Pro-gay marriage "Bible alone" Christians: explanation?

[Publisher]

Obviously, I would not suggest a “Friend” such as yourself would be supporting those. BTW, thanks for not being un-Quakerly. I was just referring to sexual immorality in general and how Paul was clearly against it. But I do apologize for any misunderstanding.

However, homosexual behavior was permitted. In fact, the Romans called homosexuality “Greek” in reference to Greek permissiveness of the behavior. The Romans themselves, while not encouraging homosexuality, did tolerate it.

But you did not respond to Mark 10:6-8…

Sure I did…I highlighted my response in your dialog box…I’m not much of a “nerd” so I’m not sure how to break them out.

"In this passage, Jesus was addressing divorce and marriage…not same sex relationships…he addressed the issue put to him…same sex relationships was not part of his discourse…nor the passage…nor the questions posed to him."

I may not have answered it to your satisfaction…but it makes sense to me…but I didn’t think I would answer it to your satisfaction in the first place.

I deleted part of my original post…several times…guess I wasn’t fast enough…I had no desire to be “disagreeable” or un-Quakerly…so I deleted it as a matter of conscience on my part…I had no wish to be agressive or uncharitable to you…discretion was the goal…just wasn’t fast enough I guess.

 

[hudson]

The Bible in no way addresses same sex relationships nor does it seek to put forth an understanding of the complexity of human sexuality.

For the most part I agree with friend CMatt’s understanding…I am not “sola scriptura”…the Bible is a product of it’s time and culture. It is not a science book, psychology book nor sociology book.

So anything not specifically condemned by Jesus is fine? Did Jesus teach on beastiality, pedophilia, incest, bigamy, polygamy, orgies, i could go on and get really sick but you get the point. If Jesus was to say explicitly everything that was immoral, the Bible would be to large to handle. The arguement undermining Biblical teachings on this subject is weak for this reason.

 

[CMatt25]

In other words, making the text say something it doesn’t say. Evil can twist anything. The Founders of the Constitution knew this too. I remember reading a letter between, I think it was Madison and Jefferson, about including the Bill of Rights. Jefferson’s response was that those 10 bills were great but they would not mean much in the future. Whatever they wrote down or intended would inevitably be twisted to mean something unintended as the years passed by.

The Bible is no different. People will twist it to conform to their preset beliefs. I could create a law right now that reads:

1. No man shall wear a pink shirt on any Monday in any part of the world ever.

Eventually people would say things like, “Well, pink in his culture hundred of years ago meant different things than the color we think of today. He was referring to a particular style of clothing we no longer wear”.

See what I mean?

I see what you mean but besides not knowing what language your rule would be translated in thousands of yrs from now, maybe your rule will go the way of women not speaking in churches, not eating shellfish, or any number of Scripture directives or practices not beholden to today. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

I do not pretend to be a religiously fanatical catholic…thru the years I have welcomed God back into my life…I suppose its always better late than never…I am trying to live life as Jesus Christ would want me to…I feel it is not my place to agree or disagree with gay marriages I truly believe this is Gods job to approve or disapprove. At the end of the day we all need to learn to be more tolerant of one another and our choices. When the second coming of Christ arrives he will let all of us know he is the true Judge not us. Live and Let Live!!! :angel1:

All any of us can truly do is try to the best of our understanding. I agree a heap of tolerance as you suggest is a good thing along our faith walks. And I agree in faith when He comes again, we will know. God bless you on your journey and peace.

 

[Nec5]

I see what you mean but besides not knowing what language your rule would be translated in thousands of yrs from now, maybe your rule will go the way of women not speaking in churches, not eating shellfish, or any number of Scripture directives or practices not beholden to today. Peace.

The moral law does not change. And I’m referring not to my silly pink shirt law but the condemnation of homosexuality, fornication,etc… That will never change.

 

[CMatt25]

God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife

Well it could be argued God made male and female irrespective of their orientation. I think a lot of gays and lesbians still consider themselves men and women. But where does this idea of being made to join with his wife leave the unmarried and perhaps never married heterosexual man who may never join with a wife in marriage?

 

[CMatt25]

The Bible in no way addresses same sex relationships nor does it seek to put forth an understanding of the complexity of human sexuality.

For the most part I agree with friend CMatt’s understanding…I am not “sola scriptura”…the Bible is a product of it’s time and culture. It is not a science book, psychology book nor sociology book.

Thanks Publisher for going beyond what I said in your subsequent posts and further expanding on a different understanding than what some may have. Peace my friend and peace to all here whom we call friend. May God bless us all along our faith journeys.

 

[pageois]

Jesus rarely alludes to sexual morality in the New Testament. He talks plenty about charity, compassion, self sacrifice and subjugating one’s interests to those of others’, but sex doesen’t really feature much in His recorded utterances. He did, of course, lecture the female adulterer he saved from being stoned to ‘sin no more’. Talk about a get out of jail card! Not sure if she took His advice but as no other episodes of adulterous women having their skulls caved in by packs of male Jews feature in the Gospels, let’s assume she turned over a new page and lived a full life. With a hell of a story to tell the grand kids.

Jesus also doesn’t talk about killing or taking the name of the Lord in vain as being sins but we accept that they are due to their appearance amongst the Big Ten. Commandments, that is. So we can safely assume He also regards them as such, despite not necessarily referring to them specifically in His teachings. But there’s nothing in the B10 about homosexuality being a sin. Yes, adultery may incorporate homosexual intercourse, but it also may not if the partners are unmarried. So neither Jesus nor the B10 allude to homosexuality being a sin, despite other ‘no no’s’ being singled out.

I consider the notion of a man having sex with another man rather distasteful. As my grandmother so preciently said many years before the AIDS epidemic, ‘If you drive a truck up a one-way street the wrong way enough times, someone’s gonna get hurt’. How right she turned out to be.

But I’m interested in the biblical basis for regarding homosexual activity as a sin.

 

[cargau]

I do not pretend to be a religiously fanatical catholic…thru the years I have welcomed God back into my life…I suppose its always better late than never…I am trying to live life as Jesus Christ would want me to…I feel it is not my place to agree or disagree with gay marriages I truly believe this is Gods job to approve or disapprove. At the end of the day we all need to learn to be more tolerant of one another and our choices. When the second coming of Christ arrives he will let all of us know he is the true Judge not us. Live and Let Live!!! :angel1:

It is your place to live in God’s light, not just exist in His light. That means that we must take a stand for righteousness and sometimes that can be hard. Being ambivalent may seem like a nice, charitable way to be, but if souls are damned because of our own inaction, where does that leave us.

The Church has declared that homosexual activity is an objectively mortal sin. Sex between same sex partners is an abuse of the sexual faculty and thus has the potential to be very damaging to one’s immortal soul.

My question is, Is it love to confirm on’e sin as being OK or is it love to help each other get to heaven? If this person were shooting heroin, would you sit by and say, Oh well, who am I to judge?

 

[Publisher]

So anything not specifically condemned by Jesus is fine? Did Jesus teach on beastiality, pedophilia, incest, bigamy, polygamy, orgies, i could go on and get really sick but you get the point. If Jesus was to say explicitly everything that was immoral, the Bible would be to large to handle. The arguement undermining Biblical teachings on this subject is weak for this reason.

Is that your understanding of it friend, or are you seeking to impose your understanding upon me?

I never stated your conclusion nor even inferred it…what I addressed was the passage in Mark and it’s relation to same sex relationships…the subject was not being addressed by Jesus, he was discussing marriage and divorce…not reading anything ELSE into the passage I concluded same sex relationships wee not addressed.

My explanation of those passages typically used to “prove” God’s stance on same sex relationships is not as “cut and dry” as some seem to indicate. Ritual prostitution, sexual victimization and same sex rape are addressed. My point was…which you seem to ignore if not state my “arguement” is undermining biblical teaching is “weak”…those passages DO NOT address same sex relationships…but DO ADDRESS ritual prostitution and ritual uncleaness for the Israelite as opposed to their pagan neighbors.

Those of us who work alongside our gay brothers and sisters for equality do so not promote sin but to open up a dialog to show there is an alternate reading of these passages very consistant within it’s historical and textual context…if we err on our understanding we seek to err on the side of compassion and love and ask ourselves do in fact these passages mean all that our conservative brethren say they mean…the answer is no, they can be read and understood in a different way consistent with biblical exegis…perhaps not something you could accept…but we find the reasons compelling and choose to NOT err against those who MAY NOT BE CONDEMNED by these passages.

By seeking to go back and explore the meaning of some of the words in Hebrew translated into English as “homosexual”, “abomination”, “sodomite” in fact CAN BE UNDERSTOOD differently as we seek to delve deep into scripture to be faithful to the meaning and text found in scripture.

The unchaitable characterizations of what we are seeking to do seem to me to be out of place, we are not seeking to undermine the meaning of scripture, but gain a clearer understanding of the text, for IF those passages do not in fact carry the weight of meaning our conservative brothers and sisters have claimed…perhaps we have erred in our treatment and attitudes toward our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters…and there is a weight of textual evidence that suggests a different understanding IS possible.

 

[exnihilo]

The unchaitable characterizations of what we are seeking to do seem to me to be out of place, we are not seeking to undermine the meaning of scripture, but gain a clearer understanding of the text, for IF those passages do not in fact carry the weight of meaning our conservative brothers and sisters have claimed…perhaps we have erred in our treatment and attitudes toward our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters…and there is a weight of textual evidence that suggests a different understanding IS possible.

I am not saying you are doing this but as I stated earlier some people are willfully undermining scripture. Some people have claimed because ordination of women was allowed when it is clearly against Scripture that our attitude towards homosexuals is also similarly freed from any Scriptural authority.

One thing I’ve not been able to understand is even if you can redefine any understanding of same sex sex to exclude ‘modern’ gay relationships how does one get around the clear prohibitions on fornication? Fornication, which would typically be considered sex outside marriage, is consistently condemned. The only way gays could not fornicate is to be married, which is the topic here. But there is no history of gay marriage and marriage seems to consistently be defined as between a man and a woman. In the second chapter of Genesis it says: ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh’. The argument would have to be what it really meant to say was something like this: ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife or husband; and they shall become one flesh’. This is repeated by Jesus in Matthew 19:5 and Paul in Ephesians 5:31. It would seem Jesus and Paul didn’t give us the whole story if we are to believe gay marriage is possible.

 

[Publisher]

I am not saying you are doing this but as I stated earlier some people are willfully undermining scripture. Some people have claimed because ordination of women was allowed when it is clearly against Scripture that our attitude towards homosexuals is also similarly freed from any Scriptural authority.

One thing I’ve not been able to understand is even if you can redefine any understanding of same sex sex to exclude ‘modern’ gay relationships how does one get around the clear prohibitions on fornication? Fornication, which would typically be considered sex outside marriage, is consistently condemned. The only way gays could not fornicate is to be married, which is the topic here. But there is no history of gay marriage and marriage seems to consistently be defined as between a man and a woman. In the second chapter of Genesis it says: ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh’. The argument would have to be what it really meant to say was something like this: ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife or husband; and they shall become one flesh’. This is repeated by Jesus in Matthew 19:5 and Paul in Ephesians 5:31. It would seem Jesus and Paul didn’t give us the whole story if we are to believe gay marriage is possible.

Marriage is the issue it seems…the Bible does not portray a consistent sexual ethic through out…there are those passages which indicate marriage is between a man and a woman…concubinage was allowed in the OT…as was polygamy. “God” instructed the Israelite men that when they entered a city, they were to kill every man women and child…“except for the virgins” which they “could keep” for themselves.

Within those Christian communities who accept same sex relationships as a natural variation of human sexuality, no one condones “fornication”, but seeks to develop a consistent ethic which governs both gay and straight relationships…and marriage is part of that consistent ethic.

I know of no Christian or Christian who “willfully seeks to undermine scripture”…they may differ on their understanding than what you and your tradition holds…but it is less than honest to state they “willfully seek to undermine scripture”…they willfully seek to better understand scripture…but “undermine”…no…simply not a truthful sentiment.

The Bible does not speak toward monogamous same sex relationships, it wasn’t on “the radar”…and it does not contain a consistent “one man one woman” message either…marriage evolved in the pages of scripture…God still speaks, and we find He is calling us to open our hearts and hands in welcome to those gay and lesbian individuals anc couples that seek to join and consecrate their relationships to the Lord.

Those of us who seek to find and understand God’s will on the matter of same sex relationships understand that marriage has changed much over the centuries…the topic of marriage in scripture has not had a consistent unchangeable “ethic”…the UCC for example motto is “God still speaks”…and that is consitent with Friend’s understanding as well…the Bible is not the in all and end all of faith…which Catholics all too often indicate to those who believe in “sola scriptura”…God still speaks, and now that our understanding of human sexuality has evolved and been explored, we find we turn to Him to seek to understand the plight of our gay brothers and sisters…we don’t claim to have ALL the answers…we are on a Journey with God…a Journey which you and other conservative beleivers are on with us…we are at odds with you…but we must be true to our understanding of the Voice of God we hear whispering to us to embrace our GLBTQ brothers and sisters…

There are no easy answers…we don’t present any…we seek to respond to the call of God in our meetings and congregations to meet a real need…to share the love and mercy of God and assist those gay men and women to wish to join in consecrated commitmentss…which in our society has been called “marriage”…your religious views on marriage are different than ours…we choose to err on the side of love, mercy, compassion on the issue…it is a weighty responsibility to share God’s mercy and love…we seek to be faithful to our understanding of what that entails…hence we hope to continue to dialog and discusss…and where we differ, we will place ourselves in the Hands of a Judge who is Just and Ture…

 

[hudson]

Is that your understanding of it friend, or are you seeking to impose your understanding upon me?

I never stated your conclusion nor even inferred it…what I addressed was the passage in Mark and it’s relation to same sex relationships…the subject was not being addressed by Jesus, he was discussing marriage and divorce…not reading anything ELSE into the passage I concluded same sex relationships wee not addressed.

My explanation of those passages typically used to “prove” God’s stance on same sex relationships is not as “cut and dry” as some seem to indicate. Ritual prostitution, sexual victimization and same sex rape are addressed. My point was…which you seem to ignore if not state my “arguement” is undermining biblical teaching is “weak”…those passages DO NOT address same sex relationships…but DO ADDRESS ritual prostitution and ritual uncleaness for the Israelite as opposed to their pagan neighbors.

Those of us who work alongside our gay brothers and sisters for equality do so not promote sin but to open up a dialog to show there is an alternate reading of these passages very consistant within it’s historical and textual context…if we err on our understanding we seek to err on the side of compassion and love and ask ourselves do in fact these passages mean all that our conservative brethren say they mean…the answer is no, they can be read and understood in a different way consistent with biblical exegis…perhaps not something you could accept…but we find the reasons compelling and choose to NOT err against those who MAY NOT BE CONDEMNED by these passages.

By seeking to go back and explore the meaning of some of the words in Hebrew translated into English as “homosexual”, “abomination”, “sodomite” in fact CAN BE UNDERSTOOD differently as we seek to delve deep into scripture to be faithful to the meaning and text found in scripture.

The unchaitable characterizations of what we are seeking to do seem to me to be out of place, we are not seeking to undermine the meaning of scripture, but gain a clearer understanding of the text, for IF those passages do not in fact carry the weight of meaning our conservative brothers and sisters have claimed…perhaps we have erred in our treatment and attitudes toward our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters…and there is a weight of textual evidence that suggests a different understanding IS possible.

We have the Church to tell us what the Bible states.
CCC:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

There is no need for a private interpretor of Scripture seeing as we have the Bride of Christ on Earth to do that for us. Also where in the Bible does it speak about orgies with 15 guys, 5 goats, and 2 donkeys(one could get much more nasty then this when coming up with scenarios, but you get the point)? In your view, if the Bible does not explicitly say its immoral it must be acceptable. You are debating what words in languages that have changed throughout history mean. The Church tells us what they mean. What did the Apostles and all their successors making up the Catholic Church from the beginning think about homosexuality. From the beginning until today they believed homosexual acts to be gravely immoral and can never be acceptable. If you want to hold to your beliefs fine, but dont try and change the minds of good Catholics when the matter has already been decided for 2000 years.

 

[hudson]

The Bible does not speak toward monogamous same sex relationships, it wasn’t on “the radar”…and it does not contain a consistent “one man one woman” message either…marriage evolved in the pages of scripture…God still speaks, and we find He is calling us to open our hearts and hands in welcome to those gay and lesbian individuals anc couples that seek to join and consecrate their relationships to the Lord.

Those of us who seek to find and understand God’s will on the matter of same sex relationships understand that marriage has changed much over the centuries…the topic of marriage in scripture has not had a consistent unchangeable “ethic”…the UCC for example motto is “God still speaks”…and that is consitent with Friend’s understanding as well…the Bible is not the in all and end all of faith…which Catholics all too often indicate to those who believe in “sola scriptura”…God still speaks, and now that our understanding of human sexuality has evolved and been explored, we find we turn to Him to seek to understand the plight of our gay brothers and sisters…we don’t claim to have ALL the answers…we are on a Journey with God…a Journey which you and other conservative beleivers are on with us…we are at odds with you…but we must be true to our understanding of the Voice of God we hear whispering to us to embrace our GLBTQ brothers and sisters…

Christians have always understood that at the close of the apostolic age—with the death of the last surviving apostle, John, perhaps around A.D. 100—public revelation ceased (Catechism of the Catholic Church*66–67, 73).

 

[Publisher]

We have the Church to tell us what the Bible states.
CCC:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

There is no need for a private interpretor of Scripture seeing as we have the Bride of Christ on Earth to do that for us. Also where in the Bible does it speak about orgies with 15 guys, 5 goats, and 2 donkeys(one could get much more nasty then this when coming up with scenarios, but you get the point)? In your view, if the Bible does not explicitly say its immoral it must be acceptable. You are debating what words in languages that have changed throughout history mean. The Church tells us what they mean. What did the Apostles and all their successors making up the Catholic Church from the beginning think about homosexuality. From the beginning until today they believed homosexual acts to be gravely immoral and can never be acceptable. If you want to hold to your beliefs fine, but dont try and change the minds of good Catholics when the matter has already been decided for 2000 years.

We too are members of the Church…just not your particular organization.

“Debating what words in languages that have changed throughout history”…isn’t seeking to understand WHAT the original writers meant to convey in the languages they wrote and spoke a good indication of what they sought to convey?

Just because a faith tradition from it’s inception had a primitive understanding of human sexuality does not mean their belief on the matter is “proof”…they also beleived in a earth centered universe…that the earth rested upon “the deep”, that the sun moved in the sky and the earth was flat and had corners and that the winds could be designated as north, east, west and distinct from one another…the ancient understanding of science and biology lacked much…the “seed” of the man was implanted in a woman and grew a child…with no understanding whatsoever that the woman contributed 50% of the genetic matter to form a child…much of our scientific understanding has changed…grown…yet we wish to keep human sexuality imprisioned within pages of a book that believed mental illness was caused by spirits and demons, the sun could “stand still” as it…not the earth…“moved” across the sky…no…we so easily shift to a modern cosmological understanding from scriptural understanding when evidence informs us…we feel the evidence on human sexuality is now informing us.

 

[Traverse]

These semantics are rather irrelevant anyway. If you want to try and dig deep and suggest that homosexuality is not spoken against directly in the new testament then that is your prerogative. But marriage, as outlined by the Lord, is between a man and a woman. There can be no marriage between two members of the same sex because that’s not what a marriage is.

As such, homosexuality would boil down to simple fornication because they’re not married and still be wrong anyway, just for a different reason. So the case is basically closed anyway.

I wouldn’t suggest that concubines or polygamy in the old testament means that God has changed his mind about marriage. What some people did, even the faithful, is not evidence of what God supports necessarily. After all, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Even David. Even Solomon. Etc. You get the idea.

In fact, we see from Jesus discussing divorce how God views marriage.

Matthew 19:8
He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

Now this is talking about divorce, but the application is, I believe, sound. Moses permitting divorce did not mean God was happy with divorce. As such, society being accustomed to polygamy does not mean God was happy with polygamy. We see this from the previous verses.

Matthew 19:4-5
And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?

So we know what God expects of marriage. It would not do well to consider the examples set by mere men when God has told us how He feels Himself.

 

[exnihilo]

Marriage is the issue it seems…the Bible does not portray a consistent sexual ethic through out…there are those passages which indicate marriage is between a man and a woman…concubinage was allowed in the OT…as was polygamy. “God” instructed the Israelite men that when they entered a city, they were to kill every man women and child…“except for the virgins” which they “could keep” for themselves.

We’d have to look at the Scripture in question but portray is not the same as teach. The Bible does contain history so what is portrayed includes sinful acts. Even in cases of polygamy and concubines what is not portrayed, so far as I know, is homosexual relationships.

I know of no Christian or Christian who “willfully seeks to undermine scripture”…they may differ on their understanding than what you and your tradition holds…but it is less than honest to state they “willfully seek to undermine scripture”…they willfully seek to better understand scripture…but “undermine”…no…simply not a truthful sentiment.

Yes, they do undermine Scripture. As I wrote they state among other things that they know the Bible does not authorize female priests/ministers and yet they have proceeded to ordain them. I’ve actually heard people say this. They then use this as a justification to consider homosexuality acceptable again at least tacitly acknowledging that Scripture teaches it is sinful. A definition of undermine is ‘to weaken or cause to collapse by removing underlying support’. These people typically proclaim Scripture is the only source of their faith. They then say that they willfully ignore portions of it when it contradicts our modern sensibilities. They in effect deny Sola Scriptura, which is always the reality anyway. They then create a three legged stool of Scripture, reason, and modern notions where modern notions is the ultimate authority and lens through which Scipture is read. If Scripture seems to contradict modern notions they rework it including excising portions.

The Bible does not speak toward monogamous same sex relationships, it wasn’t on “the radar”…and it does not contain a consistent “one man one woman” message either…marriage evolved in the pages of scripture…God still speaks, and we find He is calling us to open our hearts and hands in welcome to those gay and lesbian individuals anc couples that seek to join and consecrate their relationships to the Lord.

Yes that seems to be the operating theory. Again it undermines Scripture. At one time Protestantism proclaimed to use the Scripture as the final authority. Now Scripture is judged through the eyes of modern ideas. In this are ideas that Jesus did not want to go too far in his liberation teachings and that Jesus could not foresee the future so it is up to us to finish His teachings. I think these are dangerous ideas with deadly theological consequences.

the Bible is not the in all and end all of faith…which Catholics all too often indicate to those who believe in “sola scriptura”…God still speaks, and now that our understanding of human sexuality has evolved and been explored, we find we turn to Him to seek to understand the plight of our gay brothers and sisters…we don’t claim to have ALL the answers…we are on a Journey with God…a Journey which you and other conservative beleivers are on with us…we are at odds with you…but we must be true to our understanding of the Voice of God we hear whispering to us to embrace our GLBTQ brothers and sisters…

I dont disagree with your statements about the Bible. But this is at odds with the original teachings of the Reformation, which in a way are shown to have been dangerous and terrible by these recent developments. The Bible never could be sufficient as a source of faith. We need tradition and teachers. Many modern Protestant churches have finally fully embraced a more robust understanding of the source of our faith. Unfortunately they have substituted modern sensibilities for tradition and their reason is in my opinion seriously lacking.

 

[Publisher]

These semantics are rather irrelevant anyway. If you want to try and dig deep and suggest that homosexuality is not spoken against directly in the new testament then that is your prerogative. But marriage, as outlined by the Lord, is between a man and a woman. There can be no marriage between two members of the same sex because that’s not what a marriage is.

As such, homosexuality would boil down to simple fornication because they’re not married and still be wrong anyway, just for a different reason. So the case is basically closed anyway.

I wouldn’t suggest that concubines or polygamy in the old testament means that God has changed his mind about marriage. What some people did, even the faithful, is not evidence of what God supports necessarily. After all, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Even David. Even Solomon. Etc. You get the idea.

In fact, we see from Jesus discussing divorce how God views marriage.

Matthew 19:8
He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

Now this is talking about divorce, but the application is, I believe, sound. Moses permitting divorce did not mean God was happy with divorce. As such, society being accustomed to polygamy does not mean God was happy with polygamy. We see this from the previous verses.

Matthew 19:4-5
And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?

So we know what God expects of marriage. It would not do well to consider the examples set by mere men when God has told us how He feels Himself.

And that is your religious right to believe that…we believe we are led to follow Him as well…“God still speaks”, for us to not stand and speak for those who’s voice is so often marginalized and ignored puts us at odds with what we accept as the “word of the Lord”…but we must follow our fully formed conscience and Spirit led convictions…and let God be Judge.

 

[hudson]

We too are members of the Church…just not your particular organization.

“Debating what words in languages that have changed throughout history”…isn’t seeking to understand WHAT the original writers meant to convey in the languages they wrote and spoke a good indication of what they sought to convey?

Just because a faith tradition from it’s inception had a primitive understanding of human sexuality does not mean their belief on the matter is “proof”…they also beleived in a earth centered universe…that the earth rested upon “the deep”, that the sun moved in the sky and the earth was flat and had corners and that the winds could be designated as north, east, west and distinct from one another…the ancient understanding of science and biology lacked much…the “seed” of the man was implanted in a woman and grew a child…with no understanding whatsoever that the woman contributed 50% of the genetic matter to form a child…much of our scientific understanding has changed…grown…yet we wish to keep human sexuality imprisioned within pages of a book that believed mental illness was caused by spirits and demons, the sun could “stand still” as it…not the earth…“moved” across the sky…no…we so easily shift to a modern cosmological understanding from scriptural understanding when evidence informs us…we feel the evidence on human sexuality is now informing us.

There is only one true Church and that is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Church tells us what the original writers meant when i showed you what the Catechism states. For us Catholics the matter is closed.

Faith and morals do not change. The understanding of the world around us through science is ever changing. You are creating a straw man by arguing that if we are for scientific advancement we must also be for the advancement of teachings on faith and morals. The Church supports scientific research, but in no way does that mean the view on faith in morals will change. Stop trying to fool people with your fallacies.

Christians have always understood that at the close of the apostolic age—with the death of the last surviving apostle, John, perhaps around A.D. 100—public revelation ceased (Catechism of the Catholic Church*66–67, 73).

I am heading out now.

 

[Publisher]

There is only one true Church and that is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Church tells us what the original writers meant when i showed you what the Catechism states. For us Catholics the matter is closed.

Faith and morals do not change. The understanding of the world around us through science is ever changing. You are creating a straw man by arguing that if we are for scientific advancement we must also be for the advancement of teachings on faith and morals. The Church supports scientific research, but in no way does that mean the view on faith in morals will change. Stop trying to fool people with your fallacies.

I am heading out now.

We do not belong to your organization…we agree there is One Church…and we believe we are members of the One Church…that you don’t is incedental to our faith and obedience to the Lord…