Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: Quadrilateral support of ****sexuality?

  1. #1
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Quadrilateral support of ****sexuality?

    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.

  2. #2
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default a rose is a rose.

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    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).

  4. #4
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Present a positive case.

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

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

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

  7. #7
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    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/h...ted-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.

  8. #8
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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

  9. #9
    CleoSquare
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  11. #11
    John T
    Guest

    Default What is the shape of the quadrilateral?

    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."

  12. #12
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  14. #14
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post

    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.
    Last edited by Columcille; 03-25-2009 at 06:18 AM.

  15. #15
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  16. #16
    asdf
    Guest

    Default Prologue

    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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.

  17. #17
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Catholic Courage and Exodus International

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  19. #19
    Jet
    Guest

    Default

    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 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.

  20. #20
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jet View Post
    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 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

  21. #21
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    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-...8020010&sr=1-7
    Mary Through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture
    by Jaroslav Pelikan
    http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Through-C...8020010&sr=1-9

    Trinity
    Last edited by Trinity; 03-25-2009 at 04:43 PM.

  22. #22
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    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?

  23. #23
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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

  24. #24
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
    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.

  25. #25
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default 3 Kings 11

    Quote Originally Posted by ActRaiser View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Columcille; 03-25-2009 at 05:07 PM. Reason: Changed adultery to idolatry

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •