instruction.... we want it'.

This is the problem.... this is the crux of the issue and neither side will give ground.

I have tried my best and lovingly and painstakingly outlined the FIRST biblical foundation (Golden Calf Incident) relating to Homosexuality base.... but I get drowned out by the regugitation of the usual material (usually relating back to man/women etc, Pauline theology.)

I think the Anglican Communion can cut the whole thing off at its knees.... but to do that it needs to separate the issues.... demonstrate why the two points are unrelated... THEN and only then will the Schism falter.

Until then, I think its on a collision course with secular politicsed liberalistic philosophy - equality for all at any cost regardless of where it occurs; nothing is sacred.

Such liberalism 'slays' the perverbial 'sacred cows'... it is this kind of mentality that is dangerous and perverse.

A few random thoughts, I hope they help your understanding or that you might draw something from it.

May God bless you and keep you in his care.

brightmorningstar

12th July 2007, 11:56 AM

Dear Camden202,
Yes.... the Phariasee's made the same style of pronouncements to Jesus. (Claim may be outright disobedience to God) Sorry I don’t understand a word of that. Did they?
I have just shown you some more scripture which might justify not sharing communion with those who promote sexual immorality such as same-se. All you have done once again is dispute it and reject it as faulty. Is there any of the Bible you do believe?
Please come up with some scripture to support your views instead of diss-ing what I cite

Let me ask you.... What came first, The 'Golden Calf' incident?? or the instruction in Leviticus which you rely on (and upon which ALL Pauline discourse on the subject is based)...
Genesis 2 came first of the scriptures cited, Jesus affirms it.

[quote] The ANSWER... is THE GOLDEN CALF came first!!!!! Let me ask you, did Jesus teach about the golden calf ? I agree with you about the golden calf but I don’t use it against what Jesus taught to disprove what Jesus taught

It is not the action of homosexuality that is the problem or the foundation of the Levitican discourse, it is when those actions detract from the persons relationship with God.... disobeying his will... THAT is Sin, THAT is the crux.... the 'sexual immorality', the 'sinful desires of the flesh' (as are mentioned in Pauline texts). Yes I have already agreed with you on this, but you seem blind to the fact that sin is sin because sin is disobedience to God’s purpose. So the action is wrong.
In Christ through the Holy Spirit we are no longer slaves to sin but to righteousness, anyone promoting same-sex therefore is a slave to sin.

As all die in Adam all are made alive in Christ.

I find it remarkable that you cannot accept Homosexual Christians for who they are. As I have already told you I do in posts #35 and #47 how are you going to be able to discourse on the Bible if you cant even read my posts properly.
Why should they supress themselves just because someone with your view on biblical texts wants to feel comfortable. Every Christian has to supresse their sinful desires my friend, the Holy Spirit helps us do this. Also can you read my posts and start addressing what I write and stop making ridiculous false assumptions, about how you think I feel.

As I said before.. there are alternate 'sexual immoralities' which members of the wider Anglican Community do not with to address... even lightly, however on this issue the very method and approach is not Christ like... but venemous. no I don’t believe there are, I think your view is not Christian on this matter or Christ like.

Please give consideration to it... think upon it ... and pray. Yes I have, I consider what you have written nonsense or complete and utter disbelief, and I pray that you will come to know the truth.

Now have you got any scripture to support same-sex sex or any sex outside marriage?

The subject of the thread is that the CofE is going to tackle such views as you put which undermine the faith

God Bless

Camden202

12th July 2007, 12:26 PM

Genesis 2 came first of the scriptures cited, Jesus affirms it.

Let me ask you, did Jesus teach about the golden calf ? I agree with you about the golden calf but I don’t use it against what Jesus taught to disprove what Jesus taught

Brightmorningstar,

I am not using what Jesus affirms (found in Genesis 2) as support... in fact it has nothing to do with it.

There are two distinct elements of theology here... and they are not linked.

1) Genesis 2/Mark 7 etc (Male/Female - marriage)

Yes, this is stated, supported and I couldn't agree more whole heartedly.

HOWEVER... it has been used OUT of context. A tangent has been applied to the levitical text as a means to 'explain' the absence of any direct scriptural support for same-sex unions.

My comments in the posts above outline why I believe that same-sex marriage is a secular issue... and it has no place in the life of the Church.

I have previously posted about this in the same thread (above).

2) The VERY FIRST occasion, vague mention we find of God himself giving instruction in relation to homosexuality is in Leviticus.

We do however find a precedent in Genesis 18 - 19 (Sodom & Gomorah) which is demonstrated and reiterated again in Judges 19. I have already given you my thoughts on Judges 19 and shown you the biblical redemptive verse (God bringing his people back to him) in that text.

What I am saying is that here you have two very separate and distinct aspects of theological thought. They are only 'linked' by a human aspect not a Godly aspect.

For example, there is nothing in the Exodus discourse of the Golden Calf incident which says anything about or expounds God's purpose in the procreative aspect as described in Gen 2.

In fact if you had no idea of the historicity of Baal worship, or what it actually entailed... you could easily read Exod 32 literally and suggest that they just held hands and danced around the calf.......

As a direct result of this what is known about the elements of Baal worship/Idol worship in a historical (reality) context is ignored... the 'theology' gets lost and this is why you have this bizzare tangent into Gen 2 to try an explain Leviticus 18, but really .... Gen 2 has no place in such an explaination.... its just a tangent.

I sincerly believe that the only reason we have this 'obsession' with this aspect of our understanding is because we have had zealous evangelical scholars who have been desparate in their desire to expound and justify Lev 2 in a human context (viz no foundation for the liberal standpoint). But that this occurance has now been accepted as the norm. Despite the obvious base in the tangent rather than a basis in the text itself.

I apologise if you found the paragraph above confusing, I just write it as I think it.

Please don't get me wrong.... I am not upset with you, I don't expect you to drop everything and alter your position. But I am asking you to think about it and to pray about it.

God Bless and keep you.

brightmorningstar

12th July 2007, 12:47 PM

Dear Camden202,

I am not using what Jesus affirms (found in Genesis 2) as support... in fact it has nothing to do with it. No that’s not what I wrote either. You asked me which came first of the passages you cited, the passage I cited comes first, the passage I cited is the one that addresses the specific sin not sin in general, the passage I cited is the one Jesus specifically affirms

I reject your analysis it is at odds with mine, I have given you mine, its in line with the historic apostolic Christian position yours is revisionism.

2) The VERY FIRST occasion, vague mention we find of God himself giving instruction in relation to homosexuality is in Leviticus. why is it vague to you, its not vague to me.

We do however find a precedent in Genesis 18 - 19 (Sodom & Gomorah) which is demonstrated and reiterated again in Judges 19. I have already given you my thoughts on Judges 19 and shown you the biblical redemptive verse (God bringing his people back to him) in that text. And I have given you the verses that show you what I ma saying is also true.

What I am saying is that here you have two very separate and distinct aspects of theological thought. They are only 'linked' by a human aspect not a Godly aspect. Not to me, to me they are both of God from God. The human thought is thinking they aren’t. Genesis 2 tells us God’s purpose was for man and woman, so its consistent that Leviticus says a man shall not lie with another man and consistent that men wanting sex with men is wicked, it couldn’t be more associated, yet you think it is separate.

I sincerly believe that the only reason we have this 'obsession' with this aspect of our understanding is because we have had zealous evangelical scholars who have been desparate in their desire to expound and justify Lev 2 in a human context (viz no foundation for the liberal standpoint). But that this occurance has now been accepted as the norm. Despite the obvious base in the tangent rather than a basis in the text itself. Sorry I don’t understand what you are talking about, Roman Catholic scholars, and all kinds of scholars agree including Anglicans with what I have said, nothing to do with evangelical scholars, its to do with Christian scholars

Please don't get me wrong.... I am not upset with you, I don't expect you to drop everything and alter your position. But I am asking you to think about it and to pray about it. Thank you and likewise, ist good to be able to be frank and honest with each other.
But I think you need to go back and start addressing what i wrote, particulalry your mis representation of homosexuals not being accpeted in the church.

God Bless

Camden202

12th July 2007, 01:57 PM

I have substantiated it, Genesis 2, Matthew 19 Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6-7 and Hebrews 13 clearly excludes the practice acording to God's purpose in creating woman for man, and Genesis 19, Judges 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2 and Jude condemn it as sin.

Hello brightmorningstar,

I have 'found' your original text which you claim 'supports' your literal reading.

Gen 2: Adam and Eve - Procreation -->(M/F)

Matthew 19 - Divorce -->(M/F)

Mark 10 - Divorce -->(M/F)

Ephesians 5 - Pauline Epistle. Sexual Immorality (v3) reason being 'such a man is an Idolator (v5) [Idolator --> Baal worship/Homosexual ritual--> Golden Calf--> Leviticus]

1 Corinthians 6 - Pauline Epistle. Homosexual Offenders [Leviticus 18 --> Golden Calf --> Baal Worship/Homosexual ritual]

1 Corinthians 7 - Pauline Epistle. Marriage --> (M/F)

Hebrews 13 - Pauline Epistle. Adultery -->(M/F), Sexual Immorality [Homosexual --> Leviticus 18--> Golden Calf --> Baal worship/Homosexual ritual]

Genesis 19 - Sodom and Gommorah; No prior God given statements regarding homosexual activity, but what we do find is pagan practice, i.e Baal worship [homosexual ritual].

Judges 19 - The travelling Levite. Finds hospitality in an unknown/alien town.... encounters Baal worship [homosexual ritual]. We know this to be the case from the exhortation in verse 30 (been explained already).

Leviticus 18 to 20 - Gods instructions to Moses AFTER the Golden Calf incident in Exodus 32 [Baal worship/Homosexual ritual]

1 Timothy - Pauline writings. Adultery (M/F)

Romans 1 Chapter 1 - Pauline Epistle. verse 25 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen" [worshiped and served created things--> Baal Idol--> Baal worship/Homosexual ritual]

2 Peter 2 - verse 6 "if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gommorah by burning them to ashes, and made theman example of what is going to happen to the ungodly" [Ungodly-->Baal Idol-->Baal worship/Homosexual ritual].

Jude - verse 5 "Though you alrady know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered you, his people, out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe" [Exodus 32 33:35 - punishement as a result of Baal worship/Homosexual ritual] verse 7 "In a similar way, Sodom and Gommorah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." [Baal worship/Homosexual ritual].

I particularly like Jude because it inextricably ties Gen 19, Exodus 32, Judges 19, and Leviticus 19-20 [Baal worship/Homosexual ritual] TOGETHER. Yet the same texts cannot be correlated or even remotely linked to Gen 2 or Mark 10/Matt 19 [M/F]

Just so that anyone reading this post can make the visual distinction.... which has been obvious since the first Bible was printed, read and intelligently considered... I have highlighted in bold print.

It is obvious that the two are separate. This is NOT a "revision"... it is what has ALWAYS BEEN KNOWN... yet it has (for a number of sectarian reasons) been ignored or even conveniently forgotton.

This is not rocket science theology... it is simple, basic, easy to grasp.... anyone can understand it.

It is clear from the text above how easy and obvious it is for anyone trying to link by way of a tangent... the clearly defined [M/F] with [Baal].

Yet we have the question "What is God's purpose?"

Gods purpose is three fold (not exhastive):

1) to uphold the procreative aspect of [M/F]

2) to bring back to him anyone engaged in

3) to state (Gen/Lev) that [Baal] is not acceptable and that God expects obedience and faithfulness.

We can also see that [Baal] is ritualistic, which in a nutshell means that it is far more devotional than the actual 'act' [H/sxlty] itself. [B]It is THAT devotion which is sinful/sin. This can also apply to the 'lifestyle'; devotion to the sin of the flesh rather than to God.

Again... this is not 'revisionist'. This is what has ALWAYS been known. You should ask yourself why it isn't commonly preached, perhaps you will find the answer has more to do with Secular Politics than Biblical understanding and tradition.

God Bless and guide you.

Camden202

12th July 2007, 02:15 PM

But I think you need to go back and start addressing what i wrote, particulalry your mis representation of homosexuals not being accpeted in the church.
God Bless

brightmorningstar,

I have addressed your original scriptural references in the post above.

I have not misrepresented anything, my discourse on the direct actions of Cardinal George Pell (and the tacit agreement of his actions by Apb Peter Jensen) is factual. You can even read about it online.

What is more is that Phillip Jensen, the Archbishops Brother Phillip who is also Dean of St Andrews Cathederal (aka Fr Phillips Prayer Hall) has made his own views clear in the SMH. Quite frankly the spiritual direction of the Cathederal congregation was in SAFER hands under Boak Jobbins (now at St Marks Darling Point).

Lets talk about nepotism and secular politics shall we???? No... not here.. but you can read between the lines.

God Bless and keep you.

kiwimac

12th July 2007, 02:39 PM

The communion needs to get over its pharasaical obsession with what people do in their bedrooms and move on. A GOOD move would be excommunicating Peter Akinola.

Aymn27

12th July 2007, 02:42 PM

The communion needs to get over its pharasaical obsession with what people do in their bedrooms and move on. A GOOD move would be excommunicating Peter Akinola.
yet you have no Scripture to support your view...why do you argue against the teachings of the Lord?

Camden202

12th July 2007, 02:47 PM

Not to me, to me they are both of God from God. The human thought is thinking they aren’t.

Genesis 2 tells us God’s purpose was for man and woman, so its consistent that Leviticus says a man shall not lie with another man and consistent that men wanting sex with men is wicked, it couldn’t be more associated, yet you think it is separate.

I have two comments:

1) Whilst God's pupose is obviously reflected in Gen 2 that is all you can say about it, male/female because its the only thing we find - we read the rest INTO it.... God had ample opportunity to clarify the position to Abraham (especially given the Sodom and Gommorah business in Gen 19), yet God does not even give instruction or make a statement to Abraham.....

2) You can draw a 'tangent' line between Genesis 2 and Leviticus 18..... but it is not consistant with the background behind the text, which is the discourse AFTER the Golden Calf incident... and the destruction of those involved.

However you want to draw the line... it will always be a tangent. It is not a primary link, but a secondary link. I am not disputing that what your saying is not relevant to M/F relationship in the scriptural context BUT you can't use Leviticus 18 as a primary link - its unrelated despite its relevancy to your claim...

The clearest justification for what I am explaining is found in the biblical text itself:

Leviticus 18.3 "You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you use to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices"

This is clearly BAAL worship which consists of homosexual ritualistic practice in a devotional way.

And we can use Leviticus 18.4 (the next verse following) as context: " You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees, I AM the LORD your God."

Here also we have one of the great "I AM" statements, which Jesus himself many times. Jesus (God) commands it, speaks it.. explains it.

So here we have both the context and outline of Leviticus 18, with a primary contextual link.

To say that Leviticus 18 is explicit in displaying 'God's Purpose' outlined by M/F procreation in Gen 2 you have to explain how Gen 2 relates to verse 3; the Egyptian/Cannanite discourse.

Keep in mind that those nations already grew by procreation ('purpose' of Gen 2).... so that doesn't explain the linkage between Gen 2 and Lev 18 3:4.

What does explain it is Exod 32 and Judges 19, which is a discourse on Baal Idol/Baal worship. Which brings me right back to my original post and your objection and claim that it's 'revisionist' when its been there all along.

God bless and guide you.

Colabomb

12th July 2007, 05:28 PM

The communion needs to get over its pharasaical obsession with what people do in their bedrooms and move on. A GOOD move would be excommunicating Peter Akinola.

Um, while I agree that Christians have made a larger issue out of homosexuality than they should, I do believe it is the Church's Job to preach against sin. One of many happens to be homosexuality.

norbie

12th July 2007, 05:40 PM

kiwimac

12th July 2007, 06:02 PM

Camden202

13th July 2007, 12:00 AM

I think we should go back to the Thread, tackling liberals.
People think we are 'obsessed' with the same sex issue - I don't think so. We must get things right again: follow Christ teaching or make our own, very liberal rules, and this I think is what the CofE is doing.
There is TRUE Christian living, example modest dressing, no same sex relationship, no to a second wedding, teaching our children Christian values and so on.
We must find the way back to God - any liberalism of this is very wrong.:cry:

Hey there Norbie,

There are two 'elephants' in the room:

1) The Church's stance on homosexuality (obsession).

I can remember growing up in my parish that this issue was never discussed, the 'matter' was between God and themselves. Yet for some reason these 'renegade' bishops are using it as a pretext to Schism.

The evangelical movement keep the issue alive with their constant refererences. You can't undergo theological training in the Diocese of Sydney and NOT have the 'dogma' forced down your throat at a rate of knots. I say Dogma, even though the Anglican Church has none... because the approach/stance taken IS dogmatic.

If it was given the SAME treatment as every other Sin we wouldn't have an issue, nor would we be having these kinds of discussions. It would be a NON issue.

I have already outlined why I believe that the bible does not condemn or even isolate people of that persuasion. The nature of the 'sin' is (by biblical demonstration) devotional. The inevitable conclusion of yet another 'sin of the flesh'... yet this applies across the board to everyone....so why is there such a venomous focus on this singular issue in isolation?

I suggest that the answer is more Secular... rather than scriptural and as such the issue is not relevant to the 'life' of the Church

I have also outlined that the sacrament of Marriage between man and wife is sacred and is clearly upheld.

I blame the evangelical zealots who in their desparation draw the tangent line between procreation and Baal worship; overlayed it into leviticus/pauline writings and have completely demolished the two distinct theologies and 'crashed' them into the same car wreak.

It is for THAT reason and THAT reason alone that the liberals have pounced and said 'well if its good enough for them.. its good enough for these others.'.... it is a soley a secular notion and has no foundation in scripture/church sacramental traditions.

2) The issue of Women in the priesthood.

Again we have the influence of secularisation (non religiousity) at work here and the impact of societial expectations of equality etc.

The Church leaders (and conservatives) look at this and make the valid claim that there is a separation of Church and State and that the Church holds to its traditions regardless of any secular standpoint.

Liberalism at its very heart is a recognition that the Church must conform to the expectations of the Society in which it exists.

Do we then need another 'Oxford Movement' to bring the church back-to-basics and restore what is sacred and held dear??? Most likely, though I cannot see a catalyst at this juncture.

I find it bizzare that the American Church fails to recognise it has failed the whole communion. Two distinct and related issues here:

1) Gene Robinson, whilst he is a competent priest was probably not thinking of the consequences of his actions in the wider communion when he accepted his posting as Bp of New Hampshire;

2) The Episcopal Church's election of K-J-S as the first female primate...... certainly Bp Akinola choked on his cornflakes THAT morning!!!!! I must admit my reaction was not that severe, but no less stunned.

Is it wise for one section of the 'communion' to be Maverick?? There is a fine line between genius and insanity. My fear is that the lack of consultation and the insular nature of those elections within the confines of the US....is more the culprit.

Regardless of the liberal position, these matters have an enormous effect on the rest of us who (thought) we were in communion with them. Now I am not the greatest fan of Tom Wright (Bishop of Durham) but he did get it right in his remarks about the understanding reached, that some understood it more clearly than others.

Perhaps when that 'understanding' came back to the States, the level of indignation culiminated in protestation. Hence why we have this 'Maverick' outcome.

If you slay the 'elephants' you effectively destroy the existing foundation for 'schism'.

What is really bizzare also is the fact that ECUSA has been funding many of the African Diocese which are now pointing the finger at ECUSA......indeed the Ugandans have returned the funding professing it to be '30 peices of silver'...

Again... I think the Anglican Communion needs a catalyst to bring it back to itself. Either that or we have this great 'split' and when the dust settles work toward a long term plan of reconcilliation with our family in Christ.

Whilst I respect the liberal's right to be heard... I am dismayed that they do not recognise the damage they are doing.

As is often remarked 'One mans terrorist... is another mans freedom fighter'....... perhaps that analogy is apt.

Just a few random thoughts.

May God bless you and keep you in his care.

Colabomb

13th July 2007, 01:00 AM

Show me where Jesus said anything about homosexuality please?

Will Jehovah and Paul do?

The "Show me Jesus" argument is just a diversion from the rest of the Scriptures.

kiwimac

13th July 2007, 01:11 AM

Will Jehovah and Paul do?

The "Show me Jesus" argument is just a diversion from the rest of the Scriptures.
Nope it won't.

The OT references are almost certainly to temple prostitution or to ritual uncleaness whilst the NT references via Paul seem mostly to do with pederasty, except for the Romans reference which declares homosexuality the PENALTY for ido