Typos are actually signs of human fallibility.
Gay sex is for gay people. Christian gay people should exercise ethical responsibility before God.
By the way, you called my original post a straw man. I've asked you to show your work. I'm asking again. If you have forgotten the points I made I will reiterate them in concise form:
1. Stereotyping dehumanizes the other, making it easier to hate, enslave and even kill him.
2. I have seen stereotypes of gays in this forum. I gave one example.
3. I ask what other stereotypes are at play here and why.
When you paint with such a broad brush, you are bound to spatter your self. In a discussion about divorce, Jesus invoked a verse from Genesis which described a norm of marriage. Neither Jesus nor Genesis prescribe that norm as Scriptures describe other forms of marriage without prescribing them.
I wonder why you found it necessary to put the word God in quotes.
I say that the Apostles were spiritual giants and that you do well to agree with them in matters of the spirit. I also say that they lived in a distant, pre-scientific time. Their understanding of sexuality (as well as things like cosmology, geography and medicine) was limited compared to ours.
My church teaches a gospel of justification by grace through faith apart from works of the law. What've you got?
I assume that you also worship in a building. I know that the building is only a building, that the church is an assembly. I am sure that you do not know my heart, or the hearts of anyone else you brand as 'liberal Christian.' You have my witness concerning my repentance. You may accept it or not. Either way is of no consequence to me.
I think, rather, that Swift's "little joke" has been taken seriously by the anti-Gay Christians. Parody and sarcasm are a dangerous form. They are too easily taken amiss.
Interesting folks over at Soulforce. I think they have good reason to be a bit gunshy about those who bash them for their inborn orientation, demand that they "repent" of it, and then blame then when their repentance does not lead to a change of that orientation.
On the other hand, if you talk to them about sin and repentance without invoking their orientation it might make an interesting conversation.
It seems to suggest that a different approach, one that is open and respectful, might work better.
Just as I take your authority under consideration. Everything you say, including your appeals to authority, are based, finally, in your reason, your opinion and your worldview. See my comment above concerning cosmology and medicine. Do you agree with the Apostles that the sun revolves around the earth?
I'd say that only Christ can get one into the kingdom. I would also say that God is judge.
If you will. It was also before antibiotics, computers, automobiles, electricity, water treatment facilities, indoor plumbing...
All blessings are mixed blessings.
All I can say is that I do not share your world view. What you call "forcing every single person on earth to affirm gay sex" I see as having legal protection to prevent needless discrimination against those who have an innate attraction to the same sex.
Potato. Po-tah-to.
Let's see, saying that gay sex is a sin, is still protected free speech. Denying gay people equal opportunities for housing and employment, is illegal discrimination.
Recruitment. There's one of those stereotypes. Let me ask, would recruitment work on you? Do you think you could be recruited into homosexuality? I'm quite sure I couldn't.
Jude is a tract against heretical teachers. I think the best we can say concerning them is that they were enthusiasts and antinomians. To read Jude and Peter as being directed against "gay religiosity" is eisegesis.
About that neologism...who first applied the word "gay" to homosexuals?
I'll consider starting that thread, though I have a feeling that I know how it would go. You'd post some passage that I consider irrelavent to the topic. I'd say so. You'd deny it. And we'd go through dozens of passages that way. As it is, this thread is taking more of my time than I like.
The entire NT contains three passages dealing directly with same-sex activity. Two are ambiguous. One is quoted out of context. Any other passages you may cite are at best tangential to the subject and probably involve eisegesis.
I don't think anything is going to work on you except the Holy Spirit. I don't post here to change your mind, only to present an opposing viewpoint. I suspext that you don't really expect to change my mind either. Jude says nothing about "gay religious leaders." It would be surprising if he did, since "gay religious leaders" is a neologism.
I am a Christian. I disagree with you. If I have put words in your mouth, I apologize. But I will press this point: have you ever once refered to someone who disagrees with you on the subject of homosexuality as a Christian without some qualifier?
You agree with your interpretation of the Apostles. I have spoken to this above.
You do not speak for "the" Christian Church. You speak for a subsect of it at best, as do Spong and Crossan. I am not interested in devaluing or altering the Scriptures, only in understanding them as well as the tools at my disposal allow.
Your interpretation of the New Testament witness is not on my side. Oddly enough, my interpretation of the New Testament witness is not on your side.
Not in your church, maybe. That's OK. We'll let Jesus sort it out in the end. I have a feeling we're both in for some surprises.
There's a great deal of straw in your depiction of liberals.
Then my peace will return to me. Thank you.
Upvote
0
