Homosexuality

mjrhealth · Jul 14, 2016

Wormwood, look up that word corruption would you. Are you going to be the one that tells a man born with an overload of female hormoanes what sex he should be, or teh women both with male genitals and male hormes waht sex she should be. or are you willing to tell a 3 year old child with messed up hormones who they are. So why are you so offended.??

Wormwood · Jul 15, 2016

mj,

The purpose of this conversation is to look at Scripture and see what it has to say about these issues. I am not telling anyone they have to be anything. I am explaining my understanding of what Scripture teaches. If you or someone else doesnt want to obey the Scriptures, that is your prerogative. I am not your judge. Just dont imply that I am acting self-righteous because I believe Scripture has something to say on the matter and it may not be what you want it to say. We are all sinners in need of grace. Yet that doesnt mean that we indulge in our sins because our flesh desires it. Since when do physical desires determine what is right and what is wrong?

Wormwood · Jul 15, 2016

junobet,

I already said that it is quite likely that Paul would also have had a problem with it otherwise. He did not like any kind of sexual passion and even advised married couples to refrain from it as much as possible. His ideal was asceticism – very probably also due to having grown up in Tarsus, one of the epi-centers of 1th century Stoicism.

Well, I dont think you are accurately reading Paul. Paul said there is nothing wrong with marriage and those who have a desire to do so should. In fact, his letter to the Corinthians on the issue could be read a couple of ways. We dont know what their questions were, so it is quite possible that they were the ones teaching that people should not marry and Paul was challenging this strictness (see 1 Cor. 7:1). Certainly he felt that it was a good thing to entirely give oneself to the work of ministry and forgo family life for the sake of Christ. But it doesnt mean he "didnt like any kind of sexual passion." He wrote,

“But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1 Corinthians 7:2–5, ESV)

Certainly Paul felt the coming of Jesus could be any moment and he wanted people focused on Christ more than anything else. Yet it doesnt mean he was into strict asceticism. In fact, he condemns such appearances of holiness in his letter to the Colossians:

“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” (Colossians 2:20–23, ESV)

[SIZE=12pt]Isn’t it funny, how two people with different focus can read the same text and come to utterly different conclusions. Here’s my focus: “[/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]scientific research has shown that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation in [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]human sexuality[/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt] and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects”.[/SIZE]

Well a couple of thoughts here...
First, the article states that the "causes" (which is what we were discussing) were unknown. This statement is clearly an opinion of some internet contributor as there is no way to prove what "normal" and "natural" is...especially when the article already said the causes are unknown. Second, wikipedia is about as unscholarly of a publication as one could find. It can be useful to find some resources, but it is not a reliable resource. I know of no professional who uses wikipedia as a resource for scholarly publications. In fact, I have read an article from a medical doctor who compares gender confusion issues with other psychological abnormalities such as anorexia. In it, he argues that someone who desires so deeply to be a different sex that they even mutilate perfectly good organs to become something they are not is no different than a person who looks at an undernourished skeleton in the mirror and thinks they are fat and continues to starve themselves. I guess my point is, at a minimum, there is no consensus on "scientific research" regarding the "normalcy" of these issues.

The fact aside that unlike us Paul probably thought in stoic rather than biological terms when speaking about nature: Surely God found His creation to be “very good” (Gen. 1:31) and by now – not in Paul’s time - it’s obvious that He chooses to create us with various genders and sexual orientations, one being as natural or unnatural as the other.

I disagree. I think you have a very anachronistic reading of Paul. Paul was not a 21st century Western thinker. He did not use physikos in reference to genetics or merely what confers a biological advantage. If anything, in the writing of Paul, the "flesh" is something that is corrupt and infected with sin. He certainly wouldnt argue that "nature" relates primary to a person's natural dispositions genetically. He clearly sees our natural dispositions as being contrary to God's desires (see Romans 7 &8). Once again, it seems he is arguing that these are genuine lusts that originate in the flesh. This word reflects the external form of how something came into being. It was used in reference to understanding the "true constitution of things." In sum, I think its very simple that Paul simply was referring to the purposes of natural sexual intercourse in reproduction and is stating that homosexual activity goes against the natural design for procreation. Paul sees God's design of sex as that for the intimacy and enjoyment of a man and woman who are procreating. His argument is that our rejection of God and his purpose for things has filled us with sin and unnatural desires such that we crave to do things that are very different from their original purposes.

I have to go. Thanks for the conversation. Will try to reply to more at a later time.

ScaliaFan · Jul 15, 2016

FHII said:
.

Paul does not condemn homosexuality in Romans 1. Not exactly. Paul explains God turned them over to their vile affections for their dishonouring of God. Homosexuality wasn't the problem; it was what God let take over their life.

your post makes no sense. In Romans 1 homosexuality is explicitly DEFINED... says men doing ungodly things w/ other men and same for women.. and it is condemned

ScaliaFan · Jul 15, 2016

mjrhealth said:
Wormwood, look up that word corruption would you. Are you going to be the one that tells a man born with an overload of female hormoanes what sex he should be, or teh women both with male genitals and male hormes waht sex she should be. or are you willing to tell a 3 year old child with messed up hormones who they are. So why are you so offended.??

so you dont believe the Bible?

OK, got it

mjrhealth · Jul 15, 2016

so you dont believe the Bible?

OK, got it

I believe God, dont you??? So many christians sound just like this man.

Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Luk 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

You dont know whos side you stand on.

mjrhealth · Jul 15, 2016

so you dont believe the Bible?

Its also an odd statement to make considering how much your churches doctrines are at odds with the bible. Call no man father??

mjrhealth · Jul 16, 2016

mj,

The purpose of this conversation is to look at Scripture and see what it has to say about these issues. I am not telling anyone they have to be anything. I am explaining my understanding of what Scripture teaches. If you or someone else doesnt want to obey the Scriptures, that is your prerogative. I am not your judge. Just dont imply that I am acting self-righteous because I believe Scripture has something to say on the matter and it may not be what you want it to say. We are all sinners in need of grace. Yet that doesnt mean that we indulge in our sins because our flesh desires it. Since when do physical desires determine what is right and what is wrong?

So what you are saying that Gods grace is not good enough to cover there sin only yours, is not all sin guilty of death, what is it you thjink Jesus died for, As I said you should be glad you dont have the same problems they do, you may see it all in a differnt light. They are not responsible for the defects imposed upon them by corruption, but you seem to say they stil l have choice, like waht?? The issue is they dont require your forgivensss for they have not sinned against you, it is you that requires there forgiveness for you have sinned agasint them by making accusations and calling them sinners, is not that the devils job, is he not teh "accuser" of teh bretheren??

junobet · Jul 16, 2016

Wormwood said:
junobet,

You are in error on a few counts. First, the slavery that was permitted among Israelites and Romans and the slavery that took Africans from their homes were two very different forms of slavery. Roman and Israelite slavery was much more like having an indentured servant. They were paid for their work and often were slaves because of outstanding debts that could be paid off over time. This was a very different form of slavery than that which took place among Africans where they were stolen from their homes and treated like animals.

[SIZE=medium]One thing I think Christians should never do is to whitewash our own history. Throughout its history Christianity as a whole has achieved a lot in terms of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world. But of course Christians also have often erred. And as Christians we ought to own up to those dark spots in our history![/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]So while I appreciate your self-critical view on American history, I’m a bit shocked that you are trying to depict the life of a Roman slave as pretty much rosy posy, just to defend your position here. Sure, there were slaves that were highly educated and lived relatively comfortable lifes. But not only were my Barbarian ancestors kidnapped and stolen from their homes just much as Africans on American slave markets were, many of them were also kept like animals. Roman society was cruel and a slave’s average lifespan was around 17.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]And I am certain that deep down you agree with me that it is wrong on principle to treat your fellow-men as personal property, no matter whether you keep them in a golden or in an iron Cage.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Second, Paul's comments about slavery in no way validate that way of life. Paul's simple point is that Christians should be outstanding examples of love and truthfulness no matter what position in life they are in when they come to Christ. The Holy Spirit's work was not so much about creating social upheaval as it was to display the love and grace of Christ through the people of God who exist throughout the social spectrum. Paul's basic point is, whether you are a wife, slave, master, child or whatever position you find yourself in, conduct yourself in such a way as to display Christ. Paul's focus in these social examples is primarily roles of submission (wives, children, slaves, citizens). It is through acts of submission that Christ is most profoundly displayed. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium][/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Well yes and no: [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Yes, in that I agree with you that it is through acts of submission that Christ is most profoundly displayed. No, in that the given quote says the opposite. Ephesians has it that it is the husband and the slave holder that display Christ, not the wife and the slave:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]“[/SIZE][SIZE=small]22 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.[/SIZE] [SIZE=small]23 [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” (Eph 5:22-23)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” (Eph. 6:5)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]And yes again: Paul wasn’t a Spartacus-style social revolutionary. And not just from a 1th century but also from my Christian pacifist 21th century perspective IMHO it is reasonable for a Christian not to be and to still end up in the Colosseum if need be. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]It seems modern Christians have sought to flip Paul's emphasis and use his words as a catalyst to throw off any forms of submission or service to others and fight for personal rights. This is the opposite of Paul's focus in these passages and is an unfortunate twisting of both Scripture and the Holy Spirit's intent.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Wormwood, I’m not fighting for my personal rights: I’m in the privileged position of a heterosexual married woman and blessed with a husband who doesn’t see himself as my head but as my equal partner. What I’m doing is to “[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]Cry with those who are crying.” (Romans 12:15b) after I followed Paul’s advice: “Do not be conformed to this world, but continuously be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you may be able to determine what God’s will is—what is proper,[/SIZE][SIZE=small][[/SIZE][SIZE=small]b[/SIZE][SIZE=small]][/SIZE][SIZE=medium] pleasing, and perfect.” (Romans 12:2) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]And I’m afraid that your static position on homosexuality is very much conformed to the society you grew up in. From my point of view it is clearly based on tradition and long held prejudices rather than on a continuous renewal of the Christian mind. So what I was trying to point out to you via the example of traditional Christian views on slavery is that Christianity is not about blindly following traditions. We are called to develop and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit we will develop in the right direction.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Well, I think you have horribly misunderstood early Christianity. Yes, there have been those who claim to be Christians who use the Bible to validate all kinds of perversions and abuse...such as the mistreatment of Africans and (in my very strong opinion) homosexuality. Yet the problem has always been a lack of Scriptural understanding rather than the Scriptures needing to be altered by the "growth of living faith." If its not based in the teaching of God, then its not faith, its simply a growth of personal desires away from the truth.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I’m not altering the Scriptures, I’m trying to understand them to the best of my ability. On a reasonable level that means using the methodologies and findings of higher criticism to better understand what the author’s had in mind when they wrote them. On a spiritual level – and yes I may be very influenced by Lutheranism in that respect – I think I must read them with Christ at their center. (I’ll go into that in a minute)[/SIZE]

.
[SIZE=medium]Well this is a false dichotomy. Neither should be a pastor. Both exhibit characteristics that are condemned in Scripture and are specifically rejected as suitable for a Christian leader.[/SIZE]
.

[SIZE=medium]I fear the false dichotomy is on your part here. To think in simple binary opposites, heterosexual=good/vs. homosexual=bad, is very much a human societal trait, that people like Judith Butler rightly tackle. God creates us with sexual organs and desires, but I’m convinced He does not define us by them. In the end we’ll be “like the angels in heaven” (Mt 22:30) and I don’t think angels have sex or gender, nor does God.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]So one of the people I found to be the most Christ-like and inspiring in my life is my late mother-in-law, who spent her last years with a woman. When asked about her sexual orientation, she said “I don’t fall in love with genitals, I fall in love with a person.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Do you have any scholarly documentation to support these claims? I think comparing homosexual acts in Rome and homosexual acts among incarcerated criminals who are cut off from female companionship incredibly off base.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium] If the Wikipedia-article wasn’t good enough for you:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/roman-law-and-banning-passive-homosexuality-00832[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/#His[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]It is a plain and rather undebated fact amongst historians that Antiquity had no notion of sexual identity yet, and that same sex sexual acts mostly took place in contexts that were far from pretty. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Ok, so basically your argument is that the OT is unreliable and gives an improper picture of God. That helps in the discussion. As I explained at the beginning of this discussion, the rationle behind the acceptance of homosexuality usually has nothing to do with the Biblical text or word meanings and usually devolves into imagined early cultural practices and a dismissal of the Bible as a reliable means of knowing who God is or what He desires. If your view is that the Bible is unreliable, then I think we have really lost all common ground for a meaningful discussion. If you are unwilling to accept the idea that the Bible is reliable, then what hope is there to convince you that my ideas are of any value...especially when they are based on a book you dismiss as containing reliable information about God and his will?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Well, indeed a lot of our disagreements here may also be rooted in our different approach to scripture, but I fear you slightly misunderstood mine, even though I already hinted at it: [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I believe that the Bible reliably and inerrantly tells us all we need to know about our salvation, I don’t believe it to be inerrant in the broader sense. And however inerrant it may be, I’m sure you agree that none of us is inerrant when it comes to sassing out exactly what it is that it tells us. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Unlike Muslims we Christians generally don’t believe that our Holy Scriptures were dictated by God Himself - and frankly I regard such belief as close to blasphemous, because IMHO it turns the Bible into an idol. The Biblical texts were written by inspired human beings in their own words. So we do good to take these people’s worldview and historical background into account when trying to understand their testimonies of faith. God does not change, but the Bible shows clearly that people’s ideas about Him and His will developed in the about 1000 years that lie between its oldest and its youngest texts. Feel free to disagree with what is pretty much a standard position amongst Biblical Scholars on my side of the world, but that may easily lead you to self-contradictory beliefs, like having to console the ‘reliability’ of passages like 1 Samuel 15:3 with the belief that God is the perfect Good.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]What I hope we do agree on is that, when we try to suss out God’s will, we should look to Christ. The New Testament gives witness how He treated the Old Testament Laws (waging parts of it against each other, a bold “But I say to you …”, always emphacizing justice, mercy and the well-being of human-beings over mere legalism, and summarizing the whole point of the law in the double commandment of love) and we do good to read both the OT and the NT in this spirit when making moral choices. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]So maybe you want to reflect whether many modern day Christians rejection of homosexuality is indeed not just ‘pharisaic’?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium][/SIZE]

junobet · Jul 16, 2016

Wormwood said:
junobet,

Well, I dont think you are accurately reading Paul. Paul said there is nothing wrong with marriage and those who have a desire to do so should. In fact, his letter to the Corinthians on the issue could be read a couple of ways. We dont know what their questions were, so it is quite possible that they were the ones teaching that people should not marry and Paul was challenging this strictness (see 1 Cor. 7:1). Certainly he felt that it was a good thing to entirely give oneself to the work of ministry and forgo family life for the sake of Christ. But it doesnt mean he "didnt like any kind of sexual passion." He wrote,

Certainly Paul felt the coming of Jesus could be any moment and he wanted people focused on Christ more than anything else. Yet it doesnt mean he was into strict asceticism. In fact, he condemns such appearances of holiness in his letter to the Colossians:

[SIZE=medium]I totally agree with you that we can’t know whether “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” is Paul stating his own view or citing that of the persons who wrote him about the issue. And just like you I lean towards the second option. However, that does not erase 1 Cor 7:7: ”[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” [/SIZE][SIZE=medium] In Colossians 2 he’s speaking about the early Christians struggle about Jewish purity laws. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t into “stopping the indulgence of the flesh”, i.e. into controlling your passions and living in virtuously. And for him that very much involved controlling your sexual passions. Sex within marriage is just a concession to stop his flock from worse. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Please don’t take offense, but you putting up that much defense against the notion that Paul may have regarded your own sexuality as somehow inferior to his asexuality, kind of tells me you don’t like the feeling of having your own sexuality deevaluated. Note that this is what you do to others. [/SIZE]

.
[SIZE=medium]Well a couple of thoughts here...[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]First, the article states that the "causes" (which is what we were discussing) were unknown. This statement is clearly an opinion of some internet contributor as there is no way to prove what "normal" and "natural" is...especially when the article already said the causes are unknown. Second, wikipedia is about as unscholarly of a publication as one could find. It can be useful to find some resources, but it is not a reliable resource. I know of no professional who uses wikipedia as a resource for scholarly publications. In fact, I have read an article from a medical doctor who compares gender confusion issues with other psychological abnormalities such as anorexia. In it, he argues that someone who desires so deeply to be a different sex that they even mutilate perfectly good organs to become something they are not is no different than a person who looks at an undernourished skeleton in the mirror and thinks they are fat and continues to starve themselves. I guess my point is, at a minimum, there is no consensus on "scientific research" regarding the "normalcy" of these issues.[/SIZE]
..

[SIZE=medium] Rest assured that I wouldn’t be quoting from Wikipedia if I was writing an academic paper rather than just having a casual discussion. As it happens years back I did write a paper vaguely touching on the topic of homosexuality and the scientific consensus was very much the same back then as it is now. Due to this consensus homosexuality is not listed as an illness on the [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]ICD-10 any more. That you still find blokes who present it as a mental illness doesn’t surprise me. I give such articles the same credibility as ‘creationist science’. Come on Wormwood, you strike me as a man of intellectual integrity, do you really think Christians ought to bury their head in the sand like that? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I disagree. I think you have a very anachronistic reading of Paul. Paul was not a 21st century Western thinker. He did not use [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]physikos [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]in reference to genetics or merely what confers a biological advantage. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]If anything, in the writing of Paul, the "flesh" is something that is corrupt and infected with sin. He certainly wouldnt argue that "nature" relates primary to a person's natural dispositions genetically. He clearly sees our natural dispositions as being contrary to God's desires (see Romans 7 &8). Once again, it seems he is arguing that these are genuine lusts that originate in the flesh. This word reflects the external form of how something came into being. It was used in reference to understanding the "true constitution of things." [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]??? Isn’t that more or less what I just said? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]In sum, I think its very simple that Paul simply was referring to the purposes of natural sexual intercourse in reproduction and is stating that homosexual activity goes against the natural design for procreation. Paul sees God's design of sex as that for the intimacy and enjoyment of a man and woman who are procreating. His argument is that our rejection of God and his purpose for things has filled us with sin and unnatural desires such that we crave to do things that are very different from their original purposes. [/SIZE]
.

[SIZE=medium]You may have very aptly summed up Augustine’s view on Paul’s position here, and I'm not saying that Augustine was alltogether wrong. ;-)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]However, if the procreation argument holds that much water for denying homosexuals the right to marry, why is it that I know of no Church that refuses to marry women who are well past their menopause? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]And did you ever consider how hurtful this argument is for the approx. 1 in 10 couples who – due to medical problems in one or both partners – can’t have children? Taking the procreation argument to its logical conclusion, these couples should stop having sex from the moment they get the terrible diagnosis that there is zero chance for procreation. I don’t think any church expects that of them. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]I very much hope that you’ve experienced for yourself that human sexuality is not just about passing on our genes, but more importantly about intimacy and bonding between two people who love each other. So surely you will understand why there are women who would not want to swap their infertile husbands for the best stallion in the stable, and vice versa. If you understand that, you should also understand that there are homosexuals don’t want to swap their partners for anybody else. [/SIZE]

Wormwood · Jul 16, 2016

[SIZE=medium]One thing I think Christians should never do is to whitewash our own history. Throughout its history Christianity as a whole has achieved a lot in terms of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world. But of course Christians also have often erred. And as Christians we ought to own up to those dark spots in our history![/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]So while I appreciate your self-critical view on American history, I’m a bit shocked that you are trying to depict the life of a Roman slave as pretty much rosy posy, just to defend your position here. Sure, there were slaves that were highly educated and lived relatively comfortable lifes. But not only were my Barbarian ancestors kidnapped and stolen from their homes just much as Africans on American slave markets were, many of them were also kept like animals. Roman society was cruel and a slave’s average lifespan was around 17.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]And I am certain that deep down you agree with me that it is wrong on principle to treat your fellow-men as personal property, no matter whether you keep them in a golden or in an iron Cage.[/SIZE]

I dont think you understood what I was saying, at all. First, how is Roman slavery part of Christian history? Personally, I dont think the African slave traders were originally Christian, but certainly some Christians sought to defend the abhorrent practice using the Bible (just as some seek to defend all kinds of sexual immorality with the Bible). If anything, it was Christians who abolished the practice. Either way, yeah it was a terrible thing and unfortunatly many who claimed Christ participated in it. But I dont see what exactly that has to do with our discussion, other than the fact that people misused the Bible to promote evil, just as I believe they are doing with condoning homosexual behavior which is specifically condemned. Paul never condones slavery (especially that which took place with Africans, stealing them from their home and treating them like less-than-humans). Show me somewhere Paul says we should treat people in such a way! Otherwise, I dont see what you are getting at.

Moreover, the primary point I was making is that Paul's writings never condone slavery. Rather, they assume the practice and speak to how Christians should behave in such a system. Again, this social revolution concept is very far from the purpose of Paul and the NT. Paul sought to show believers how to be salt in light as slaves, wives, children, or whatever position they found themselves. They were to be honest, loving, hard-working and gracious. To suggest this reflects some kind of error in the NT about Paul's thought process is very problematic.

No, in that the given quote says the opposite. Ephesians has it that it is the husband and the slave holder that display Christ, not the wife and the slave:

“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.” (1 Peter 3:1–2, ESV)

“Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God.” (1 Peter 4:1–2, ESV)

“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” (Ephesians 5:1–2, ESV)

“submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21, ESV)

You are being too literal here, junobet. The whole point of these passages in Ephesians and elsewhere in the NT is that Christians should display Christ's character and love through sacrifice, humility, and submission. Even those in power should submit to God's authority in these matters: “Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.” (Ephesians 6:9, ESV)

Let's not miss the forest for the trees here. The point I was making is that Paul was writing about Christian conduct given the cultural situation, and was not seeking to create laws or social upheaval with his instructions. Thus, trying to dismiss Paul or the OT because they agreed with slavery is both false and anachonistic because slavery for the Israelites (and Romans) was very different. (And I never said Roman slaves has a rosy life).

I dont have much time, but I did want to address the issue of head-covering, since you have used that as a means to dismiss prohibitions for homosexuality.

First, there is one woman at our church who covers her head when I preach. I admire her commitment to the Scriptures and know she is acting in faith, even though I do not know that such a practice is necessary. Here is why:

In the context of head coverings, Paul explains why these head coverings are necessary: A woman ought to have a symbol of authority over her. In essence, Paul is saying that the purpose of these headcoverings is to express the woman's submission to male leadership. So, the submission of women is a timeless principle. That is what must be expressed. How that submission is expressed, is cultural (in my opinion). In our culture, most people do not recognize head covering with female submission to male leadership. In fact, most people have no idea what it means at all. In Paul's day, it was very clear to the culture that lack of head covering in such circumstances expressed a lack of female submission and Paul felt this was improper for God's design and desires.

This is NOT the same as homosexuality. With headcovering, female submission to male leadership is the rationale for the head covering. I agree that women should be in submission to male leadership. Maybe they do that through giving up their last name in marriage or by remaining silent in the classroom, or by not taking positions of eldership in the church. How it happens from culture to culture may differ, but the point is submission to male leadership. With homosexuality, there is no hint that Paul has a principle in mind by which homosexuality merely underscores that principle. No, the act of men and women lusting after one another is itself the thing that is condemned. So these two are not the same. One is an act that points to the principle of submission in the church. The other is an act that itself is condemned.

Anyway, I know you wrote a lot and I will try to get to it as I can. Thanks for your kind words about our services. I appreciate that. Duty calls. Have a blessed day.

Wormwood · Jul 17, 2016

[SIZE=13.5pt]The keyword is “[/SIZE]Διὸ[SIZE=12pt]”=“therefore” in Romans 1:24, which establishes a direct causal relationship and the vices listed. Your translation emphasizes this causal relationship even more by translating “[/SIZE]καθὼς[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“ (“as much as”) as “since”.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]It’s because they did not know God and turned to idolatry that God turned them over to these vices. Well, and I know many homosexuals who are probably closer to God than me, who are just oozing love and grace and faith …[/SIZE]

Thanks for commenting on the Greek and grammar. Here is my brief response...

“Καὶ καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα, πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ πονηρίᾳ πλεονεξίᾳ κακίᾳ, μεστοὺς φθόνου φόνου ἔριδος δόλου κακοηθείας, ψιθυριστὰς καταλάλους θεοστυγεῖς ὑβριστὰς ὑπερηφάνους ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀσυνέτους ἀσυνθέτους ἀστόργους ἀνελεήμονας· οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ἄξιοι θανάτου εἰσίν, οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν.” (Romans 1:28–32, NA27)

You are right that dia and kathos indicates a causal relationship to the previous section. One idea is based on the preceding idea. There is a logical order Paul is expressing. Paul uses this same structure in verse 28. kia = also/and and kathos = just as/since. Paul is basing all these wicked behaviors out of the preceding section that people saw fit not to worship or honor God. Here Paul points to envy, murder, strife, deceit, etc. Based on your rationale, every atheist must be an envious, murdering, filled with strife, disobedient and an arrogant jerk. After all, all these characteristics are based in either atheism or idolatry and a refusal to worship the true God, right? Are you ready to say that all atheists exhibit all these characteristics?

If you come across a kind and benevolent atheist who is "oozing with love", is your conclusion then that they really know God...perhaps better than you? Should we just look at people's outward behaviors and determine by virtue of their good works if they know God and if they need a Savior? Remember, Jesus' critique of the Pharisees was what was inward, not their appearance. There are many who appear outwardly holy and good, but inwardly are selfish, arrogant and godless.

In any event, you are missing the big picture of Paul's teaching here. Chapters 1-3 in Romans are the development of Paul's argument as to why all people need the Gospel. His conclusion is found in chapter 3:

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” (Romans 3:21–24, ESV)

Paul's point is that the Gentiles are guilty because they know better and still have refused to worship God which has led Gentile cultures into all kinds of evil and abominable practices (idolatry, homosexuality, greed, arrogance, murder, strife, etc.). Likewise, the Jews, though they "knew God" are still no better because they are guilty of the same evil behaviors as the Gentiles. Having the law doesnt mean anything if you dont keep the law. Thus, all are bound under sin and need the Gospel. That is Paul's point.

For our purposes, it is evident that Paul does list homosexuality as a greivous sin that comes from a depraved way of thinking. Certainly God can save people who are guilty of any of these sins. But to suggest that repentance is unnecessary for them or that God actually approves of them, is so far from what Paul is arguing here. Again, you are making the text say the very opposite of what it clearly says. I just cannot understand the type of reasoning that can pull off such a reversal. If the Bible actually affirms what it condemns..given enough cultural exploration and word manipulation...then we might as well toss it out because it is completely beyond our capacity to understand it.

I just dont believe that. And I dont think you really do either...

junobet · Jul 18, 2016

Wormwood said:
I dont think you understood what I was saying, at all. First, how is Roman slavery part of Christian history? Personally, I dont think the African slave traders were originally Christian, but certainly some Christians sought to defend the abhorrent practice using the Bible (just as some seek to defend all kinds of sexual immorality with the Bible). If anything, it was Christians who abolished the practice. Either way, yeah it was a terrible thing and unfortunatly many who claimed Christ participated in it. But I dont see what exactly that has to do with our discussion, other than the fact that people misused the Bible to promote evil, just as I believe they are doing with condoning homosexual behavior which is specifically condemned. Paul never condones slavery (especially that which took place with Africans, stealing them from their home and treating them like less-than-humans). Show me somewhere Paul says we should treat people in such a way! Otherwise, I dont see what you are getting at.

Moreover, the primary point I was making is that Paul's writings never condone slavery. Rather, they assume the practice and speak to how Christians should behave in such a system. Again, this social revolution concept is very far from the purpose of Paul and the NT. Paul sought to show believers how to be salt in light as slaves, wives, children, or whatever position they found themselves. They were to be honest, loving, hard-working and gracious. To suggest this reflects some kind of error in the NT about Paul's thought process is very problematic.

“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.” (1 Peter 3:1–2, ESV)

“Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God.” (1 Peter 4:1–2, ESV)

“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” (Ephesians 5:1–2, ESV)

“submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21, ESV)

You are being too literal here, junobet. The whole point of these passages in Ephesians and elsewhere in the NT is that Christians should display Christ's character and love through sacrifice, humility, and submission. Even those in power should submit to God's authority in these matters: “Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.” (Ephesians 6:9, ESV)

Let's not miss the forest for the trees here. The point I was making is that Paul was writing about Christian conduct given the cultural situation, and was not seeking to create laws or social upheaval with his instructions. Thus, trying to dismiss Paul or the OT because they agreed with slavery is both false and anachonistic because slavery for the Israelites (and Romans) was very different. (And I never said Roman slaves has a rosy life).

I dont have much time, but I did want to address the issue of head-covering, since you have used that as a means to dismiss prohibitions for homosexuality.

First, there is one woman at our church who covers her head when I preach. I admire her commitment to the Scriptures and know she is acting in faith, even though I do not know that such a practice is necessary. Here is why:

In the context of head coverings, Paul explains why these head coverings are necessary: A woman ought to have a symbol of authority over her. In essence, Paul is saying that the purpose of these headcoverings is to express the woman's submission to male leadership. So, the submission of women is a timeless principle. That is what must be expressed. How that submission is expressed, is cultural (in my opinion). In our culture, most people do not recognize head covering with female submission to male leadership. In fact, most people have no idea what it means at all. In Paul's day, it was very clear to the culture that lack of head covering in such circumstances expressed a lack of female submission and Paul felt this was improper for God's design and desires.

This is NOT the same as homosexuality. With headcovering, female submission to male leadership is the rationale for the head covering. I agree that women should be in submission to male leadership. Maybe they do that through giving up their last name in marriage or by remaining silent in the classroom, or by not taking positions of eldership in the church. How it happens from culture to culture may differ, but the point is submission to male leadership. With homosexuality, there is no hint that Paul has a principle in mind by which homosexuality merely underscores that principle. No, the act of men and women lusting after one another is itself the thing that is condemned. So these two are not the same. One is an act that points to the principle of submission in the church. The other is an act that itself is condemned.

Anyway, I know you wrote a lot and I will try to get to it as I can. Thanks for your kind words about our services. I appreciate that. Duty calls. Have a blessed day.

[SIZE=medium]Wow, I’m in for a bigger culture-shock than I bargained for when I entered this discussion!

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]To give you the picture: I’m a bog-standard German Protestant, probably akin to what would be mainline in the US. For reasons of convenience I kept my maiden name, my husband would never want to be my superior, my local church has both male and female pastors, my churches highest office is held by a woman, the confederation of Protestant Churches in Germany (EKD) was led by a woman and my country is governed by a woman. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]So you’ll understand that my jaw dropped a little bit when I read your post. Whether women should be in submission to male leadership could make for a good discussion, but funnily enough I’m so post-feminist that feminist theology is not my forte. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]However, concerning this discussion the point is: What in Paul – or for that matter in us reading Paul - is gospel and what is culture?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Clearly – and please correct me, if I’m wrong - on the head-covering issue you have made a similar step as I have made on the issue of homosexuality: you see something Paul says as merely cultural and time-specific to him and interpret his instructions in a more abstract way. If I was to visit your parish I may feel like being in another time-zone here and there, but I wouldn’t exactly feel as if I had been catapulted back to 1th century Rome. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]And of course I totally agree with you that Paul’s remarks about slavery have to be seen within their cultural context. In Paul’s day and age they were even quite progressive (as were his views on women). The question I was driving at was why you can easily see these remarks as cultural and why it is that you still see his remarks on men having sexual intercourse with men as completely timeless literal truths. My suspicion is that it’s the socio-religious culture you grew up in that’s blurring your evaluation. Of course you’ve got every right to return the compliment and only God can know who’s right, but at least I’ve explained my criteria (though it seems not sufficiently enough, so please see below). Yours are still rather mysterious to me. [/SIZE]

junobet · Jul 18, 2016

Wormwood said:
Thanks for commenting on the Greek and grammar. Here is my brief response...

“Καὶ καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα, πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ πονηρίᾳ πλεονεξίᾳ κακίᾳ, μεστοὺς φθόνου φόνου ἔριδος δόλου κακοηθείας, ψιθυριστὰς καταλάλους θεοστυγεῖς ὑβριστὰς ὑπερηφάνους ἀλαζόνας, ἐφευρετὰς κακῶν, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀσυνέτους ἀσυνθέτους ἀστόργους ἀνελεήμονας· οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ἄξιοι θανάτου εἰσίν, οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσιν τοῖς πράσσουσιν.” (Romans 1:28–32, NA27)

You are right that dia and kathos indicates a causal relationship to the previous section. One idea is based on the preceding idea. There is a logical order Paul is expressing. Paul uses this same structure in verse 28. kia = also/and and kathos = just as/since. Paul is basing all these wicked behaviors out of the preceding section that people saw fit not to worship or honor God. Here Paul points to envy, murder, strife, deceit, etc. Based on your rationale, every atheist must be an envious, murdering, filled with strife, disobedient and an arrogant jerk. After all, all these characteristics are based in either atheism or idolatry and a refusal to worship the true God, right? Are you ready to say that all atheists exhibit all these characteristics?

[SIZE=medium] I’m glad we’ve now come to the agreement that Paul doesn’t just randomly mention idol worship in one verse and men committing “[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]shameful acts with other men[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]” in the next. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]As for atheists: there weren’t that many atheists around in Paul’s day. The people he refers to “knew God” (Romans 1:21). But of course many of my atheist friends either don’t know God or don’t know that they know God, and still they are very good at loving their neighbours. Being a proponent of natural law this comes as no surprise to me. Atheists are made in God’s image just the same as we are. Mt 25:31-46 (the sheep and the goats) clearly suggests that people can serve Christ without knowing that they do so. And we find Paul touching on the issue in Romans 2:14-16.[/SIZE]

If you come across a kind and benevolent atheist who is "oozing with love", is your conclusion then that they really know God...perhaps better than you?

One thing I gathered we agree on is that whoever is not oozing with love, doesn't really know God. (1 John 4:8)

So maybe an Atheist who oozes with love knows God without calling God God, because God's Name has been hijacked by so many People who don't ooze love.

Should we just look at people's outward behaviors and determine by virtue of their good works if they know God and if they need a Savior? Remember, Jesus' critique of the Pharisees was what was inward, not their appearance. There are many who appear outwardly holy and good, but inwardly are selfish, arrogant and godless.

In any event, you are missing the big picture of Paul's teaching here. Chapters 1-3 in Romans are the development of Paul's argument as to why all people need the Gospel. His conclusion is found in chapter 3:

“But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” (Romans 3:21–24, ESV)

Paul's point is that the Gentiles are guilty because they know better and still have refused to worship God which has led Gentile cultures into all kinds of evil and abominable practices (idolatry, homosexuality, greed, arrogance, murder, strife, etc.). Likewise, the Jews, though they "knew God" are still no better because they are guilty of the same evil behaviors as the Gentiles. Having the law doesnt mean anything if you dont keep the law. Thus, all are bound under sin and need the Gospel. That is Paul's point.

For our purposes, it is evident that Paul does list homosexuality as a greivous sin that comes from a depraved way of thinking. Certainly God can save people who are guilty of any of these sins. But to suggest that repentance is unnecessary for them or that God actually approves of them, is so far from what Paul is arguing here. Again, you are making the text say the very opposite of what it clearly says. I just cannot understand the type of reasoning that can pull off such a reversal. If the Bible actually affirms what it condemns..given enough cultural exploration and word manipulation...then we might as well toss it out because it is completely beyond our capacity to understand it.

I just dont believe that. And I dont think you really do either...

[SIZE=medium]Yes, by and large we agree on the big picture: All of us need a saviour and it is certainly not for us to judge others. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]What we disagree on is how we define what constitutes a sin and what does not. I’ve been trying to show you that ripping Bible verses out of their socio-cultural context and blindly applying them to ours can lead to terrible errors in that question. And IMHO that’s just what you are doing when judging homosexuality.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The problem Jesus had with the Pharisees was that their heartless legalism often made them violate the deeper sense of the law, and - from my point of view - the same happens when conservative Christians promote homophobia. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The deeper sense of the law as layed out by Jesus, can be found in the one law Paul repeatedly urges us to keep:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Romans 13:8: “Be indebted to no one, except to one another in love, for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Romans 13:10[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]“Love does no wrong to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Galatians 5:14[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]"The entire Law is fulfilled in a single decree: "Love your neighbor as yourself.""[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I can see how the vices Paul lists in Romans 1 show a lack of love for neighbour. I can also see how the dominance-orientated ways in which same sex behaviour were commonly practiced in antiquity were depraved and show a lack of love for neighbour. What I can’t see is how homosexuality as such (a concept of sexual orientation people in antiquity did not yet have) violates love for neighbour. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]And you failed to give me a good reason why it should be in any way morally inferior to heterosexuality as such. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]So I still think it’s not our sexual orientations that are sinful, it’s whether we live them in loving or unloving ways that counts. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]What I definitely do see as lack of love for neighbour – and please note that I acknowledge that given our very different social bubbles you yourself may honestly think you are acting in homosexual people’s best interests - is to declare the majority’s sexual orientation as the sole legitimate one and to try to force it on everybody else, well knowing and deliberately ignoring that this causes enormous psychological, social and spiritual harm. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]However, I’m afraid we’re beginning to move in circles. So at some point we can probably just agree to disagree and pray that God will have mercy on us whoever is right or wrong.[/SIZE]

Wormwood · Jul 19, 2016

To give you the picture: I’m a bog-standard German Protestant, probably akin to what would be mainline in the US. For reasons of convenience I kept my maiden name, my husband would never want to be my superior, my local church has both male and female pastors, my churches highest office is held by a woman, the confederation of Protestant Churches in Germany (EKD) was led by a woman and my country is governed by a woman.

I understand we have very different perspectives and backgrounds on the matter. Hopefully it lends itself to a insightful discussion on both sides.

Personally, I would not use the word "superior." Roles in the church or home do not indicate superiority or inferiority. All are one in Christ and we are have equal value in His eyes. Jesus is part of the Triune God, yet he fulfilled his role as a suffering servant. That does not make him an inferior person of the Trinity. No, roles do no indicate value and unfortunately such notions have been argued errantly from both sides. In my mind, it is no different than my role towards the government. As a Christian, I am called to be a submissive and godly citizen who gives honor to whom honor is due. Does that mean the congressman or president is of greater value than I am? No. Does it mean God sees me as inferior to them? No. Was Jesus inferior to Pilate or the High Priest because he was in submission to them in their roles as local leaders? Obviously not. So, the issue is not one of value, but of role. There are roles in the church and I think that is very clearly spelled out in Paul. Just like the homosexuality issue, the only way to get around it is to say it is an interpolation or that its all cultural. One has to really question the value of the Bible (in my opinion) if pretty much all of its commands and prohibitions are to be considered cultural and have no bearing on us at all. I think its a very poor way to approach the Scriptures.

Clearly – and please correct me, if I’m wrong - on the head-covering issue you have made a similar step as I have made on the issue of homosexuality: you see something Paul says as merely cultural and time-specific to him and interpret his instructions in a more abstract way. If I was to visit your parish I may feel like being in another time-zone here and there, but I wouldn’t exactly feel as if I had been catapulted back to 1th century Rome.

I am not at all going to deny that there are cultural issues in the Bible that do not apply to us. I dont think the command to "greet one another with a holy kiss" needs to be taken literally. Clearly, that was a means of greeting people in that age and a handshake in my culture serves the same function. Yet, the difference is that Paul highlights the principle of head covering, namely, gender roles of authority and submission in the local church. Paul even points to the Garden of Eden and creation as rationale for such roles. So to say gender roles in the local church is merely cultural is flat wrong. This is a universal principle Paul refers to many times and head covering was a means of honoring that principle. Paul even appeals to God's design in creation as rationale for these roles. In the same way, homosexuality is a universal principle and is not merely a condemned cultural expression of a universal principle. No, the act itself is what Paul considers a violation of God's creative design and desires. If Paul had said something like, "A man must not lust after another man because he must not have a sign of authority over his head..." Then it would be safe to conclude that the homosexual act is not the primary issue but that culturally it would have been seen as violating a deeper principle about men and their roles in the church (as we see with head covering). But this is not how Paul approaches the issue. He refers to it as a sinful act and lists it with sexual immorality, adultry, and idolatry in 1 Cor. 6:9 and he lists it among depraved acts such as enslavers (yes, Paul did think the act was wrong

), liars and perjurers in 1 Tim. 1:10. Not to mention our text in Romans that sees it as an unnatural and corrupt act that is the result of human depravity for rejecting God.

I’m glad we’ve now come to the agreement that Paul doesn’t just randomly mention idol worship in one verse and men committing “shameful acts with other men” in the next.

Yes, I would simply see it as one form of depravity (rejecting God) that leads to other forms of depravity (idolatry, homosexuality, arrogance, murder, etc.), rather than the first being the only real sin and all the other things listed after that point as merely expressions of how that sin is carried out. I think such an explanation makes no sense for the list of sins that follow homosexuality....disobedience to parents, arrogance, etc.

Atheists are made in God’s image just the same as we are.Mt 25:31-46 (the sheep and the goats) clearly suggests that people can serve Christ without knowing that they do so. And we find Paul touching on the issue in Romans 2:14-16.

Well I see two problems with this reasoning. First, I think its a terrible mistake to suggest that the sheep in Jesus' parable refers to an atheist or pagan who just happened to be a moral fellow and they unwittingly find out that they are one of the saved whereas the believer who wasnt as involved in social works finds themselves condemned. The entire context of this parable refers to those who are believers who, because they expect the Master's return, are diligently going about the Master's buisness. Those that belong to God naturally do what is right and are not basing their salvation upon their good deeds..in fact, they havent even kept tract of those deeds. They recognize the salvation they receive is by grace...unlike the Pharisees who felt salvation was owed to them. I think you are misappropriating this parable if you are making it teach that the atheist or pagan who has no faith but is a benevolent fellow has hope for salvation apart from faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Second, you have completely misunderstood Paul's point in Romans 2. Again, the whole point in Romans 1-3 is to show that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Thus, all need the grace that comes through faith in Jesus. Paul's point in chapter 2 is that those Jews who looked down on the Gentiles because they had the law and the Gentiles did not have nothing to boast about. In fact, the Gentiles who do what is right without the law are more righteous than the Jew who has the law but doesnt keep it. Paul's point here is simply that Jews have no special advantage when it comes to the day of Judgment. The law cannot save them. If anything, it only shows that some who dont have the law are more godly then they are. The point is that all people are hopelessly lost and are in need of salvation that comes by faith in the Gospel. So, chapter 2 does not give any hope to the Gentile Atheist for salvation or that they can unwittingly do good things for God. Rather it merely points out that some Jews are worse off than these pagans because they know better but still violate God's commands.

Yes, by and large we agree on the big picture: All of us need a saviour and it is certainly not for us to judge others.

Yes, this is true. However, I think we need to be careful with the idea of "not for us to judge others." If you mean, "It's not for me to tell them they cannot be saved or that I am better than them by vitrue of my sexual attractions differing from theirs" then yes, I agree with you. If you are saying, "We shouldnt tell them their behavior is wrong or suggest to them or Christians that such acts are evil and contrary to God's design and desires" then I think you are greatly mistaken. God's word is very clear on the matter, and if we cannot make judgments about right and wrong based on the contents of the Bible, then we might as well close down this board because all discussion on Scripture or the will of God is entirely meaningless.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. If you think it is getting repetitive, then I understand if you no longer want to discuss the issue. God bless you.

junobet · Jul 19, 2016

Wormwood said:
I understand we have very different perspectives and backgrounds on the matter. Hopefully it lends itself to a insightful discussion on both sides.

Personally, I would not use the word "superior." Roles in the church or home do not indicate superiority or inferiority. All are one in Christ and we are have equal value in His eyes. Jesus is part of the Triune God, yet he fulfilled his role as a suffering servant. That does not make him an inferior person of the Trinity. No, roles do no indicate value and unfortunately such notions have been argued errantly from both sides. In my mind, it is no different than my role towards the government. As a Christian, I am called to be a submissive and godly citizen who gives honor to whom honor is due. Does that mean the congressman or president is of greater value than I am? No. Does it mean God sees me as inferior to them? No. Was Jesus inferior to Pilate or the High Priest because he was in submission to them in their roles as local leaders? Obviously not. So, the issue is not one of value, but of role. There are roles in the church and I think that is very clearly spelled out in Paul. Just like the homosexuality issue, the only way to get around it is to say it is an interpolation or that its all cultural. One has to really question the value of the Bible (in my opinion) if pretty much all of its commands and prohibitions are to be considered cultural and have no bearing on us at all. I think its a very poor way to approach the Scriptures.

I am not at all going to deny that there are cultural issues in the Bible that do not apply to us. I dont think the command to "greet one another with a holy kiss" needs to be taken literally. Clearly, that was a means of greeting people in that age and a handshake in my culture serves the same function. Yet, the difference is that Paul highlights the principle of head covering, namely, gender roles of authority and submission in the local church. Paul even points to the Garden of Eden and creation as rationale for such roles. So to say gender roles in the local church is merely cultural is flat wrong. This is a universal principle Paul refers to many times and head covering was a means of honoring that principle. Paul even appeals to God's design in creation as rationale for these roles. In the same way, homosexuality is a universal principle and is not merely a condemned cultural expression of a universal principle. No, the act itself is what Paul considers a violation of God's creative design and desires. If Paul had said something like, "A man must not lust after another man because he must not have a sign of authority over his head..." Then it would be safe to conclude that the homosexual act is not the primary issue but that culturally it would have been seen as violating a deeper principle about men and their roles in the church (as we see with head covering). But this is not how Paul approaches the issue. He refers to it as a sinful act and lists it with sexual immorality, adultry, and idolatry in 1 Cor. 6:9 and he lists it among depraved acts such as enslavers (yes, Paul did think the act was wrong ), liars and perjurers in 1 Tim. 1:10. Not to mention our text in Romans that sees it as an unnatural and corrupt act that is the result of human depravity for rejecting God.

Yes, I would simply see it as one form of depravity (rejecting God) that leads to other forms of depravity (idolatry, homosexuality, arrogance, murder, etc.), rather than the first being the only real sin and all the other things listed after that point as merely expressions of how that sin is carried out. I think such an explanation makes no sense for the list of sins that follow homosexuality....disobedience to parents, arrogance, etc.

Well I see two problems with this reasoning. First, I think its a terrible mistake to suggest that the sheep in Jesus' parable refers to an atheist or pagan who just happened to be a moral fellow and they unwittingly find out that they are one of the saved whereas the believer who wasnt as involved in social works finds themselves condemned. The entire context of this parable refers to those who are believers who, because they expect the Master's return, are diligently going about the Master's buisness. Those that belong to God naturally do what is right and are not basing their salvation upon their good deeds..in fact, they havent even kept tract of those deeds. They recognize the salvation they receive is by grace...unlike the Pharisees who felt salvation was owed to them. I think you are misappropriating this parable if you are making it teach that the atheist or pagan who has no faith but is a benevolent fellow has hope for salvation apart from faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Second, you have completely misunderstood Paul's point in Romans 2. Again, the whole point in Romans 1-3 is to show that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Thus, all need the grace that comes through faith in Jesus. Paul's point in chapter 2 is that those Jews who looked down on the Gentiles because they had the law and the Gentiles did not have nothing to boast about. In fact, the Gentiles who do what is right without the law are more righteous than the Jew who has the law but doesnt keep it. Paul's point here is simply that Jews have no special advantage when it comes to the day of Judgment. The law cannot save them. If anything, it only shows that some who dont have the law are more godly then they are. The point is that all people are hopelessly lost and are in need of salvation that comes by faith in the Gospel. So, chapter 2 does not give any hope to the Gentile Atheist for salvation or that they can unwittingly do good things for God. Rather it merely points out that some Jews are worse off than these pagans because they know better but still violate God's commands.

Yes, this is true. However, I think we need to be careful with the idea of "not for us to judge others." If you mean, "It's not for me to tell them they cannot be saved or that I am better than them by vitrue of my sexual attractions differing from theirs" then yes, I agree with you. If you are saying, "We shouldnt tell them their behavior is wrong or suggest to them or Christians that such acts are evil and contrary to God's design and desires" then I think you are greatly mistaken. God's word is very clear on the matter, and if we cannot make judgments about right and wrong based on the contents of the Bible, then we might as well close down this board because all discussion on Scripture or the will of God is entirely meaningless.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. If you think it is getting repetitive, then I understand if you no longer want to discuss the issue. God bless you.

[SIZE=12pt]Well, I’ve noticed that I started repeating myself and if my arguments haven’t convinced you the first time around, they probably won’t convince you the second time. But if you still have new points you’d like to bring up, I’m all ears.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]But there are some new topics in your post that may warrant new threads. Your turn to start one ;-)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]First of all I have to thank you for making me ponder why it is that I’ve never been much into feminist theology. And I’m afraid the answer is that I’ve mostly associated it with clichés of second wave feminism for which I have a slightly arrogant disdain whilst happily reaping the fruits of its labour. And I’ve never really bothered to read poststructuralist theology either. Shame on me! I should check it out one day.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Off hand I take issue with some of your remarks. It’s been well established that gender and the roles associated with it are mostly if not entirely a social construct. And as I’ve pointed out before not even our biological sex is strictly binary. Secondly I think you overlook that Paul actually was comparatively open regarding the roles women could take on in church. Women were amongst the first church leaders (Junia, Priscilla, Nympha …). To exclude women from certain church offices seems to have been a later development (Council of Laodicea). As indicated I’m far from well read on this complex, but here’s an article on 1 Cor 11 in English, that touches on some of the points you’ve mentioned, including the question of imago dei and the trinity, and that you may find interesting: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1172&context=leaven[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]As for Atheists and Rom 2 and Mt 25:31-46[/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]: I like to read Matthews account under the ‘Moltmannian’ viewpoint that God suffers with those who suffer, but it also tells us what kind of moral behaviour God wants us to display. Obviously the people who did display it in this passage did so without knowing they were serving the Lord by it and without hoping to reap any benefits from their good deeds. In that sense very many atheists show the admirable ethics of Job: doing good for goodness sake. Natural law, the one that is written on their hearts, simply explains how they can tell what is good and what is bad. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]Of course our only hope for salvation still lies in God’s grace that we accept in faith. But being a universalist myself I believe that on judgement day everybody will have faith. Who could not have faith when standing before God? (On a slightly mischievous side note: if you really want to vex an atheist, tell him you have good hope he’ll go to heaven. In my experience it takes the wind right out of their sails. ;-))[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt][/SIZE]
[SIZE=13.5pt]You, too, have a blessed day [/SIZE]

mjrhealth · Jul 20, 2016

Sad isnt it,

Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

But Jesus quietly wrote on the ground, Than he reminded them of their sin, and guilt must of overcome them and they left, than Jesus asks her,

Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

But there where none so Jesus says,

Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Such a pity that some do not know whose side they stand on.

so christians stand pointing at the homosexuals as if to deflect Gods eye from their own sin, and cry siner sinner. And teh devil hearing teh cry runs to God and says, I have some here who have being accused of sin. And God says, and where is your evidiece?? And teh devil, teh accuser sries out, here God, right before your eyes, thousands of "christians" are here in agreement with me, you could not ask for better witnesses. And God weeps.

Have you not read,

Joh 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
Joh 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

Funny how when Jesus was in teh bars with the drunks, harlots and siners that it was the pharisses standing out side who said,

Luk 15:1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
Luk 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

Mat 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

I quiet agree with you Junobet about women, persecuted by the religiuos for centuires, somehow wearing the responsibility of mans fall, yet teh bible clearly states . that by one man "ADAM" sin came into this world, and we know there is none male or female in teh spirit, it was only something required for making babies.

Wormwood · Jul 20, 2016

Well, I appreciate the discussion as well. Although I am sure none of the comments will change your position, I do hope, if nothing else, it causes you to reflect on how we approach the Bible. I truly believe the Bible is revelation. We do not understand God by our instincts, by cultural commentaries, or by popular vote. God has revealed himself and his desires through the Scriptures and they are affirmed by the Spirit. If our aim is truly to desire to please only God no matter what the world or culture tells us, then I think we ought to ensure that our approach to the Scriptures is one in which we try to strip away all bias and respond to what we believe to be the inspired author's original intent. I'd much rather stand before the Lord as one who took the Scriptures too seriously than someone who didnt take them seriously enough.

“And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets—” (Hebrews 11:32, ESV)

Isnt it interesting that Jephthah would be noted as a person of great faith? Certainly, his actions were far from God's desires, but God seems to commend his faith. In my opinion, God is more eager that we believe and trust him, even if it is to a fault. God seems more eager to work with those who trust zealously strive to honor his word, even if they are somewhat ignorant, than those who arent all too interested in honoring the Word above all else. I think Id rather have God say, "Well, that was just a cultural expression, I didnt mean for you to have to follow that command as well" than say, "So why did you feel it was okay to dismiss my command?"

I'll take a look at the article as well as start a new thread. However, I can just say that, to my knowledge, there is no historical evidence in early church history of women acting as elders of the local church. So, I dont know that I agree with the idea that the earliest church has women elders (I never said they couldnt function in other roles or even have positions of prominence) and that practice was done away with by a later council. I have read a fair amount on the subject and this would be news to me. Early church history seems very clear on the matter. Usually the questions revolve around the specific functions of certain women listed by Paul in the NT. But again, I do believe women can have significant roles and roles of prominence in the church, but it seems clear that the Scriptures (and early church history) know nothing of women acting as elders and the primary teachers of the local congregation.

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/22929-gender-roles-the-home-and-the-local-church/

As for the atheist, I am far more interested in being honest with them in accordance with God's revelation of himself and his expectations. Since the NT seems quite clear that faith in Christ is a necessary prerequisite to having eternal life, then I think it would be dishonest for me to give them the promise of heaven. I would encourage you to read the book of Revelation again. I dont think "faith" that comes from seeing Christ come in glory is the kind of faith and trust Jesus is looking for.

Wormwood · Jul 20, 2016

mj,

your comments are so far off base and off topic that they do not warrant a response. Sorry.

mjrhealth · Jul 21, 2016

Off topic, here you are calling people sinners just as those of whom i posted did, whats teh difference. I realy would like to know what it is that makes what they do any worse than what you do?? If teh reward is teh same how can teh work be any different??

Homosexuality

Well-Known Member

Chaps

Chaps

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Chaps

Chaps

Active Member

Active Member

Chaps

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Chaps

Chaps

Well-Known Member

Similar threads