This leads to two issues. Firstly, the Euthyphro problem - are actions “morally good” solely because God declares them to be, or are there moral standards that can be discovered rationally without having to rely on Divine inspiration?
Secondly, we have the problem of deciding which of the Levitical laws are universal (moral), and which are only applicable to particular societies. The laws on slavery (for example, Leviticus 25:39-55) are a good example. Without wishing to defend the modern or nineteenth-century practice of slavery, I agree that these laws are just and appropriate for a slave-owning society; but our society has rejected slavery (quite rightly), so these laws are no longer appropriate for us. I would argue that our society has also - and also quite rightly - rejected prejudice against homosexuality, so the Biblical laws on homosexuality are no longer appropriate to us, either. I suspect you may reply along the lines of “Our society shouldn’t have accepted homosexuality” - but how, then, would you respond to a hypothetical person who used the same reasoning to support his assertion “Our society shouldn’t have rejected slavery, either”?
I agree with you completely here. Paul’s condemnation of “drunkards” is not a condemnation of alcohol, only of excessive use of it. His condemnation of “fornicators” is not a condemnation of sex, only of excessive indulgence in it. I would argue that his use of the word “αρσενοκοιται” (“defilers of themselves with mankind”, in the KJV’s beautiful language) is similar; it refers to an excess of homosexual activity (probably prostitution of some sort, parallel to “fornication”), not homosexuality itself. Of course, we then have the question “How much is ‘excessive’?” - if your answer is “Any at all”, then we can only disagree on this particular issue.
This comes down to our interpretation of the word “abomination”. I’m open to correction here, but I believe that, when it’s used in the Old Testament, it nearly always refers to the worship of “false gods” - there are lots of references to “Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites” in the historical books (2 Kings, the Chronicles), for example. Sodom was undoubtedly a sinful city; I would only argue that tolerance of homosexuality wasn’t its only, or even principal, sin. Remember that in Genesis the angels are set upon by a gang of men who intend to rape them; not behaviour that even the most vocal gay-rights activist would regard as acceptable.
Thanks again for a very well-reasoned and thoughtful reply.
The fact that you asked questions of this board you must have some doubts or have the intent of converting some of the posters.
I would ask you, as I have asked many times and no one replies: Who created the place for God to be? If God always was (as some believe, then he had to have a place to be first. What is out side of God? Did God then creat a space outisde of himself?
The New Testement owes it’s beginning to the Bishops called by Constentine, who gathered the early writings after 300 years, to decide what books were inspired and what were not. since they were under the Bishop of Rome and copied by monks of that church how can one be sure they were right then?
As I can see it we take the word of humans about weither something is of God or not. For the first 1000 years of Christianity the same bible was used and that did not include any Protestant versions until after the Reformation.
If some one’s belief helps them then to me it doesn’t matter because it is just belief and what ever works for them to get through life, as long as they do not harm anyone else.
On a different tack, tell me about your program. How many years is it? How many students are in it and what are their backgrounds? What about the faculty? Is it focused strongly on one strain of Christian theology, or do you learn broadly about different views? How about other non-Christian theology? Is it all theology training, or are there classes in practical ministry?
What are the facilities like? Are there dorms? Do you work? Do you do outside volunteer work/ministry?
When you get out will you be ordained, or is that a separate program through your denomination/church? If the latter, what requirements will you have?
What are your career goals? You say you are concentrating in youth ministry. Does that mean you will be qualified for all aspects of the ministry or all aspects of the ministry? Do you want to work as a pulpit minister in a church, or some other aspect of ministry?
What about your fiancee? How did you meet? How long have you been going out? Did you start before or after seminary? Did you decide to go to seminary together? Is she studying the same things as you are? Are you living together? How did you propose? When will the wedding be?
Good luck with it all. A friend of mine went through seminary, and it was a difficult personal journey. She is now a hospital chaplain, and remains a difficult personal journey. I hope through it all you can learn to bolster your spiritual resources and help others with their spiritual needs.
Speaking for myself, I think that the point is to love; i.e., to facilitate goodness. Without love, the Bible is nothing more than a dead tree. Everything fails without love. Judgment fails. Righteousness fails. Reason also fails. The inspired Word of God is His Son, Jesus Christ — love made flesh. The Bible is a love letter, not a leash. Let the Holy Spirit, and not the Nicean Council, lead you.
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
**Love ** never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part;
but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.
But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Just popping in to say that I will answer the new questions either this afternoon, or later tonight. As you can all probably guess, I have church today, so I will be out pretty much all day. Have a good day!
Not really. We have had many “Ask the <poster of a particular background>” threads. I do not recall any of them that were intended to proselytize so much as explain a particular viewpoint. This thread began in IMHO and was kicked over here because too many questions wandered into “challenging” territory, but I see no reason to assume that Mines Mystique, himself, sought either confirmation of or converts for his beliefs.
Feel free to ask questions or even challenge beliefs, but let’s avoid the problems associated with making assumptions about the motives of other posters.
This may well be true,but I would not ask people of other beliefs if I was finding out about my vocation. If I wanted my beliefs challenged then I would ask people of other beliefs so I could learn more about theirs,and my own.
I have a question based on this. Regardless of whether you believe homosexuality is a sin, you must agree that our sexual preferences have a significant effect on us as a person - what gender we like, and how strongly or weakly we feel an attraction to people is going to affect us on a daily basis.
Now, you believe that homosexuality is sinful. However, you also believe that one can, (as shown in the quote above) give up themselves to God and in that way become “renewed” and “regenerated” - presumeably this would involve a “cleansing” or a voluntary giving up of one’s homosexuality in favour of heterosexuality.
Here’s my question; If a person gives up, via the Holy Spirit, a significant portion of themselves (their sexual preference) and takes up a different one, in a form of “regeneration” - would you consider that to be, effectively, “killing” the first form of that person? And, if so, this would be a case (from your point of view) of a “sick” person being killed - is this not a form of euthanasia, then?
You readily admit that in the verses about a woman submitting to her husband {and keeping silent in church?} it’s more of a cultural thing of that era. I assume you feel tha same about 1 Cor 11 and a woman should cover her head and somehow nature tells us a man shouldn’t have long hair. That being the case can’t the brief mentions of homosexuality be the same thing? Many cultures throughout history have viewed homosexuality differently. It 's pretty dam obvious that we are still struggling with it 2000 years after Christ.
You claim that homosexuality is unnatural and contrary to God’s creation. Do you believe that sex is only for procreation and sex just for joy and intimacy between two people is a sin? What about the great diversity of God’s creation? In thinking about this it has occured to me that since we are spirit then no physical act in and of itself can be a sin. It is the intent behind the act that is a sin. It is the intent that seperates us from God. Thats why Jesus said that secret lust is as bad as adultery and hatred as bad as murder. I fail to see how a physical expression of love can be a sin. So, after my mini rant, isn’t it possible that homosexuality as mentioned in the Bible is just one more cultural issue that we have to address with new understanding?
Your take on the Bible is much more open minded than many evangelicals. In my own studies I have come to believe that Jesus taught us to follow the guidence of the Holy Spirit and gave us simple guidelines to know if we or others were. The fruits of the spirit. I see nothing in the Bible to indicate that it was ever God’s plan that we have one final authoritative collection of writings that we should base our spiritual life on. There is nothing to indicate that other people inspired by that same spirit wouldn’t write something new, more advanced, or at least just as useful, for guidence. Personaly I think we short change ourselves when we revere the Bible too much, and others when we teach them to do the same. True spiritual insight springs from within and our communion with the spirit.
In studying the history of the scriptures and the church it’s seems what is revered is some group of mens choices about what should be canon and what shouldn’t. Isn’t that the sort of thing JEsus taught us not to do? What about other writings such as the Nag Hamadi library? Why wouldn’t we expect new inspired writngs?
This of course does not tell us whether or not non-procreative sex is a sin. But I do hope Mines Mystique isn’t flaunting activities he would proscribe.
So Mines, you seem to be saying that if I still feel gay, I have not experienced the sea-change of salvation, yes? Even if I feel like I have, and my life otherwise shows the signs.
So if I can be mistaken about whether I’m saved, in this hypothetical where I’ve accepted Jesus, how do you know you’re not mistaken? Why is your judgment of my salvation better than mine or anyone else’s? How do you know what’s on God’s mind?
Via the Bible, I suppose, but as you’ve seen in this very thread, there are legitimate interpretations and translations besides the one you’re using. How do you know yours is right? Isn’t it an awfully huge thing to feel comfortable saying to someone - you are not saved and you can’t ever be saved? (Because you won’t ever be straight). Does it feel comfortable for you? You seem to have suggested you’d use mostly silence, but does it feel comfortable in your heart to be so certain of the state of other people’s salvation?
I truly don’t mean to be hostile, and I appreciate the time you’re taking to answer our questions. I do want to understand how you think, though I admit I don’t, right now.
I will be out of town for the next several days. So I’ll finish constructing the slippery slope I started with my question to Mines Mystique regarding masturbation. Consider the following scenarios and let us know where you would draw the line of sin and why. Assume all parties are unmarried, fully informed, consenting adults. In each case where possible, does it matter if the parties are of the same gender? Are the rules the same for both men and women? Are both parties committing the same sin? Is there a difference if the parties stop short of orgasm?
[ul]
[li]Hugging someone for whom you hold great affection but without any proximate sexual intent or arousal[/li][li]Kissing (lips to lips) someone for whom you hold great affection but without any proximate sexual intent or arousal[/li][li]Sharing a bed for sleep with someone for whom you hold great affection but without touching, sexual intent, or arousal[/li][li]Sharing a bed as before but with embracing but without sexual intent or arousal[/li][li]Unconsciously having an orgasm while asleep and alone (having a “wet dream”)[/li][li]Masturbating alone – using the hand or by rubbing against an inanimate object[/li][li]Masturbating in the presence of another[/li][li]Kissing someone in places other than lips or genitals with the intent of sexual arousal [/li][li]Rubbing ones genitalia on the body of another[/li][li]Being masturbated by the hand of another[/li][li]The use of a dildo or other “sex toy” in the anus or vagina[/li][li]Oral sex – there are four main scenarios to consider here: cunnilingus performed by males or females, and, fellatio performed by males or females[/li][li]Anal sex – two main scenarios to consider here: male penetrating a female, and, male penetrating a male[/li][li]Coitus with the use of contraceptives, intending to prevent conception[/li][li]Coitus between one or more infertile parties, knowing the impossibility of conception[/li][li]Coitus while aware of but unconcerned with the possibility of conception[/li][li]Coitus with the intent to conceive[/li][/ul]
In each of the applicable scenarios above, what is different if the parties are a married male-female couple?
Actually, I have several, but I’ll start with homosexuals. If you believe this:
Is it not possible that statements referring to homosexuality are an exxageration or a manmade diversion that was not “controlled” by “God’s Holy Spirit”?, or as others have suggested a mistranslation?
From my limited understanding of some of the passages, they more accurately translate to mean a prohibitation of boy prostitution, a common pratice at the time. Is it possible that the reference is referring to boy prostitution, not homosexuality in general?
Considering that there are thousands of children in foster care, is it possible that God created homosexuals for the purpose of not procreating? As a method of controlling the population. (I’m not saying that homosexuals shouldn’t procreate via artificial insimination, etc; just that I think its very possible that God created homosexuals for a purpose - to help fill a need that heterosexuals aren’t filling).
