Quadrilateral support of ****sexuality?

[Columcille]

Asdf has stated the following:


One question to ask is - how do we determine "what does God have to say" about a given thing. For me, I subscribe to something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral - that the source of authority has to be balanced between the factors of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience, with each mutually informing the others.

I believe we should discuss ****sexuality in each catagory to determine exactly what God has to say.

[ActRaiser]

Scripture:
Scripture is clearly against living a ****sexual life style. It is against lust in general, as well.

However, at least with heterosexual lust you can have a legitimate marriage. Whereas according to the scriptures you can't have a real marriage between a woman/woman, and man/man. However, there is a certain lack of discussion in the Bible about ****sexuality.

I'm sure that there were some ****sexual Israelites who simply lived a heterosexual lifestyle without doing same-sex sins.

[Columcille]

Scripture:
Scripture is clearly against living a ****sexual life style. It is against lust in general, as well.

However, at least with heterosexual lust you can have a legitimate marriage. Whereas according to the scriptures you can't have a real marriage between a woman/woman, and man/man. However, there is a certain lack of discussion in the Bible about ****sexuality.

I'm sure that there were some ****sexual Israelites who simply lived a heterosexual lifestyle without doing same-sex sins.

Scripture is Scripture; Tradition is Tradition; reason is reason; and experience is experience. If we want to glean what each says, it is best we give specific details about it. If we are to ***ume each has equal authority in determining what God has to say as asdf has stated, I myself only adher to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; reasoning and experience without God's revelation is only man's reasoning and man's experience. William James speaks about the mystical experience being nontransferable. To say that I experienced God in a ****sexual act or to say I experienced God in a heterosexual act is mere opinion based on a perception of the individual. However, I believe life is an act of God, so in a heterosexual act where a baby is born... I believe such experience as shared by other parents attests to the miracle of life and from God... ****sexual couples do not get this from their unions. Hence experientially, they are defunct in this act. It is also defunct, because Tradition in the Catholic and Orthodox Church, view marriage as a Sacrament. ****sexuals have always been denied marriage in the Christian Tradition until some Protestant sects deny Tradition, deny Scripture (or reinterpret it).

[ActRaiser]

Sex, however, is God's give gift excluding birth as well. Otherwise he would not allow pleasure to be experienced with infertile men and women.

I find that despite the good intentions of Christians, they don't understand the real reasons why ****sexuality is a sin, despite the fact they know it is.

I might need more elaboration as well, but non-birth is not a reason.

[Columcille]

Sex, however, is God's give gift excluding birth as well. Otherwise he would not allow pleasure to be experienced with infertile men and women.

I find that despite the good intentions of Christians, they don't understand the real reasons why ****sexuality is a sin, despite the fact they know it is.

I might need more elaboration as well, but non-birth is not a reason.

If you are going to present a position that God is ok with the ****sexual lifestyle, you better start on a position of offense and not defense. If you position is only a negation, it is not a viable pro-God defense. I would hope that you could start with a Scripture quote, from a quote found in Tradition. At that moment, we can present reasoning with the Scripture or reasoning with Tradition. Experience, is in my opinion the weakest of the quadrilateral since it is open to man's experience only. The Scripture's attest to a long history of interaction between God and mankind... as such, if we are to state of such experiences even in our own day and age, it must also be consistent with the experiences found within Scripture and Tradition. New prophecies are not going to trump old ones. So far, it seems you have not presented a case that stands on the agreement of any one pillar of the quadrilateral.

[ActRaiser]

Actually, what I said was that I believe ****sexuality is wrong based on Scripture.

Fertility is not a reason for ****sexuality being a sin.

[Columcille]

Actually, what I said was that I believe ****sexuality is wrong based on Scripture.

Fertility is not a reason for ****sexuality being a sin.

I am not stating that fertility is a reason for ****sexuality being a sin, I am saying it is a sin for many reasons; first of all it opposes God in direct contradiction to Scripture (especially if the ****sexual claims they are Christian); secondy of all, it flys in the face of raising children with mother and father. http://parenting.families.com/blog/****sexual-agenda-being-promoted-in-schools.
What kind of responsible parents is it when gays deny the right of the mother, or lesbians deny the right of the father? The children are the battleground for LBGT activism.

Now, it should be up to asdf to present his quadrilateral support for the lifestyle. Unfortunetly, he seems to be silent because there is none when you delve into the Greek or Hebrew in the Scriptures or even in the writings found in Tradition. The reasons he uses are today's media talking points. Get past them into the writings of the Church in history and he is in big problems... his quadrilateral crumbles.

[asdf]

Asdf has stated the following:

One question to ask is - how do we determine "what does God have to say" about a given thing. For me, I subscribe to something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral - that the source of authority has to be balanced between the factors of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience, with each mutually informing the others.
I believe we should discuss ****sexuality in each catagory to determine exactly what God has to say.

Thanks for starting this thread, Columcille, so we can discuss this in greater depth. I appreciate the opportunity to flesh out my thoughts and bounce them off of others.

I just wanted you to know that I have seen the thread, and am glad for your invitation to it. Unfortunately, I'm pretty swamped at work right now (still haven't fully caught up with myself after taking a 2-week vacation).

This is definitely a conversation that interests me, so I hope to carve out some time to outline my perspective for you and anyone else interested in the discussion. Hopefully within the next week. *fingers crossed*

Cheers,
asdf

[CleoSquare]

Asdf has stated the following:



I believe we should discuss ****sexuality in each catagory to determine exactly what God has to say.

I have heard it argued that the ****sexuality that was referred to in Bible times was the apparently common practise of men choosing to use other men from a position of power, partly in addition to their marriage relationships. This, of course had the additional 'benefit' that children were not born of the coupling.

The reason it was so abhored by God was that it was an abuse from a position of power of one man over another. This relationship was not a relationship of mutual commitment and love. This could account for the fact that as far as I can see, lesbianism is not referred to in the Bible. I am certain that there would have been lesbians, just that it was not condemmed because presumably this same issue of one woman overpowering another was not commonly practised, but that relationships between women tended to be more mutual and loving.

I am not sure what I think on this issue... I will follow the topic with interest. I do know that the ****sexual people I have known have been genuine people, many in loving commited relationships, and I genuinely believe, having known some since childhood, that they are simply born with a ****sexual orientation rather than choosing it. I also know that the Holy Spirit has 'stopped' my mouth on occasion in the past when I have felt like commenting on the 'error of ****sexual practise within a loving relationship' to ****sexual people- he has faced me with my own shortcomings, in such a way of conviction, that I am struck dumb and very humble.

[ActRaiser]

I also know that the Holy Spirit has 'stopped' my mouth on occasion in the past when I have felt like commenting on the 'error of ****sexual practise within a loving relationship' to ****sexual people- he has faced me with my own shortcomings, in such a way of conviction, that I am struck dumb and very humble.

Sometimes the best correction we can give others is by example of our love.

That doesn't mean we are necessarily wrong.

[John T]

The problem with the imposition of a geometric figure as a hermeneutic tool is that it often makes human reason on par with Scripture. It is not, it is subordinate to, and often at odds with Holy Spirit.

That equilateral also ***umes that God stuttered when he wrote the Bible. That is not the case.

Therefore, as warm and fuzzy as your ideas seem to be, they are in direct opposition to what God clearly stated. The ONLY way that you can have legitimate authority to mitigate what God stated is to find a direct statement when Good said "Oopsie! I really did not mean that."

[Columcille]

Sometimes the best correction we can give others is by example of our love.

That doesn't mean we are necessarily wrong.

Christ loved people, yet he was also confrontational. He certainly did something to offend people to point of being crucified on the cross, and it wasn't because he hated people or deserved it. He was incarnate love. Love sometimes means to rebuke and discipline. I think Walter Martin was also confrontational. I have been listening to the mp3 of his banquet speech... and he discusses this particular point about confrontation in writing.

In regards to CleoSquare's statement. Hearing about something can be hearsay or some sort of ***umption. ****sexuality in the bible does not distinguish wether there is some sort of platonic love or even of an abuse of power. It pretty much states its an abomination and to stone to death people that practice it. Obviously, when the law was written... it did not specify the intent only to people who abused authority, but to everyone under the covenant. I should rather see something more concrete, some scholarly linguistic, archeological, or textual criticism of historical documents to establish what you are trying to present.


As far as JohnT has stated. I also do not necessarily agree with the quadrilateral model. However, sometimes it is necessary to understand or attempt to understand the argument of your opposition. In some of my college cl***es, the professor may have you write your own persuasive paper on any given subject, then make you write another persuasive paper from the opposite perspective. It is an academic benefit to do so. My cl*** on Milton was amazing in this regards. We read "L'Allegro" and "Il Penseroso;" L'Allegro starts with "Hence loathed Melancholy" and "Il Penseroso" starts off with "Hence vain deluding joys." They are both fascinating pieces of poetry, but my point is twofold in that (1) we allow people to establish some sort of authority and then stick them to the premises and conclusions of the same-self authority and (2) we ourselves strive to be as St. Francis of ***isi's prayer for peace "to understand, than to be understood." Perhaps we can say further like St. James writes to be slow to speak and quick to listen. Walter Martin does a grand example in the "Kingdom of the Cults" by quoting the Cult's own authoritative writings and reasonings to demonstrate its contradiction. In this case, we have some sort of Christian p***ing off a premise that ****sexuality is ok in certain instances, yet hasn't really researched in terms of his authority model to see his own biase and presumptions. Give it time, they will be more than willing to give us the rope from which their ideas will hang in its own noose.

[ActRaiser]

I should rather see something more concrete, some scholarly linguistic, archeological, or textual criticism of historical documents to establish what you are trying to present.

I do sometimes have problems with clarity, but at Ephesus, I think it was, one of the Apostles brought more people to Christ through living through example, rather than arguing with the local idolators.

You have to understand, that I'm not just saying a warm and fuzzy speech when I say we need to be a good example for others. Part of being a good example to others is to mention that ****sexuality is one of the sins that banned humanity from Heaven before they were save.

They can't lose their salvation due to ****sexuality, but they most certainly can lose their rewards. I know that much.

[Columcille]

They can't lose their salvation due to ****sexuality, but they most certainly can lose their rewards. I know that much.

Please provide Scripture. For instance:

Lev. 20:13 (NAB)- If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.

1 Cor 6:9-10 (NAB)

2 3 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy pros***utes nor sodomites
10
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Footnotes:

2 [9-10] A catalogue of typical vices that exclude from the kingdom of God and that should be excluded from God's church. Such lists (cf 1 Cor 5:10) reflect the common moral sensibility of the New Testament period.

3 [9] The Greek word translated as boy pros***utes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of pros***ution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in ****sexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10.

Sodomite: ****nokoites. The words according to Dr. Thayer mean "a man" and "a bed." "One who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite." Strong's numbering 733.

It seems clear to me... Scripture says they will not enter the kingdom. Hence, there is no salvation for their lot. You will have to demonstrate otherwise. Such sins tend to be behavioral and reoccuring, even unrepentant.

[ActRaiser]

Think about it for a moment.... I only need to produce scripture that Christians do not lose their salvation.

I need clarification from you that as a Christian, anyone can lose their salvation. Those who come to Christ will not be thrown out. Jesus said that, I only need to hunt for that scripture.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New American Standard Bible)

9Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? (C)Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor ****sexuals,

10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (E)inherit the kingdom of God.

This is true, but these are sins which barred sinners from entering Heaven in the first place. Those who sin will have their sins blotted out because of Christ's blood atonement. The Bema Seat is of consequence to Christians because of our deeds and misdeeds.

I put forth ****sexuality as something that is scripturally forbidden, and a sin, wrong, etcetera, but I fail to see how Leviticus matters to non-Jews.

[asdf]

Prologue

Again, thanks to Columcille for starting this thread. I'm hopeful about this opportunity to articulate and refine my thoughts. I'm always glad for the occasion to learn and to teach. (I try to always be open to both.)

Before I really dig in to the worldview ***umptions that have led me to full support of ****sexuality, I wanted to make a couple preliminary observations.

It's clear that we're not even starting on the same foot with regard to the sources of divine authority. I wanted to ask you about this statement:


If we are to ***ume each has equal authority in determining what God has to say as asdf has stated, I myself only adher to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition; reasoning and experience without God's revelation is only man's reasoning and man's experience.

There's a lot of discussion in epistemological foundations that we'd need to delve into to really get to the bottom of where we disagree, but I'll try to shortcut that for now in the effort to get to the point. It seems to me that Experience and Reason are necessary for claiming to know anything about Scripture or Tradition. Scripture must be interpreted, right? We use the filters of Experience and Reason when we practice hermeneutics, when we research the culture, language, literary genres, etc, used by the biblical writers. Likewise, we temper our understanding of Tradition by the knowledge that even the greatest saint is a mere human, and to some degree a product of his/her time. Because they were a fallible human being, they inevitably had some areas of doctrine or praxis that failed to live up to perfection.

This does not negate the reliability of Scripture or Tradition as sources of authority, but simply to say that they don't come as simple, pre-packaged soundbytes of Truth-with-a-capital-T. They must be interpreted.

Now, I understand that at this point we could easily devolve into a Catholic-vs-Protestant debate, but I believe I can make my point without having to go there. I forsee the counterargument that for a Catholic, individuals do not have to make interpretive decisions - that the Church is the arbiter of Truth, thus the Church herself makes decisions about meaning and interpretation. However, that doesn't eliminate the "problem" of interpretation, it simply shifts it to the heirarchy of the Church instead of to the individual. Interpretive decisions still need to be made, and they are still subject to revision and clarification based on new evidence and new cultural understandings - in other words, fallible humans, of which the Church Universal is composed, still must employ Reason and Experience as valid sources of authority - if not on a primary level (what has God said?), then on a secondary level (how do we make sense of what God has said?).


William James speaks about the mystical experience being nontransferable. To say that I experienced God in a ****sexual act or to say I experienced God in a heterosexual act is mere opinion based on a perception of the individual. However, I believe life is an act of God, so in a heterosexual act where a baby is born... I believe such experience as shared by other parents attests to the miracle of life and from God...This is odd to me, as it appears that you self-refute. Where you say "I believe...", is that not mere opinion based on your own perception?


****sexual couples do not get this from their unions. Hence experientially, they are defunct in this act.Again, that is an argument based on your perception, which you just claimed was unreliable.


It is also defunct, because Tradition in the Catholic and Orthodox Church, view marriage as a Sacrament. ****sexuals have always been denied marriage in the Christian Tradition until some Protestant sects deny Tradition, deny Scripture (or reinterpret it).Yes, well, we'll get there. Eventually.

[Columcille]

Think about it for a moment.... I only need to produce scripture that Christians do not lose their salvation.

I need clarification from you that as a Christian, anyone can lose their salvation. Those who come to Christ will not be thrown out. Jesus said that, I only need to hunt for that scripture.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New American Standard Bible)

9Or (A)do you not know that the unrighteous will not (B)inherit the kingdom of God? (C)Do not be deceived; (D)neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor ****sexuals,

10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will (E)inherit the kingdom of God.

This is true, but these are sins which barred sinners from entering Heaven in the first place. Those who sin will have their sins blotted out because of Christ's blood atonement. The Bema Seat is of consequence to Christians because of our deeds and misdeeds.

I put forth ****sexuality as something that is scripturally forbidden, and a sin, wrong, etcetera, but I fail to see how Leviticus matters to non-Jews.


ActRaiser, one must qualify in full detail what cons***utes a Christian from one that is just a professing one. If we stand people in a line-up, without knowing their actions, deeds, and core spoken values, it is impossible for us to say that they are Christian or not. The verse I gave is a list from which the Church would excommunicate people who practiced such. What kind of a Christian would you suppose it is who claims to be Christian, but in every detail affirms Buddhism's tenets in direct opposition to the core tenets of Christendom? Either they are very confused, or they are intentionally p***ing themselves off for a host of reasons from gaining acceptance to undermining the churches from which they are entering into. In some manner, the influence and calls of tolerance has lead to moral relativism inside the churches. In the same manner, ****sexuality has always been denied in the longstanding Tradition. How can a ****sexual be a Christian, unless they deny themselves via repentence and practice chasity and encouraging other ****sexuals to leave the lifestyle... in short, no longer being ****sexuals. If your position is that ****sexuality is likened to alcoholism, so at the next AA meeting or the next upcoming ****sexual's anonymous meeting people are claiming to be ****sexuals... I could possibly understand it... but unfortunetly, the only type of ****sexual anonymous is done by groups affiliated or modeling with Exodus International or Catholic Courage. The problem with saying one is a ****sexual and a Christian is that our society is filled with "Gay pride" parades and so it does not have the same stigma as alcoholism.

You are going to have to do more than just give an unrepentant sinner cloak in Christian clothing, singing Christian jargoon the benefit of the doubt that they are Christian when it flies in the face of Scripture and Tradition. Please present your case in like manner rather than ***uming the possibility that you can be Christain and a ****sexual at the same time.

[Columcille]

Asdf, In regards to quadrilateral position that you are affirming as opposed to my own position as a Catholic, what needs to be understood is the nature of Tradition. Tradition is not a contradictor of Scripture. Scripture, of course in my view, is both inspired by the Holy Spirit and affirmed by the Christian Tradition. The erosion of Tradition has lead to the denial of certain canonical books found in the O.T. and as such also eroded some doctrinal support that is wholesome. I consider mainstream Protestants to be my seperate brother and sister in Christ only when the core moral and doctrinal positions are the same. Hence, if a Protestant is against abortion, euthenasia, ****sexuality and affirms the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, his Resurrection, and those things that unite the common Christological and theological positions of the Church, I welcome them even when they may deny me the same courtesy.

As Scripture was written over four thousand years and compiled into one binding or collection, so Tradition remains until today and into tomorrow. Scripture does not refute Scripture and Tradition does not refute Tradition; and together they only compliment each other without contradiction. Since you listed Scripture and Tradition as two parts of your quadrilateral, each must be equally inerrent for the foundation to be solid. Reason and experience can be found in both the writings of Scripture, just as we see the teleological argument about a designer in the Psalms and Prophets and the cosmological argument found in Romans 1 and even supported by reasoning in Tradition as many Christian apologists throughout history and Popes have demonstrated. St. Thomas Aquinas has done this using Scripture and quoting doctors of the Church and attempting to use the prominent reasoning of his age... subverting the Muslim philosophers who were themselves Aristotelian. I have a rich Tradition from which to back up my claims against ****sexuality and I am not sure what sort of Tradition you can back up yours.

In short, to answer your objection regarding Tradition, there is a guiding principle that does not change, regardless of the science or of popular opinion. The ecumenical council's decisions in regards to morality and doctrine have never refutiated earlier ecumenical councils, policies however can change, how we structure the details of the M*** in regards to how the priest is positioned, what sort of texts used in the reading, what kinds of clothes or vestiments are used... these change. I would think it a mistake of you to deny a position of the Church held for two milliniums in regards to the shared morality just to embrace today's media talking points and ****sexual lobbyist's playbook.

[Jet]

Hi everyone. I'm new to the forum, and hope that I'm able to articulate my words adequately.

I'd like to focus on the pillar of Experience, since it's apparently the least popular...

We cannot exist outside of our experiences. The way we see the world is tinted by the experiences we've had (this is called bias). When we swear our allegiance to Christ, he does not magically take away our biases. Through intentional practice, we can lessen our biases, but we'll never completely be free of them.

Therefore we ascribe to some sort of Christian lifestyle because we've experienced it to be good and true. Hopefully none of us are Christians merely because our father and his father were Christians, but because we've experienced God directly or indirectly.

I'm claiming that experience is the beginning of our faith, and continues to build our faith.

Sometimes how we interpret scripture does not match our experience of life, of reality. This is where most of us would chime in to say, "we must regard scripture's version as more authoritative, and submit our experience."

But it is not that simple. It is common practice to confuse "what God said" with how we interpret "what God said." And we interpret "what God said" using the lens of our experiences. That is, we're biased in how we read scripture. So those of us (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/member.php?u=262) who say, "well I just believe what the Bible says," seem to be in denial that they have the propensity to read their own biases into scripture. ...in fact, it would take an act of God for them to be mistaken ("The ONLY way that you can have legitimate authority to mitigate what God stated is to find a direct statement when [God] said 'Oopsie! I really did not mean that.'".

Back to Experience not matching Interpretation of Scripture... luckily we have Tradition to help us. Often our experience does not match our interpretation of scripture until we see how this person or that church lived out the scripture, and then our experiences allow for the interpretation. But this is a beautiful picture of the Quadrilateral balancing itself.

Without a balance, people will claim the Bible means something it doesn't, and then even if it defies our experiences, there's no check for the claim. It is common throughout history for widely-accepted interpretation of scripture to change because so many's experience with reality did not match the interpretation (for instance, the issue of slavery).

Another reason I hold Experience so dear is that Biblical characters commonly base their lifestyles of faith on it. From Abraham to John, it is their experience of the living God that shapes their life (and no doubt their interpretation of scripture). Jesus says, "blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God." A heart is purified through experiences of conviction, practice, patience, repentance, earnestness, sincerity, diligence... If closeness to God is closeness to truth, we cannot discount the pillar of Experience, for it is a vital means of pursuing truth.

[Trinity]

Hi everyone. I'm new to the forum, and hope that I'm able to articulate my words adequately.

I'd like to focus on the pillar of Experience, since it's apparently the least popular...

We cannot exist outside of our experiences. The way we see the world is tinted by the experiences we've had (this is called bias). When we swear our allegiance to Christ, he does not magically take away our biases. Through intentional practice, we can lessen our biases, but we'll never completely be free of them.

Therefore we ascribe to some sort of Christian lifestyle because we've experienced it to be good and true. Hopefully none of us are Christians merely because our father and his father were Christians, but because we've experienced God directly or indirectly.

I'm claiming that experience is the beginning of our faith, and continues to build our faith.

Sometimes how we interpret scripture does not match our experience of life, of reality. This is where most of us would chime in to say, "we must regard scripture's version as more authoritative, and submit our experience."

But it is not that simple. It is common practice to confuse "what God said" with how we interpret "what God said." And we interpret "what God said" using the lens of our experiences. That is, we're biased in how we read scripture. So those of us (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/member.php?u=262) who say, "well I just believe what the Bible says," seem to be in denial that they have the propensity to read their own biases into scripture. ...in fact, it would take an act of God for them to be mistaken ("The ONLY way that you can have legitimate authority to mitigate what God stated is to find a direct statement when [God] said 'Oopsie! I really did not mean that.'".

Back to Experience not matching Interpretation of Scripture... luckily we have Tradition to help us. Often our experience does not match our interpretation of scripture until we see how this person or that church lived out the scripture, and then our experiences allow for the interpretation. But this is a beautiful picture of the Quadrilateral balancing itself.

Without a balance, people will claim the Bible means something it doesn't, and then even if it defies our experiences, there's no check for the claim. It is common throughout history for widely-accepted interpretation of scripture to change because so many's experience with reality did not match the interpretation (for instance, the issue of slavery).

Another reason I hold Experience so dear is that Biblical characters commonly base their lifestyles of faith on it. From Abraham to John, it is their experience of the living God that shapes their life (and no doubt their interpretation of scripture). Jesus says, "blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God." A heart is purified through experiences of conviction, practice, patience, repentance, earnestness, sincerity, diligence... If closeness to God is closeness to truth, we cannot discount the pillar of Experience, for it is a vital means of pursuing truth.

This is a very interesting post. There is some gems. :)

I agree with you that the cognitive experience, the culture, nationality, ethnicity, genealogy, political and sociological environment, and our own structured philosophy of life can distort our perception.

Truly, Christians living in United States, or in Canada, or in India, or in China, or in Japan, or in Ethiopia are not the same. Christians living in the modern time are not even alike to those who were living in the Middle Ages, or during the Renaissance. There is even generational distinctions throughout the centuries.

Trinity

[Trinity]

Addendum

Even the perceptions of the Christ or about the Virgin Mary have moved throughout the centuries. If Martin Luther could come back on earth today, he would have been rejected by the modern evangelical churches. He would have been too much Catholic for them. :)

Ex:
Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture
by Jaroslav Pelikan
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Through-Centuries-History-Culture/dp/0300079877/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238020010&sr=1-7
Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture
by Jaroslav Pelikan
http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Through-Centuries-History-Culture/dp/0300076614/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238020010&sr=1-9

Trinity

[Columcille]

Jet, a foundation that is laid does not need balancing-out. We need to fix our reasoning and experiences to the foundation. Consistency is a hallmark of truth. It is easy to point to Scripture and we can point to Tradition, though it can be more difficult finding those ecumenical canon laws and solid ex cathedra statements or looking through the numerous Church father writings, papal encyclicals, and writings of the doctors of the Church.
I partly agree with your ***essment, so far as Trinity has already mentioned. However, you have failed to tie this in with the subject of ****sexuality. Now Trinity has been following the tangent with unrelated subjects of Mary. Perhaps if Luther thought she was a lesbian might tie the subject together, but I know that is not his position. The question now is... what is your thoughts on experience in relation to ****sexuality?

[ActRaiser]

You are going to have to do more than just give an unrepentant sinner cloak in Christian clothing, singing Christian jargoon the benefit of the doubt that they are Christian when it flies in the face of Scripture and Tradition. Please present your case in like manner rather than ***uming the possibility that you can be Christain and a ****sexual at the same time.

You can be. To give an example, Solomon was a rampant luster. He was perhaps one of the biggest sinners in the entire Bible, but he was definitely on God's side. However even for Solomon there were consequences for his sinning.


How can a ****sexual be a Christian, unless they deny themselves via repentence and practice chasity and encouraging other ****sexuals to leave the lifestyle... in short, no longer being ****sexuals.

I will study the scriptures more to give a deeper answer into this question, but just understand where I'm coming from. I don't acknowledge ****sexuality as an acceptable life style, but I do believe even unrepentant sinners can get into Heaven.

That doesn't mean they will have as much fun there as those who lived godly lives. There is evidence for a degree of reward in both Heaven and Hell

[asdf]

This is a very interesting post. There is some gems. :)

I agree with you that the cognitive experience, the culture, nationality, ethnicity, genealogy, political and sociological environment, and our own structured philosophy of life can distort our perception.

Truly, Christians living in United States, or in Canada, or in India, or in China, or in Japan, or in Ethiopia are not the same. Christians living in the modern time are not even alike to those who were living in the Middle Ages, or during the Renaissance. There is even generational distinctions throughout the centuries.

Trinity

You're exactly right, Trinity. If we're going to claim Tradition as a source of authority (and this goes for the other sources as well), we're going to have to have the intellectual honesty to admit the vast and sometimes contradictory range of interpretations over the entire span of Christian history and geography.

I think that the bond of faith that unites the Church Universal is not conformity and uniformity on doctrinal (or even praxis) issues. Rather, it is inclusion, membership in a family. In my opinion, this diversity which may seem at first glance to undermine the validity of Christianity is actually one of its greatest strengths.

We read that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female [may I add: gay nor straight, 'liberal' nor 'conservative', western nor eastern, Protestant nor Catholic...], for you are all one in Christ Jesus." I don't believe that Paul was intending to undermine cultural, socioeconomic or gender differences between people, but rather to highlight the unity that is found within that diversity existing within the family of God.

[Columcille]

You can be. To give an example, Solomon was a rampant luster. He was perhaps one of the biggest sinners in the entire Bible, but he was definitely on God's side. However even for Solomon there were consequences for his sinning.



I will study the scriptures more to give a deeper answer into this question, but just understand where I'm coming from. I don't acknowledge ****sexuality as an acceptable life style, but I do believe even unrepentant sinners can get into Heaven.

That doesn't mean they will have as much fun there as those who lived godly lives. There is evidence for a degree of reward in both Heaven and Hell

So are you saying Solomon was a ****sexual, bisexual? Please provide the text proof. Daniel commited adultery, but I do not see evidence of Solomon doing the same. At any rate, David repented and faced the temporal punishments and consequences of his sin. I do not know if Solomon was "saved" at any rate when he started committing idol worship for his wives" sake. He seems to have forgotten the God of his youth. 3 Kings 11.40 states "Solomon therefore sought to kill Jeroboam: but he arose, and fled into Egypt to Sesac the king of Egypt, and was in Egypt till the death of Solomon." Solomon commited idolatry and forsake God. He apostasized. I am not sure how far you want to go in attempting to say Solomon is a Christian? Much less say he made it to heaven. At least David repented from his gross sin, it does not mention that Solomon did the same.

[asdf]

You can be. To give an example, Solomon was a rampant luster. He was perhaps one of the biggest sinners in the entire Bible, but he was definitely on God's side. However even for Solomon there were consequences for his sinning.

I will study the scriptures more to give a deeper answer into this question, but just understand where I'm coming from. I don't acknowledge ****sexuality as an acceptable life style, but I do believe even unrepentant sinners can get into Heaven.

That doesn't mean they will have as much fun there as those who lived godly lives. There is evidence for a degree of reward in both Heaven and Hell

I greatly appreciate your perspective, ActRaiser. Columcille has earlier quoted 1 Cor 6.9-10: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy pros***utes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I'll discuss my interpretation of these verses at a later time, but for now I'd like to support what you say by pointing out that even if the words translated here as "boy pros***utes" and "sodomites" could be taken to refer to a modern-day gay person in a committed, monogamous, lifelong relationship, Paul here puts these categories of "sinners" all on the same level.

That is, "adulterers", "boy pros***utes" and "sodomites" are no more in danger of exclusion from the kingdom of God than the greedy and slanderers. If we're going to especially pick out gay and lesbian people, we'd better be similarly prepared to condemn consumerism and gluttony. (These things strike me personally much closer to home than the list of sexual sins, and in my estimation they're much more widespread...)

[ActRaiser]

::Nods to asdf::

Then to Columcille:
I'm not saying Solomon was a gay or bi man. I'm saying that sexual sins are all sexual sins. He very clearly lived a hypersexualized life with many professional *****s.

Furthermore, Solomon has seemed to lay down Prophets for God, and he blessed Israel extremely deeply during his life time. Given God's pleasure towards people who treat the Jews well, it is scripturally possible, if not very probable that Solomon was saved.

In fact, many Jews were saved by Jesus before he was ever born in a Stable. Moses, Abraham, and the others were saved by Jesus by looking towards a Messiah. They just didn't know it would be a carpenter from Nazareth.

[Columcille]

::Nods to asdf::

Then to Columcille:
I'm not saying Solomon was a gay or bi man. I'm saying that sexual sins are all sexual sins. He very clearly lived a hypersexualized life with many professional *****s.

Furthermore, Solomon has seemed to lay down Prophets for God, and he blessed Israel extremely deeply during his life time. Given God's pleasure towards people who treat the Jews well, it is scripturally possible, if not very probable that Solomon was saved.

In fact, many Jews were saved by Jesus before he was ever born in a Stable. Moses, Abraham, and the others were saved by Jesus by looking towards a Messiah. They just didn't know it would be a carpenter from Nazareth.

I quoted 3 Kings 11. I guess that is 1 Kings 11. I was using my Douay-Rheims when I quoted it. He was in the end into idolatry. Your lack references to Solomon's apostasy. He may have built the temple, he may have done a lot of good, but in the end... I am uncertain as to the state of his soul. Since he wanted to kill a prophet of God, Jeraboam, I do not think he was repentent. I would be very weary to quote him as an example. Christians are called to a life of repentance. Hence, you cannot be a practicing ****sexual and a practicing Christian. The law in Leviticus does not give distinction to a loving ****sexual relationship or an abusive manipulative one. It states it without condition to kill them both in the theocracy. As far as Moses, Abraham, or the so-called others, you need to demonstrate that they were ****sexuals, unrepentant in that, and God calls them righteous. You are not going to get that with the patriarchs in the O.T. nor the Prophets. Dig deeper. I was hoping for a pro-God position for ****sexuality, not a negation.

[ActRaiser]

Who says ****sexuals need to be an example? Like A pointed out, a rampant womanizer is no better.

[Columcille]

Who says ****sexuals need to be an example? Like A pointed out, a rampant womanizer is no better.

It is not a point to compare apples to oranges. The subject is a call for a quadrilateral support of a pro-God defense of the ****sexual lifestyle. Behavioral sins do affect the mentality of the people to the point that they justify their behavior. The alcoholic blames their loved ones for driving them to drink. The slanderer seeks to elivate themselves by cutting others down, the glutton seeks to feed their appe***e. It is the state of mind where there is no repentant desire to end the behavior. The glutton, knowing he is fat should not desire to stay that way. The same goes for ****sexuality, and all the behavioral mortal sins. What is worse is that you have professing Christians supporting the lifestyle as the Bishop Gene Robinson in the Episcopal Church USA. You have just recently a Lutheran faction now embracing it. Really, is this the type of defense you want to justify that lifestyle? It is not a defense, it is an an***hesis. If God if for ****sexual marriages, is allowable for Christians to participate in it... then present a thesis, not an an***hesis. Use your quadrilateral.

[asdf]

It is not a point to compare apples to oranges. The subject is a call for a quadrilateral support of a pro-God defense of the ****sexual lifestyle. Behavioral sins do affect the mentality of the people to the point that they justify their behavior. The alcoholic blames their loved ones for driving them to drink. The slanderer seeks to elivate themselves by cutting others down, the glutton seeks to feed their appe***e. It is the state of mind where there is no repentant desire to end the behavior. The glutton, knowing he is fat should not desire to stay that way. The same goes for ****sexuality, and all the behavioral mortal sins. What is worse is that you have professing Christians supporting the lifestyle as the Bishop Gene Robinson in the Episcopal Church USA. You have just recently a Lutheran faction now embracing it. Really, is this the type of defense you want to justify that lifestyle?

I think you're still not getting ActRaiser's point. What he/she (sorry, haven't met you yet :)) is saying is precisely to compare apples to apples. You yourself cited Paul in putting "****sexuality" on the very same terms as greed and slander.

So if you're denying that "salvation" is achievable for an unrepentant ****sexual person, you'd better be ready to bar the kingdom of heaven to an unrepentant greedy person.

(Quotes on "salvation" because I think you're needlessly conflating "salvation" with "going to heaven after you die". I don't take that to be a necessary Christian view, but that's a topic for another day.)

[asdf]

The erosion of Tradition has lead to the denial of certain canonical books found in the O.T. and as such also eroded some doctrinal support that is wholesome.

I've got no beef with you over the Apocrypha.


I consider mainstream Protestants to be my seperate brother and sister in Christ only when the core moral and doctrinal positions are the same. Hence, if a Protestant is against abortion, euthenasia, ****sexuality and affirms the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, his Resurrection, and those things that unite the common Christological and theological positions of the Church, I welcome them even when they may deny me the same courtesy.

I'm glad you're able to recognize that the family of God is bigger than your own tribe.

I would, however, question your list of "core moral and doctrinal positions". Where does your list come from? The focus on "abortion, euthenasia, ****sexuality" reads more like a list of hot-****on issues of the Religious Right than something that has been the traditional standards of Christian morality through the centuries. It would have been more credulous for you to cite sexual fidelity/chas***y, nonviolence (or committment to Just War theory, or something of the sort)...

As for your "Christological and theological positions" which you view as necessary, they are indeed the majority report of Christian doctrine over the centuries, but it's an interesting study to see the various formulations that were "required" as orthodox Christian faith over time - both within Scripture and in the first few hundred years of Church history, with the Ecumenical Councils. (See: the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the Pauline formulations, the Didache, the Councils...)

It appears to me, for example, that within the Bible itself, there is much more support for saying that the "essentials" of the faith are the Lordship of Jesus and the Resurrection. There is some support for such doctrines as the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, etc, but their prominence as the bedrock of Christian doctrine was not present until much later.


As Scripture was written over four thousand years and compiled into one binding or collection, so Tradition remains until today and into tomorrow. Scripture does not refute Scripture and Tradition does not refute Tradition; and together they only compliment each other without contradiction.

I disagree. Scripture does refute, or at least supersede, itself in points. More on that soon.


Since you listed Scripture and Tradition as two parts of your quadrilateral, each must be equally inerrent for the foundation to be solid.

I don't hold inerrancy to be a requisite to consider something authoritative. My parents were not inerrant, infallible individuals, but they were my "authority" in my formative years. They provided me a guiding framework that enabled me to grow and learn, and ultimately to make decisions for myself. Nowhere in there was their "foundation" unsolid due to the fact that their guiding framework was fallible.


Reason and experience can be found in both the writings of Scripture, just as we see the teleological argument about a designer in the Psalms and Prophets and the cosmological argument found in Romans 1 and even supported by reasoning in Tradition as many Christian apologists throughout history and Popes have demonstrated. St. Thomas Aquinas has done this using Scripture and quoting doctors of the Church and attempting to use the prominent reasoning of his age... subverting the Muslim philosophers who were themselves Aristotelian. I have a rich Tradition from which to back up my claims against ****sexuality and I am not sure what sort of Tradition you can back up yours.

Yes, but we also have a rich Tradition of resisting change to our presuppositions until our denial is no longer tenable. See: Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin...


I would think it a mistake of you to deny a position of the Church held for two milliniums in regards to the shared morality just to embrace today's media talking points and ****sexual lobbyist's playbook.

[ActRaiser]

Really, is this the type of defense you want to justify that lifestyle? It is not a defense, it is an an***hesis. If God if for ****sexual marriages, is allowable for Christians to participate in it... then present a thesis, not an an***hesis. Use your quadrilateral.

God is not for gay marriage. I do not justify the gay life style. I justify people who identify themselves as gay. It may seem contradictory, but I have read from the scriptures certain talking points which seem to point out that even murderers and tyrants go there. (See Nebuchednezzar) Nebuchadnezzar might not have been gay, but he was much worse than that. He even persecuted God's people, the Israelites, and demanded idolatry.

That somewhat answers your question regarding Solomon, since Nebuchedezzar was infinitely worse.

[Trinity]

"****sexuality is a sustained condition or adaptation in which erotic fantasy, attraction and arousal is predominately directed toward one’s own sex. The term ‘‘sustained’’ is used because confusion about one’s sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence. Although the Catholic Church recognizes that ****sexual attraction is not chosen, and therefore the orientation in itself is not a sin (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358), it has been the constant tradition in Church teaching, based on Scripture and natural law, that ****sexual activity is morally wrong. This article expounds the basis for this judgment in terms of the Church’s teaching on marriage, and its proper, virtuous expression of sexuality.

Scripture. Traditionally, six texts in Scripture have been accepted in Christian Churches as condemnations of ****sexual behavior. Genesis (19.1–29) contains the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed by God for wickedness which included ****sexual demands on Lot’s guests. Leviticus forbids practices such as adultery and bestiality, and includes the prohibition: ‘‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination’’ (18.20–23), a condemnation repeated in Lv 20.13. In the New Testament, St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans cites indulgence in same-sex lust and the perverse actions of men with men, women with women, as deserving penalty (1.26ff). In the First Letter to the Corinthians Paul includes ****sexual activity as one of the sins that bars inheritance of God’s kingdom (6.9-11). The First Letter to Timothy also lists ****sexual activity as an offense of the wicked and godless (1.8,11). Finally, the author of the Letter of Jude refers to Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding towns which indulged in unnatural vice, with the admonition that their punishment is meant to dissuade us (1.6-8).

Beginning with Anglican author D. Sherwin Baily’s 1955 book ****sexuality and Western Christian Tradition, a number of scholars and pro-gay apologists have reinterpreted the standard scriptural texts, thereby encouraging a revisionist theology which accepts ****sexual activity as morally acceptable for ****sexual persons. This interpretation stands against the constant teaching of the Church, dating from the Fathers of the early Christian centuries, affirmed by the major theological Doctors of the Middle Ages, and reaffirmed in current Catholic magisterial pronouncements.

These revisionist views take various forms, generally proposing that the scriptural texts were written in the setting of a different culture, and in times when the notion of differing sexual orientations was not known. Some maintain that the sin of the Sodomites was inhospitality rather than ****sexual activity, or, while admitting that the Genesis story concerns ****sexual activity, see its condemnation aimed at the violence of threatened ****sexual rape. Others maintain that the text in Romans refers to ****sexual actions by heterosexual persons, and that the strictures were against ****sexual pros***ution in a setting of orgiastic idolatry.

A simple reply to these views would be to note that nowhere in Scripture is ****sexual genital behavior mentioned in a positive manner. More striking, in both Testaments one finds the over-arching affirmation of heterosexual marriage as a symbol of God’s covenant relationship with his people and of the union of Christ with his spouse, the Church. The 1986 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, On the Pastoral Care of ****sexual Persons, notes that God fashions mankind male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings therefore are nothing less than the work of God Himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with Him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of self to the other (6).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, does not see ambiguity in the Scripture references to ****sexual behavior. Citing four of the cl***ic texts, it states: ‘‘Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents ****sexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘****sexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ . . . contrary to the natural law . . . (and) under no circumstances can they be approved’’ (2357). The first chapter of Genesis contains the nucleus of the theology of marriage. ‘‘God created man in his image . . . male and female he created them, and blessed them saying ‘be fertile and multiply’’’ (1.27). ‘‘That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one’’ (2.24)."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition
Thompson and Gale,
2003, vol. 7, [pages 66-67]
http://www.gale.cengage.com/servlet/ItemDetailServlet?region=9&imprint=000&***leCode=NCE&type=1&id=113827

Trinity

[Columcille]

I think you're still not getting ActRaiser's point. What he/she (sorry, haven't met you yet :)) is saying is precisely to compare apples to apples. You yourself cited Paul in putting "****sexuality" on the very same terms as greed and slander.

So if you're denying that "salvation" is achievable for an unrepentant ****sexual person, you'd better be ready to bar the kingdom of heaven to an unrepentant greedy person.

(Quotes on "salvation" because I think you're needlessly conflating "salvation" with "going to heaven after you die". I don't take that to be a necessary Christian view, but that's a topic for another day.)

Rightly so. If unrepentant, with no desire to change... you bet, I'd bar them also. However, we don't have that with the welcoming and affirming Protestant churches, do we?!

[ActRaiser]

However, we don't have that with the welcoming and affirming Protestant churches, do we?!


Pointing fingers at rival denominations is not quite conductive to good behavior within the Church. The entire Church is to blame, and there are some things that we evidently won't be repentant for even when Jesus receives us in New Zion. That doesn't mean that we will die and be condemned to Hell.

Some of us believe in the Rapture... When Jesus takes us home. Won't it be ashamed, that if when Jesus comes, he finds men in bed together?

They wouldn't go, but they wouldn't go to Hell either. There is a lot of negative consequences from sin. Hell is only one, although it is the worst.

[Columcille]

I've got no beef with you over the Apocrypha.



I'm glad you're able to recognize that the family of God is bigger than your own tribe.

I would, however, question your list of "core moral and doctrinal positions". Where does your list come from? The focus on "abortion, euthenasia, ****sexuality" reads more like a list of hot-****on issues of the Religious Right than something that has been the traditional standards of Christian morality through the centuries. It would have been more credulous for you to cite sexual fidelity/chas***y, nonviolence (or committment to Just War theory, or something of the sort)...

As for your "Christological and theological positions" which you view as necessary, they are indeed the majority report of Christian doctrine over the centuries, but it's an interesting study to see the various formulations that were "required" as orthodox Christian faith over time - both within Scripture and in the first few hundred years of Church history, with the Ecumenical Councils. (See: the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the Pauline formulations, the Didache, the Councils...)

It appears to me, for example, that within the Bible itself, there is much more support for saying that the "essentials" of the faith are the Lordship of Jesus and the Resurrection. There is some support for such doctrines as the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, etc, but their prominence as the bedrock of Christian doctrine was not present until much later.



I disagree. Scripture does refute, or at least supersede, itself in points. More on that soon.



I don't hold inerrancy to be a requisite to consider something authoritative. My parents were not inerrant, infallible individuals, but they were my "authority" in my formative years. They provided me a guiding framework that enabled me to grow and learn, and ultimately to make decisions for myself. Nowhere in there was their "foundation" unsolid due to the fact that their guiding framework was fallible.



Yes, but we also have a rich Tradition of resisting change to our presuppositions until our denial is no longer tenable. See: Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin...

Asdf, so your pillar of Scripture is lacking a solid foundation. As far as Tradition is concerned, it applies to moral and doctrinal positions that is without error, not the science or the particular -ism from which the apologist is using. I already gave such an example with St. Aquinas being an Aristotelian using such resources to combat the Muslim Aristotelians of his age. So as far as Galileo and the others you mentioned, it is not applicable to the Tradition. Its main concern is only as far as the moral and doctrinal position of the Church as it is maintained. As far as my supposed Rubric of calling fellow Protestants Christian, I think it pretty obvious that the Scriptures endorse a moral lifestyle and equally important is that they have the right God. Periphial doctrines aside, professing Christians in an active ****sexual lifestyle is prohibited. It is one thing to have fleshly hormonal desires, its another to affirm these as wholesome. Trinity's excepts of the Catechism of 2538 is only one except. 2357 and 2359 also state something about ****sexuality. In fact the last sentence of 2357 states in no uncertain terms:

"Under no circumstance can they (****sexual acts) be approved."

Trinity is absolutely right in his references.

[ActRaiser]

"Under no circumstance can they (****sexual acts) be approved."

This is true, but why must the negative consequence of sin for someone who accepts Jesus'es death on the Cross and Ressurection be Hell?

[asdf]

As far as Tradition is concerned, it applies to moral and doctrinal positions that is without error, not the science or the particular -ism from which the apologist is using...So as far as Galileo and the others you mentioned, it is not applicable to the Tradition. Its main concern is only as far as the moral and doctrinal position of the Church as it is maintained.

You're making an artificial distinction between "moral and doctrinal" positions and "scientific" positions.

[asdf]

Rightly so. If unrepentant, with no desire to change... you bet, I'd bar them also. However, we don't have that with the welcoming and affirming Protestant churches, do we?!

I'm glad I don't have to live in fear of Columcille as my judge, then - for I'm certain there are areas of my life about which I will be ashamed when I stand before my Maker.

Thankfully, I'm not afraid that [he] would deny me [his] presence based on the things I don't see about myself.

[Columcille]

I'm glad I don't have to live in fear of Columcille as my judge, then - for I'm certain there are areas of my life about which I will be ashamed when I stand before my Maker.

Thankfully, I'm not afraid that [he] would deny me [his] presence based on the things I don't see about myself.

People choose their lifestyle. I am only presenting what the Scripture has to say. Your reinterpretation of it has yet to be made to the rest of us. Scripture is suppose to be one of your quadrilaterals... I suggest you use it.

[Columcille]

Pointing fingers at rival denominations is not quite conductive to good behavior within the Church. The entire Church is to blame, and there are some things that we evidently won't be repentant for even when Jesus receives us in New Zion. That doesn't mean that we will die and be condemned to Hell.

Some of us believe in the Rapture... When Jesus takes us home. Won't it be ashamed, that if when Jesus comes, he finds men in bed together?

They wouldn't go, but they wouldn't go to Hell either. There is a lot of negative consequences from sin. Hell is only one, although it is the worst.

ActRaiser, I am only speaking the truth that there are welcoming and affirming churches of the ****sexual lifestyle. The Catholic Church and Orthodox Church do not affirm it. The ECUSA affirms it, I was once an Episcopalian. It affected me very much, and I still pray for the Anglican crisis. It certainly does not help out the mainstream responsible Protestant, like the Southern Baptists, or the numerous independent churches either. So how is it "bad behavior?" Are we to make the same ***umption of Jesus for calling people names or driving out the money changers? There is a time to call out sin for what it is. I can be sympathetic for ****sexuals that want to find Christ, but don't expect me to affirm the lifestyle. Affiliating with the lifestyle at this present time is a source of "gay pride" and Christians, the repentent former ****sexual, better wise up and stop calling themselves ****sexuals. It is misconstrued by others that God made them such and approves of it. It is a perversion of the flesh, a defect from the sin nature. James states the obvious:

Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man. But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured. Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin when it is completed, begetteth death. James 1.13-15.

[ActRaiser]

Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man. But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured. Then when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin when it is completed, begetteth death. James 1.13-15

This is a good way to prove a ****sexual isn't made gay by God.

But, you could also argue that Jesus healed the blind man because he wanted to prove his power of good over evil.

The same could be true with Jesus and ****sexuality.

Protestant Churches do tend to support the gay life style. Some clergy in the Vatican don't think Jesus is the Son of God.

The entire Church is weird, bizarre, and a zombified creature compared to what it was centuries ago.

[Columcille]

This is a good way to prove a ****sexual isn't made gay by God.

But, you could also argue that Jesus healed the blind man because he wanted to prove his power of good over evil.

The same could be true with Jesus and ****sexuality.

Protestant Churches do tend to support the gay life style. Some clergy in the Vatican don't think Jesus is the Son of God.


Clergy are also human and can error big time both morally and doctrinally. It is the Holy Spirit acting in the living Magesterium that is important. It is the Church historically declaring the moral and doctrinal truth in its authoritative manner that is important. I am unaware of any clergy by name in the Vatican that supports your statement. So firstly, be specific in citing whom you are refering.

As far as your first statement, I believe ****sexuality is derived from an injured psyche. No scientist has yet been able to identify a child as ****sexual in the womb. A deformity, as the transgender might have, is rare, but does not affect what I am here talking about. (I bring it up only because it is an obvious distraction that somebody is going to throw in for the red-herring). Test conducted on ****sexuals that was released in the Times magazine a long time ago in the 90s had some confounding variables. It still remains unknown by scientists who test such hypothesis as a baby being born gay is viable.
Your second statement I would not argue from. Firstly, such deformity as blindness or deafness have no moral implications. You might on the transgender, but since these are rare and obvious deformities... it lacks the same catagory as the ****sexual. You could argue what ifs about each and every case involving the transgender, but you would go nowhere in terms of the ****sexual.

[Jet]

The question now is... what is your thoughts on experience in relation to ****sexuality?

I'm sorry I've taken so long to answer your question. Here I go. I'll relate my own experiences in relation to ****sexuality.

I grew up as anti-****sexual. My church tradition told me ****sexuality was a sin, and so that's what I believed. Unfortunately for my church, ****sexuality had a stigma of being "weird" and "gross". I inherited this at***ude of gays also. I remember abhorring a certain boy in high school because he was gay.

I grew closer to Christ as I got older and as my commitment to him became stronger, and I gained from him comp***ion enough to treat gays civilly, as humans. Once I was open to friendship with gays, I found that they weren't as gross and weird as I had previously thought. In fact, they were quite like normal humans.

I'll also include that I did not believe ****sexual orientation to be natural. I believed that it was some self-induced perversion (perhaps available to those who were really sinful). But as I began to listen to ****sexuals and their stories, I changed my belief to include room for "being born gay". (By the way, Columcille, you said earlier that "No scientist has yet been able to identify a child as ****sexual in the womb." Can scientists identify children as heterosexual in the womb?)

Anyway, eventually I met gay Christians. And like before, they seemed a lot like normal people. They seemed to be devout and full of spiritual fruit. In fact, I talked to one gay about his relationship with God, and how God speaks to him, and he described God's voice and spoken content suspiciously similar to my own experiences with God's communication with me.

In any case, my intuition did not present "red flags" concerning the character of this particular gay person. Often with other lifestyles of sin, bad fruit manifests after a period of time. Eventually I began to question the beliefs I had been brought up with.

---------

Now, on to the pillar of Reason.

Often it's easy to ascertain why the Bible forbids certain actions. It is easy to see the damage that unforgiveness deals to relationships, for instance. Living a life of unforgiveness undermines the ability one has to effectively live as a blessing as a member of the kingdom of God.

It is not so clear why the Bible would forbid practicing ****sexuality. If two gays lived in union with one another in a monogamous, emotionally-healthy, mutually-lifting, committed, respectful relationship, what (logically) will keep them from being united to God, able to be used for his purposes?

--------


Jet, a foundation that is laid does not need balancing-out. We need to fix our reasoning and experiences to the foundation. Consistency is a hallmark of truth. It is easy to point to Scripture and we can point to Tradition, though it can be more difficult finding those ecumenical canon laws and solid ex cathedra statements or looking through the numerous Church father writings, papal encyclicals, and writings of the doctors of the Church.

Columcille, I don't understand what you've said. I don't know what you were referring to in my post (if you were referring to something), or what your point is. Will you clarify? Since you directed this at me, I thought I might ask for clarification. However, I understand that the conversation has moved beyond this, so it's alright with me if you refuse.



I partly agree with your ***essment, so far as Trinity has already mentioned. However, you have failed to tie this in with the subject of ****sexuality.

Ah, forgive me if it seemed completely off topic. I suppose I was merely defining terms, laying some groundwork for communicating different forms of thought...



Please provide the text proof.
...
I was hoping for a pro-God position for ****sexuality, not a negation.
...
It is the Church historically declaring the moral and doctrinal truth in its authoritative manner that is important. I am unaware of any clergy by name in the Vatican that supports your statement.

Forgive me if I'm reading into things, but I pick up from your posture, Columcille, that you expect a pro-gay thesis to be made on your terms, within your ruleset, one that fits into your perspective.

This is partly why I had my tangent on bias. There exists other ways of seeing the world than yours. But you seem to expect that other ways are not as valid.

On another note, Columcille, I admire that you're trying to keep the thread on original topic, even if I do feel like I'm treading on eggshells.



As far as Tradition is concerned, it applies to moral and doctrinal positions that is without error, not the science or the particular -ism from which the apologist is using.

Again, I don't think I understand. It would help if you used proper grammar and readable sentence structure. Do you mean that Tradition, according to Wesley's Quadrilateral, consists of doctrinal statements only? If so, I urge you to reconsider your criteria.

[Columcille]

Jet, there were certain things that you said which I think Trinity did not pick up. The Catholic position is quite comp***ionate, but does not affirm the lifestyle as authentically Christian. Perhaps Trinity's eyes are open now that you have stated your position.

But let us make clear by Scripture what is its purpose... 2 Tim. 3.16 states the following:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for trainin in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Now, if you hold to a quadrilateral support of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience to determine what God has to say on the subject of ****sexuality... then by all means... use the Scripture for its purpose to teach what you say is true. So far, it seems only experience and reasoning are your true source of affirming ****sexual acts for Christians. What ever you use for "Tradition," please start citing these sources. You haven't once used Scripture to support your position, neither have you quoted any works of your "Tradition."

[alanmolstad]

Asdf has stated the following:

One question to ask is - how do we determine "what does God have to say" about a given thing. For me, I subscribe to something like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral - that the source of authority has to be balanced between the factors of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience, with each mutually informing the others.

I believe we should discuss ****sexuality in each category to determine exactly what God has to say.

This only works "if' the following is true.

IF - the Scripture quoted is truly what God placed that into the bible to teach us, and is not just a verse taken out of it's correct context.

IF - the Tradition is a correct history of doing things the way God wants.

IF - the human ability to Reason is correctly trained and led by the Lord, and not just a bunch of conclusions that a person can fall into on their own or under the sway of a false teacher.

IF - the Experience you record is in-line with what God has truly taught... and that you are not just basing a false idea on a history of believing other false ideas.

[brisbenea]

And how do we judge, those "IF's" are true or no?

[alanmolstad]

with care.....each day