Let's be honest with the text

[andrewlittle]

As the title suggests, this is a thread to discuss various aspects of the Bible with regard to the general issue of homosexuality.

If you have all that you can stomach with this kind of discussion, please be warned that it will be a fairly open dialogue. Do yourself a kindness and peruse elsewhere.

If, however, you feel led to participate in this discussion, please feel welcome.

This topic and, indirectly, the title were the suggestion of "macnic@gmail.com" (hereafter referred to as our new friend, Nic). Thanks for coming to see us Nic and being open to discussing this subject with us.

So far, myself (Andy aka Great Uncle Andy) and u-dog (the ubiquitous and multi-monikered Dave) have salivated at the opportunity to engage in one of our favorite pastimes. All are welcome, as long as you are aware that the topic is the Bible.

There are a few simple requests.

Just as at the communion table - Christ is our host and all are welcome.
Discussion will be better if honest and forthright, freely exposing our known biases and being willing to draw attention to those we suspect in someone else (so we can make sure we understand correctly, that is).
We respect each other's faith, intelligence and knowledge - even if we disagree on interpretation and application.

I, for one, always look forward to a good Bible study. I'm a geek that way.

To get the ball rolling, Dave suggested:
I'm always game for this topic. It hones my exegetical and hermeneutical skills. But the conversation, it seems to me, needs to begin with a conversation about the purpose of scripture and how we understand "word of God" Just my opinion of course. Perhaps we could start a new thread and each of us introduce ourselves by being clear how we understand the nature and purpose of the Bible? It should be labeled with a warning for the members who are sick to death of this topic.

(The rest of his comments were omitted due to their totally innane nature. Oh shoot - I already forgot about request #3)

Of course, that was just a suggestion. Let's see where we go, shall we?

[andrewlittle]

I believe that Scripture is God-breathed and inspired to its writers as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

In the texts available to this present day, the Word of God is written in the words of humankind, having been translated and interpreted by successive generations, and, as such, deserves careful attention, prayerful exegesis and reflective reading.

Scriptures, then, are our highest authority for faith and conduct, and are continually subject to the revelation of the Holy Spirit in their study and understanding.

Scripture, as the basis of Christian faith and the core of theological reflection, is at the center of our discernment process, guides our path, enlightens our choices and requires our examination of the way we have always understood it.

[u-dog]

FIRST: Being a good Calvinist (well...only as good as I was pre-ordained to be) I believe that the "Word of God" comes to us in several ways. First and Foremost it comes to us as the the Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ, Second it comes to us in the Scriptures of the Hebrew and Christian Covenants, Third in the Sacraments, Fourth in Preaching (which I would expand to include an informed dialogue like this one).

SECOND:I believe that the Scriptures have a primary and a secondary purpose. The Primary purpose of the Scripture is to lead us to Jesus of Nazareth, his life, teachings, death, resurrection as well as the culture and religion into which he was born and from which he springs. The secondary purpose is to help us live lives that are a worthy response to the gift God gave us in Christ.

THIRD: I believe that having been led to Christ we thereafter must always read scripture THROUGH THE LENS OF CHRIST and that his life and love are the ultimate interpreters of everything else.

FOURTH: I believe that no truth is accessible in scripture except by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

FIFTH: I assume that everything that is in Scripture is there because God intends for it to be there, but that for me to assume that I know what I'm supposed to do with what is there is hubris. (i.e. humility is called for)

SIXTH: All contemporary meaning and interpretation of any biblical text flows from an understanding of its context in scripture as a whole and in its cultural context at the time it was written. (i.e. It matters who Paul is writing to, why he was writing, and what was going on in the culture around them)

Thats enough.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

:rolleyes:
Well, as a Quaker/Mennonite/Methodist/Episcopalian/Emergent Christian :D I believe in a progressive revelation view of the Bible. I believe that every verse is equally important, but each verse takes on a new meaning in the Life of Christ. I also believe that the Old Testament followed an outline that brought out the theme of the Fall. (BTW-I took this from Circle Six Magazine (http://www.circlesixmagazine.com).) The OT Fall Theme begins with the fall of the Perfect Angel, in which the most beautiful Angel, Lucifer, defies the LORD is cast out of Heaven. The Second Fall is the fall of the Perfect Man and Perfect Woman, Adam and Eve. They too defied the LORD and were cast out of the Garden. Lastly, is the fall of the Perfect Nation, Israel. Israel was defiant, and was destroyed. When Jesus came to ressurect the dead, ONLY the Perfect Man and Woman were resurrected. Both the Perfect Angel and the Perfect Nation are still "dead". So that outlines part of my view on the OT.
Lastly I also believe that all of the OT Law must be taken in light of the Life of Christ, the Teachings of Christ, and all of the Teachings in the New Testament. So, when Jesus says that hating someone is really murder, he is clarifying the OT Law. Likewise, when Paul says that male prostitutes, effeminate callboys, and their clients, will not inherit the Kingdom of God, he is clarifying Leviticus 18 and 20. This at least helps me A LOT. (And, as I stated in another thread, makes me feel smart :p )

Oh and I transcend Calvinism and Arminianism. (Take that Old Man ;) )

[u-dog]

Be careful you young heretic! or I'll burn you at the stake! ;) And I'll feel fine about it because I'll know that it was ordained. (Actually, Calvin himself only ever burned ONE person at the stake as far as I know. Servetus... and that was more because he was an annoying pain in the ass than because of his heresy - so let that be a lesson to you!)

[Pablo Rafael]

I always live in fear of the Calvinists who go around burning people at the stake for the smallest infraction. It's a good thing we Catholics don't have anything like that in OUR history.

Pablo

[keltic63]

I always live in fear of the Calvinists who go around burning people at the stake for the smallest infraction. It's a good thing we Catholics don't have anything like that in OUR history.

Pablo



Let's play Hangman! _ N Q _ _ S _ T _ _ N
would you like to buy a vowel? :lol:

[andrewlittle]

I always live in fear of the Calvinists who go around burning people at the stake for the smallest infraction. It's a good thing we Catholics don't have anything like that in OUR history.

Pablo

We can always burn you in virtual effigy

And Keltic, its just too early for that. I can't get my brain in gear yet

Just had a shot of coffee - wow! Keltic. Hitting below the belt, are we?

[keltic63]

And Keltic, its just too early for that. I can't get my brain in gear yet

Just had a shot of coffee - wow! Keltic. Hitting below the belt, are we?


what can I say? I'm full of P _ S S & V _ N _ G _ R this morning.

[Daniel]

Let's play Hangman! _ N Q _ _ S _ T _ _ N
would you like to buy a vowel? :lol:

INQUISITION!!!!!!!

what can I say? I'm full of P _ S S & V _ N _ G _ R this morning.

PISS&VINEGAR


Ok. Where's my prize?

[keltic63]

INQUISITION!!!!!!!



PISS&VINEGAR


Ok. Where's my prize?

I got your prize right here. You'll have to come to PA to claim it! :eek:

[andrewlittle]

This has certainly taken an interesting turn. I would ask what the prize was, but I'm half afraid you would spell it out for us, Keltic.

Come on out to play, Nic - we obviously need help staying on task. (Okay, perhaps I should speak for myself. God help me, I need a job.)

[marutidas]

The early church was set up as a sort of Mafia, To suppress and/or obliterate any opposition their beliefs. Burning and pillaging collecting money and land for some hyped-up cause. Though this comment is not directly pointed at christians in general, but all religions. Every religion has some blood on its hands and there is no denying Religous Passions have attributed to countless wars, i.e. the Crusades and justification of horrible acts as long as they said it was God's will, i.e. the witch trials.

The Bible, I strongly Believe that it IS NOT HISTORICAL. It may point to historical events, but remembering how many times it has been written and rewritten, It would not be impossible for one of the authors to include these events during its revision.

It is important to take in the whole story and not believe that our understanding of the Bible is perfect as Pablo mentioned.

My other point is the many sects of christianity are merely adopting or abandoning different traditions based on the many interpritations of the Bible. The different denomiations have fought and killed each other for that simple reason of having differnt ideas on how the bible should be interprited, It happens with all religions, a more modern example is the fanatical Muslim sects, Suni and Shea, for their difference in interpriting the Qu'ran, they are killing each other on mass.

For me it's just best if I take any sacred text with a grain of Salt and not get to concerned with the finite interpritation but to grasp the basic meaning of it. In the case of the Bible, Love each other, do good for one another.

I do believe in God and the texts has their uses, But it is mans feeble attempt to sum up the whole of reality.

OK, let the ignoring begin.
~~~Maruti Das:flower:

[andrewlittle]

OK, let the ignoring begin.

Your presence is too strong, Marutidas, to ignore - not that I would even want to if it wasn't. You provide a counter weight - a balance - possibly even a corrective.

I might argue against the early church being "set up" to be a Mafia but, as history has proven time and again, the self-interest and idolization of power, profit, prestige and position have all to often propelled the church into shameful and sinister actions in the name of God. What was that about taking God's name in vain and not worshipping false idols - sigh.

The topic is "Let's be honest with the text" and the starting point was "how we understand the word (Word) of God" - thank you for being true to the tasks, and for your honesty and forthrightness.

I may not comment a lot on some of your posts, but please don't think I ignore them. You bring tastes and flavors - and even subleties - that I, for one, very much appreciate. Blessings to you - stay with us as, or if, this progresses.

[andrewlittle]

Okay, I'll take a chance and delve a little deeper. I will be writing as if there is someone reading who is assumed to be inclined to disagree.

It is no doubt universally understood here that there are certain Biblical passages that are quoted in reference to homosexuality. (Right up front I will say that I do not agree with this.) These passages are widely understood to refer to homosexuals or homosexuality as an abomination. Depending on your take on these particular passages, you may either see the acts as abominable behavior or the persons engaging in those acts as themselves abominations. Further, certain passages are used to establish that God decreed only certain kinds of relationships as righteous, normal, or valid - marriage is between a man and a woman because God ordained it that way.

Before getting into these passages in particular, some underlying attitudes need to be addressed. You may disagree with what I have to say. If so, please do.

Certain Christians feel that it is not only preferable, but essential, that GLBT folk be labeled sinners and kept from ministerial offices, restricted from church leadership of any kind, and not be allowed to marry or form even recognized relationships. This is ultimately based on scripture and tradition. The usual thoughts range from “hate the sin, love the sinner” to the kind of extreme rhetoric found at GodHatesFags.com which essentially advocates the killing of GLBT.

Matthew 18:1-10 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
He called a child, whom he put among them, and said, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever becomes humble like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."
"If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling block comes!"
"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire. Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones; for, I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven."

It strikes me that to exclude anyone from sheltering under the umbrella of Christianity, or from enjoying all the rights and privileges of free society in the name of God or religion, one had better be absolutely positive that his/her understanding of the prohibitions was airtight.

While not just about GLBT, verses 8 and 9 are generally taken out of context to mean that those who stumble should be removed from the church. In context, however, it appears to me that those who put stumbling blocks in front of any of God’s children are those that are the offenders – those that will pay the price (metaphorical or otherwise) of being thrown into the hell of fire. The admonition here is a warning to those who would reject – the gatekeepers of “true belief” and “right behavior”.

If, then, passages of scripture are to be used to reject any of God’s children, it would be essential that they were unequivocal and unambiguous in their meaning. Otherwise, those doing the rejecting would be the ones putting stumbling blocks before the children and incurring the wrath of God, so to speak.

In examining the “condemning” passages, the onus, therefore, is on proving that the King James Version’s interpretation is absolutely correct, as well as others that have ensued. If any question remains as to the absolute clarity of the passages, the Christian response should be to refrain from placing stumbling blocks to full inclusion and acceptance. The need for proof is borne by those who would exclude – not those who would include. On the latter, the only requirement would be to show that the traditional interpretation is in any way questionable.

[pnggrad79]

[QUOTE=Pablo Rafael;21285]I always live in fear of the Calvinists who go around burning people at the stake for the smallest infraction. It's a good thing we Catholics don't have anything like that in OUR history.

Pablo[/QUOTE

Pablo,
I hate to burst your bubble, but the Catholics are NOT by any far stretch of the imagination innocent in this. What about the Inquisition,, the sale of indulgences to buy people's salvation, the Crusades, the merciless cruelty shown to the Native Americans who inhabited the Caribbean and the Americas back in the 1400's? The Catholics are not innocent and to pretend they have been and have a spotless history is blatantly false. Check your history.
Calvinists are just as harmful and their doctrines skewed. So no one is really coming out to smell like a rose here.:(

[u-dog]

PNg,

I beleive that Pablo and Andy and I are all quite aware of the short-comings and excesses of our traditions. Pablo's statement that he was glad that Catholics had never done anything like that was ironic humor.

Andy:

Your point about the burden of proof is SPOT ON ! The radical claim of the Gospel is God's amazing inclusivity and the offer of eternal life to ALL who believe in Jesus. Not only must the exclusionists prove that the text is UNAMBIGUOUS in its meaning, but they must further prove that being gay and self affirming (even if wrong) somehow undermines or nullifies the grace that is revealed in Christ.

[pnggrad79]

Udog,
Sorry I might have not read it in the spirit it was intended, however, if he was joking, he needed to say that, just for clarification, since sarcasm is often not accurately written so that it is apparent that that is what it is. The Catholic and Protestant churches are replete with many instances of abuse, neglect, and downright perversion of God's law and will. It simply is no wonder to me why so many people have left the church, because it in no way resembles the immense and gracious love of Christ.

[andrewlittle]

Udog,
Sorry I might have not read it in the spirit it was intended, however, if he was joking, he needed to say that, just for clarification, since sarcasm is often not accurately written so that it is apparent that that is what it is. The Catholic and Protestant churches are replete with many instances of abuse, neglect, and downright perversion of God's law and will. It simply is no wonder to me why so many people have left the church, because it in no way resembles the immense and gracious love of Christ.

pnggrad, I take exception to what you said and agree with 100% at the same time - of course, I'm nuts, so take that with a grain of salt.

I take exception based only on what the church should be, and agree because of what the church has been and still is in its all too frequent history of abuse and neglect.

I also find it a crying shame, and completely understandable, that so many have left the church because of it.

These competing tensions are very tiring, aren't they? If we could get that "love your neighbor" thing down, maybe then would be the time to concentrate on all the bullshit. Of course, there's no danger of that happening real soon.

[marutidas]

The 7-9 passages that could possibly be interprited as condeming lustful sex between two men, but knowing nothing about intemate homosexuality as it understood day has little relvence in our modern life. More and more Science is showing that Gay and Lesbian people can be just as dedicated to one another as any hetero couple.

The I would like to point out the obvious, that these passage are out of step with the modern understanding of sociaology, psychology, psychaitry and pathology. All this talk from NARTH and its ilk is nothing more than scapegoating, find someone who can you marginalize to build your base. I do pitty those who are roped in by these bald faced lies. Unfortunaly, people are always slow to change, it took how long for the church to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe or that the world was not flat.

Or to put this problem on its head, that in fact the real stumbleing block is that these passages contradict one another, Love thy neighbor vs. Condemnation?

[Pablo Rafael]

Udog,
Sorry I might have not read it in the spirit it was intended, however, if he was joking, he needed to say that, just for clarification, since sarcasm is often not accurately written so that it is apparent that that is what it is. The Catholic and Protestant churches are replete with many instances of abuse, neglect, and downright perversion of God's law and will. It simply is no wonder to me why so many people have left the church, because it in no way resembles the immense and gracious love of Christ.


Pnggrad,

Sorry. My students tell me that my attempts at humor are "really lame". I guess it must be true...sigh!

I totally agree with you. I am convinced that the abuses that have been dished out by people who claim the authority of the church have done more damage to the work of Christ than have all the forces from outside.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[Joe Allen]

The "God-breathed" scripture thing in Paul's Epistle to Timothy did not apply to a non-existing Bible. No collection of books put together as a "Bible" officially existed before 397 AD. It took the Eastern Church's "early church fathers" 60 years to decide what should be in their canonized Bible. Of course the original members of that canonization committee were long dead by the time of the final canonization. Around 404 AD, the Pope at Rome issued a Papal Bull stating, "The canon is now closed." Because of what he wrote, many Roman Catholic Church members believe that it was their denomination which canonized the Bible.

While I believe that each of the authors of the books of the Bible and the authors of the Psalms (which were written by lots of people) were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did, God allowed to use their own world view of their present time when they wrote.

The Bible is NOT the "word of God;" but, it contains the words of God the Father and the words of Jesus.

It is stated in the Bible's books that Jesus is the "Word of God."

While on one occasion Jesus used a boy as his example for a "little one" who believed in Him, the Greek word, "micron," in certain contexts also referred a person of minority social status and did not have one thing to do with physical size or age.

The Greek word translated as "offend" in Matthew 18 and elsewhere is "skandalizo." That Greek word is the origin of our word, to "scandalize."

The noun on which that word is based is "skandalon," a string or stick used to trigger a trap made catch small animals.

Several years ago, when I had an account with classmates.com, I was in a Christian forum discussion where a guy claiming to be an ex-gay was posting. His church background was "Church of Christ" (the kind with no musical instruments). He proof-texted a scripture in his own words and he wrote "God does not hear the prayers of sinners." He believed that since it was in the Bible, God himself said it.

John 9:31 We know that God does not listen to sinners.

The healed-by-Jesus man who said that was born blind and he said that to the Pharisees who were trying to entrap Jesus by his own words.

[Joe Allen]

I always live in fear of the Calvinists who go around burning people at the stake for the smallest infraction. It's a good thing we Catholics don't have anything like that in OUR history.

Pablo

Fred Phelps of the Topeka, Kansas Westboro Baptist Church fame is a Calvinist. He has stated that he believes that God created homosexuals for the purpose of sending them to hell.

His doctrine has no connection with Southern Baptists nor American Baptists (originally called "Northern Baptists).

[Pablo Rafael]

I think it is important realize that people from all religious traditions have used the cover of the church to further their own agendas and perpetuate their own prejudices.

It is this problem that makes me strongly believe in the separation of church and state. When people think think they can gain power through the church, the church becomes corrupted. Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox (and others); all have stains on their records. When the churches become political and economic forces, people desiring wealth and power will appear. The churches and organizations in the United States today that are most vocal in their anti-gay speech seem to be the ones that have significant political and economic power.

I firmly believe, however, that the love of God as shown in His Word is not dependent on the actions of the organized church or on the actions of those who call themselves Christians. God's love exists and there are many who do truly follow His directive to live lives of love.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[matthewspeed]

I agree with pablo. Pablo, you always say the wisest things! You are a true man of the Christian faith. It is not that the others are not, but I can't help it. My heart and mind (concerning my faith) resonate with Pablo's views. Just thought I would share that!:rolleyes: :) :) :)

[WillySF]

Matthew,

Only Pablo used the word inerrant when describing scripture (or God's word) which means it is incapable of being wrong. Inherent implies that a quality is permanent, or part and parcel of a particular thing. The latter does not imply infallibility. Sorry to be picky – but you can probably see why language is incapable of being inerrant. God may or may not be. Looking at creation, I can tell you it is far from perfect (at least judged by man). Perhaps in the broader scope it is perfect (according to divine dictate). However, God himself, according to the creation myth deemed his creation as good, and not perfect. Considering evolution, perhaps the Divine decided to let creation fix creation? Will we ever know?

[WillySF]

I am very leery of Christians or any other religious adherents that see fit to judge me according to their interpretation of holy writ. I am especially wary of these same people who feel it is in the best interests of all parties concerned to contract with the state authorities in order to prosecute me for something I may or may not do in the privacy of my home. Not only does this fly in the face of the spirit of our esteemed Constitution by violating its exhortation prohibiting the fusion of church and state, it also quite clearly defies the preamble of another lovely document, namely the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

My pursuit of happiness may not be another's pursuit of happiness. Our founding fathers were trying to escape tyranny. Now these religious crypto-fascists are fervent to inculcate tyranny and thereby form their idea of Amerika. In my mind, to merely debate the scriptural issue plays into the hands of these troglodytes. If I want to take my spiritual cue from "Alice in Wonderland" it is my right to do so. Legislation of morality is not at all what our founding fathers had in mind.

However, my take is the Bible in its current incarnation is simply a compilation of texts from a very broad number of sources, various archaic languages, and written over the span of millennia. Anyone who uses proof-texting in order to vindicate their arguments can be discounted wholeheartedly. The Bible, as with any piece of literature must be approached in a scholarly fashion, and that signifies taking all parts of it within context. Most biblical scholars will admit there are entire portions of it that we no longer deem applicable to our modern way of life. So by this very admission, the Bible cannot be the inerrant word of God as some claim. Many of these literalists and fundamentalists are missing the deeper meanings and valuable truths expressed within scripture when they focus on literal meaning. The most conservative Jews today understand what many of the ancient Hebrews also knew, that the biblical narratives (stories) have deeper, hidden meanings. Most Jews believe that to take these narratives at face value is not only missing the point, but is also idolatrous since it effectively brings the divine conversation to an abrupt halt. The "word" of God cannot ever be written down. One can only allude to it. Such narratives allow debate, discussion and greater understanding. Lastly, there are a number of misunderstandings and prejudice as well as political agenda written into scripture, some of which was added later on after many of the books had been written. At times such additions may indeed have been revelatory, or perhaps the scribes felt they could make it a better sell. And to top it all off, the attempts at making events fit existing prophecy were going on back then just as they are today. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy!

Yet perhaps the most valid argument for dismissing biblical admonitions against homosexuality is the fact that the authors did not even have a concept of homosexuality. Of course gay people have existed since time immemorial, but our current understanding of sexuality has not. Neither is humanity any longer in a position where we must breed to ensure its survival as a race. I believe our concepts of sexuality will continue to change in the future. I have little doubt that should we survive and make the evolutionary changes necessary, namely the psychological ones that threaten our existence currently, then we shall indeed travel outward to the stars. At that time, breeding will become an imperative once again. I think multiple partners, and a tribal sense of family will return. I grow tired of the "gay sex is unnatural" argument. It most certainly is natural, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Now it may be a bit odd, a tad different, or unusual – but that is hardly a good reason to discriminate against people.

[nmwolfboy]

Amen, Geoff! :agree:

i just ran across an interesting statement that was issued yesterday by the Diocese of Utah of The Episcopal Church, in response to the recent Primates' Communique from Tanzania. Here's a snippet that i think is pertinent to this thread. Please remember, folks, this is an Anglican perspective from one group of Episcopalians. There are alot of other perspectives out there, even among Anglicans, let alone everyone else!

<snip>
The Holy Scriptures

Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by
believing what you heard? … Having started with the Spirit, are you
now ending with the flesh? (Galatians 3:2-3)

Judgments about ethics by appeal to the Holy Scriptures alone are
foreign to our Anglican traditions, which have always included other
sources of authority in their deliberations. The seminaries of The
Episcopal Church have taught biblical studies for more than a century
by employing the hermeneutical methods of modern biblical criticism.

These methods require that Holy Scripture be interpreted not in their
literal sense alone (nearly impossible, since each of us brings our
own lenses to the interpretive task), but with reference to
scholarship in linguistics, history, narrative, culture, anthropology,
archaeology, and other disciplines which, in combination and under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, may reveal a yet undiscovered richness in
the text.

The interpretation of Holy Scripture is impoverished by narrow
understandings and by the selective application of such understandings
to complex moral issues. There is no single biblical morality. Few
biblical scholars would claim that a monochromatic approach to ethics
and human behavior exists in the Holy Scriptures.

For these and other reasons Anglicans have historically rejected sola
scriptura in the narrow sense that some continental Reformers
understood it. We hold that the Holy Scriptures are indeed the Word of
God and do contain all things necessary to salvation, as our
ordination oath states, but this written Word of God is a witness to
our Lord Jesus Christ, not Christ himself. Or, to state it
differently, following Anglican theologian John MacQuarrie, the Holy
Scriptures are not the revelation of God; Christ is the revelation of
God, and the Holy Scriptures are the record of that revelation.

The Holy Scriptures, written in antiquity, could not and did not
foresee many of the ethical questions we face in our age. We cherish
the revelation of God which comes to us most perfectly in Christ, by
whose Mind and in whose perfect example all our biblical
interpretation must be prayerfully tested.

<end snip>

The full statement from Utah can be read here (http://www.episcopal-ut.org/pdf/responsetoprimates07.pdf). It's long, but a good read. They clearly recommit to their support for full inclusive participation of glbt people in their Diocese.

Pax :dove:

scott

[u-dog]

This Diocese and its leader get it right! (except that I don't think the continental reformers believed in a narrow understanding of "Sola Scriptura" either)

Scripture leads the way to Christ who is the true "Word of God". By the power of the Holy Spirit we encounter Christ who transforms our lives and forms our morality and ethics in his own image.

If I could learn to stand incense I could be an episcalopian.

[WillySF]

U-Dog,

I know this is a typo, but it cracked me up! EPISCALOPIAN.

Personally, I love the smoke. Let the clouds billow and fill the Sanctuary like fog on a Summer's day. Go figure, I'm also asthmatic! But most parishes don't even employ incense, with exceptions made for the holiest of days (e.g., Easter Vigil, Christmas Eve).

[u-dog]

Its not a typo: I always say Episcolopian and Pearsbatidrian and after seeing a church sign once where one important letter had fallen off: the Disciples of Chris.

[WillySF]

That is an important letter!

[BruceChris]

I find that honesty forces me to see the Bible as the Inspiring word of God, and NOT as the inspired word of God.

God does not hear the prayers of sinners. And of course, we're all sinners.

Matthew 18, 8&9 - I just cannot see a parable here. It is possible, but highly un-Christian to suggest that Christ simply flat out lost his temper here. And somehow, I cannot see self-mutilation as required for salvation.

So I will still cling to the Great Commandment, and read a lot of Spong, in the process.
The Great Commandment would seem to me to be an excellent argument for Situational Ethics, by the way, but if the Pharisees among the RR ever hear that, they'll go right thru the roof.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Johnt]

While I believe that each of the authors of the books of the Bible and the authors of the Psalms (which were written by lots of people) were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did, God allowed to use their own world view of their present time when they wrote.

The Bible is NOT the "word of God;" but, it contains the words of God the Father and the words of Jesus.

It is stated in the Bible's books that Jesus is the "Word of God."

I whole heartedly disagree with Joe Allen's statements about the inspired word of God and his view on the "word of God". First, it is true that God let the "pens" in the bible use there own view of the world to help set a context for what God wrote through them. But, just because we have airplanes,automobiles, and computer chips today does not mean that the practical application given in the bible is to be taken differently today then it was in the days of the new testament. Secondly, Joe Allen has shown by his statements about the "word of God" that he does not understand that Jesus (the son) is the Father and that the Father is the Holy Spirit and that Holy Spirit is Jesus... simply put, THE TRINITY.

Johnt

[WillySF]

Johnt,

Please forgive me for being punctilious, but the doctrine of the Holy Trinity states otherwise. The three facets of the Godhead are revealed to us as Father (Creator), Son (Redeemer) and Holy Spirit (Sustainer). Each facet (person) of the Holy Trinity is coequal, yet to state that the Father is the Son, or the Son is the Holy Spirit is false, since to do so nullifies the entire understanding of the Godhead as revealed in three distinct "persons". The Father is God, The Son is God and the Spirit is God. I know this may be splitting hairs, but theologically it is of grand importance.

I concur completely with you in regard to your statement about technology having little or no effect upon the spiritual (practical) application of scripture. Much of what was revealed as truth thousands of years ago is quite obviously true today. Now our take on that truth is bound to evolve, nevertheless it remains true.

[andrewlittle]

Johnt,

Please forgive me for being punctilious, but the doctrine of the Holy Trinity states otherwise. The three facets of the Godhead are revealed to us as Father (Creator), Son (Redeemer) and Holy Spirit (Sustainer). Each facet (person) of the Holy Trinity is coequal, yet to state that the Father is the Son, or the Son is the Holy Spirit is false, since to do so nullifies the entire understanding of the Godhead as revealed in three distinct "persons". The Father is God, The Son is God and the Spirit is God. I know this may be splitting hairs, but theologically it is of grand importance.

I concur completely with you in regard to your statement about technology having little or no effect upon the spiritual (practical) application of scripture. Much of what was revealed as truth thousands of years ago is quite obviously true today. Now our take on that truth is bound to evolve, nevertheless it remains true.

The distinction, or rather the lack of it, has left many trinitarians confused. We sing in hymns about God, Son and Holy Spirit. We pray to God the Father as the "triune" God. Liturgy can be very sloppy about the trinity, which just further serves to add confusion. I applaud the fact that you were pointing out the distinctions, and I don't think your were splitting hairs.

[nmwolfboy]

Here's a traditional diagram that illustrates the doctrine of the Trinity.

[macnic@gmail.com]

hey all it's me Nic, the long lost starter of this whole shabang - i guess i thought i had things set up to email me if anyone replied to my Introduction post. But i think i've got things worked out now
First, WOW what a long thread already, i havn't had time yet to read, let alone interact with all the posts yet, but i'll hopefully be taking time to do so in the days ahead. I just though i'd start off with my personal view of what "being honest with the text" means as well as a little into my view of inspiration.
When it comes to interpreting God's Word, i've always been fond of a view quotes
1. "The Bible can never mean what it never meant" in other words, there is one message of every portion of Scripture that has been the same since its original. the interpretation of any passage does not change with time, now the APPLICATION of a text will change throughout history in different times and different cultures. but the original message is constant.
2. "A text without a context, is a pretext for a prooftext" When it comes to interpreting a passage Context is King, so to speak. The time, place, and circumstances of the writer must be brought into play, the passages surrounding any verse being studied must be evaluated as well. This must also be balanced by my belief that God's Word is not a book, but a "living" document (not living in the sense of constantly updated, but alive), God's Word is real, applicable, and able to address any and every problem that exists today.
3. A third area in which i think is important delving into the Word of God in this topic is to remember to keep a whole Biblical Theology of the issue. Some passages are taken from OT other from the NT. we must be fair and evaluate each passage, in light of it's context, and begin to formulate biblical principles that stretch the entire span of Scripture

Like i said, i'll be hopefully reading through the long list of posts, although i doubt i'll have time to comment on each. I also, have further thoughts i'd like to develop and submit.

Nic

P.S. Right away i see we've splintered into several discussions that could each have their own thread, the trinity, innerrancy and inspiration, etc. We need to decide where we will focus in this thread, i propose taking 2 or three of the passages that deal with the area of not just homosexuality, but sexuality in general and discussing them. I'd like not start with "What does God say about homosexuality?" but back up to "What is God's purpose/design for sexuality in general?"

[andrewlittle]

You may go where you please. I'll wait for your next post, myself.

Now, as to keeping a thread, any thread, in some kind of focus - best of bleeding luck, my friend. That would like herding cats.

I, for one, will try to follow the path you set - and I am looking forward to it.

Thanks for returning (I must admit I thought you wouldn't :eek: - I'm really glad you made a liar out of me.) :D

[u-dog]

Welcome back Nic! I am salivating and rubbing my hands in anticipation. Andy is right though ... herding cats would be a cinch compared to keeping a thread focused. We'll do our best but mostly you just have to run to keep up and go where the current takes you!

Dave

[andrewlittle]

Andy is right though ...

OMG - Dave said I was right. :weee: :weee: :weee:

Of course, now I have to wait for the other shoe to drop. :hissy: :hissy: :hissy:

[tdogg]

Now, as to keeping a thread, any thread, in some kind of focus - best of bleeding luck, my friend. That would like herding cats.


Thanks for returning (I must admit I thought you wouldn't :eek: - I'm really glad you made a liar out of me.) :D

Well, thought I would add my 2 cents in (and it's just about 2 cents). First, while I understand that cat herding is difficult, I know it's possible - I've seen the video (it's hilarious). Not sure I would try that on MY horse tho...wouldn't be a good thing! :eek:

And then, I must say I've been reading through this thread wondering where the kind instigator had gone to...but here you are Nic! I'm glad you are back to view the fruits of your initial labor. It's an interesting thread, thanks to you for the idea and Andy who started it.

As far as interpretation goes, and remember this is IMO, there are so many different interpretations out there and very few if any hold true to the original greek and hebrew texts. So I think interpretation does not hold out over time - someone will come up with a new one pretty regular. To really get a feel for the original words, we would have to get pretty close to the original documents. I do not trust the interpretations of any human being to be the inerrant word of God - however, I am happy to read them, meditate on them and pray to see what they may mean to my life.

I am on board with you in regards to the context of the words, especially in regards to language and date issues. Someone in Moses time would describe a helicopter quite different than someone in our time. Likewise with homosexuality. We must also remember, according to Biblical writings as we know them today, many things were apparently permissible and blessed by God, that today we would consider illegal, immoral, inexcusable - and grounds for divorce, such as men having numerous wives and even more mistresses. They were are pretty bloody, warring group in the old testament, but then Jesus comes and says stop all that - again, one must really look at context, time and even common sense here. Plus we would have to really delve into the original texts and then we have issues with who accurately recorded historical events, etc.

Interesting tho, I will continue to read, soak it all in and learn.

[u-dog]

Well, thought I would add my 2 cents in (and it's just about 2 cents). First, while I understand that cat herding is difficult, I know it's possible - I've seen the video (it's hilarious). Not sure I would try that on MY horse tho...wouldn't be a good thing! :eek:

Thanks tdogg! I just googled "Herding cats video" What a hoot !! that is truly hilarious!

[Bearnabas]

Wow. What a great thread. I've read every pea-pickin' post. You gave up last month and I want to restart it with Nic's re-direction, or broadening of the topic. I was wondering what Sexuality is for... can't just be for procreation, and I don't think it's just for recreation--is there a prefix to add to creation to make something meaningful for the whole of sexuality.

I see GLBT people raising kids and that's great--so parenting isn't the direct result of sex...sex can't just be for procreation, since people both don't have kids as a result of sex, and might have kids they never had sex to create!

Anyway, I really want to hear thoughts about sex and the reason we enjoy it, we use it, we live for it, we give it and we receive it.

[u-dog]

My tradition (Presbyterian) teaches that sex has three aspects:

It's procreational (it has the potential for creating new life)

It's relational (it has the potential to deepen and strengthen the relationship between two people in a covenantal relationship

It's recreational (it feels good! it "re-creates" us)

[skeptictank]

The early church was set up as a sort of Mafia, To suppress and/or obliterate any opposition their beliefs. Burning and pillaging collecting money and land for some hyped-up cause.


Historical sources please?


Though this comment is not directly pointed at christians in general, but all religions. Every religion has some blood on its hands and there is no denying Religous Passions have attributed to countless wars, i.e. the Crusades and justification of horrible acts as long as they said it was God's will, i.e. the witch trials.

the actions of fallible man are not by any means a testimony of god's infallible word. Not in negative or positive ways.


The Bible, I strongly Believe that it IS NOT HISTORICAL. It may point to historical events, but remembering how many times it has been written and rewritten, It would not be impossible for one of the authors to include these events during its revision.

Do some research on manuscripts and I think you'll see the flaws of this view. The oldest manuscripts available are within a hundered years of the writing of the originals. (which is, by the way, much closer to the writing of the original than some of the most reffered to historical classics of our day. These include the works of Plato, Aristotle, Homer, etc..) Not to mention the fact that the Tanach (old testament) was translated into greek nearly 400 years B.C.. (this is a matter of historical fact). What is interesting is that several of its prophecies were fullfilled after that fact. If you wish to discuss the validity of god's word in light of history, and science, I'd be happy to discuss it with you, but that is a topic for another thread, I think.

It is important to take in the whole story and not believe that our understanding of the Bible is perfect as Pablo mentioned.

I agree to some extent. Scripture tells us-


1Cr 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.



My other point is the many sects of christianity are merely adopting or abandoning different traditions based on the many interpritations of the Bible. The different denomiations have fought and killed each other for that simple reason of having differnet ideas on how the bible should be interprited,


I hope you don't consider this an argument against the validity of the bible. If that is your purpose with this particular statement I would like to introduce you to an understanding of the strawman fallacy. You can look it up on google. Just type in "logical fallacies" in the google search engine.

To be blunt, what your statement describes is the violent nature of humanity and has nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability of holy scripture.

It happens with all religions, a more modern example is the fanatical Muslim sects, Suni and Shea, for their difference in interpriting the Qu'ran, they are killing each other on mass


Yes, it happens with all religions because all religions are practiced by people. I would point out that Jesus was the least religious man to walk the earth. Just read the gospels.


For me it's just best if I take any sacred text with a grain of Salt and not get to concerned with the finite interpritation but to grasp the basic meaning of it. In the case of the Bible, Love each other, do good for one another.


Ehem... do excuse me my friend, but I have a hard time reading that statement and believing that you've really read the whole bible. If you have, I suggest you read it again.


I do believe in God and the texts has their uses, But it is mans feeble attempt to sum up the whole of reality.

I'm interested in your idea of god, but I think that is a discussion for another thread.


OK, let the ignoring begin.


Not from me buddy. :cool:

Skeptictank

[Emproph]

For me it's just best if I take any sacred text with a grain of Salt and not get to concerned with the finite interpritation but to grasp the basic meaning of it. In the case of the Bible, Love each other, do good for one another.Ehem... do excuse me my friend, but I have a hard time reading that statement and believing that you've really read the whole bible. If you have, I suggest you read it again.

Matthew 22:36-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40%20;&version=31;)
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."Was there another basic meaning to it?

[keltic63]

Matthew 22:36-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40%20;&version=31;)
Was there another basic meaning to it?

what about the secret addendum to that verse??? you know, the part that says Love your neighbor as yourself, UNLESS THEY'RE teh GAY! :D

[rustaman]

I meant to stop in for a brief visit today, and here I still am, splashing myself all over the place instead of cleaning the garage (a method to my madness perhaps).

I am, as Dr. Rembert Truluck describes, in recovery from Bible abuse. I almost fell off my chair when the first biblical text presented for comment here was Matthew 18:1-10. Not too many years ago I threw a Bible at a wall across the room after I revisited these verses. It was left lying crumpled on the floor for months. I refused to touch it. I work in a psychiatric unit and was witness to a young man who wrote down some of the key words of this passage, and then proceeded to cut off his penis with a razor blade. I still shed tears over this. Thank God that Spirit has shown me the way back.

It is too bad Jesus didn’t write any of His own material. Maybe then we would have gotten it right. As it is, we must rely on what people thought He said, or thought He meant. Is there spiritual truth here? Is the Word here? Of course it is. And it is fairly obvious. If we place obstacles in the lives of others, or even our own lives that prevent us from experiencing the love of God, we have fallen short of what God wants for us. We must strive to remove those obstacles so that we may experience the Kingdom of the Heavens. It works the same for us GLBT people who buy-in to shame and guilt as it does for those who would persecute us.

The literalists throughout the centuries have used the WORD to oppress and destroy. I for one refuse to allow anyone to try to take Jesus, or my God away from me. And I refuse to return to any idea less than the knowing that I am a beautiful child of God in whom He is well pleased. And that’s how you remove the obstacle. Thank ya Jesus for reminding me.

Now on to the garage.