Episcopal Bishop Homosexuality is not a Sin

[nbcrusader]

I'm not sure AEON knew what would erupt with his/her post.

I think we've got plenty of threads laying out the arguments on both sides (yes, Lies, even properly exegeted Scripture) of the issue - I'm not sure we will cover any new ground productively here.

It is odd pickle the Episcopal Church as got itself into. One might ask "are liars, thieves and gossips welcome at an Episcopal church?" The response (and correct me if I am wrong) would be yes, lovingly like anyone else. No one would ever think to say we need to treat you differently.

That is the part everyone is missing. We all approach the Cross on an equal footing as sinners. Take a worldly approach and you make the ground uneven.

And with all due respect to Dreadsox, I think that is what is happening here. In a desire not to elevate one sin over another, the church has elevated one over another by trying to say “It is not sin” – but then turning around and elevating it as a means to exclude people for the office of Bishop. In essence, the good intentioned effort to be welcoming has done just the opposite – it has separated out a group of people (we need to change our reading of the Bible to welcome you) and denied them access to certain offices.

People don’t erase sin – God erases sin. If we try, we are just fooling ourselves. For we all fall short of the Glory of God.

 

[AEON]

If I could cut and paste the ENTIRE Bible into a post - I would. If I could post an entire exegesis on the numerous references regarding homosexual behavior - I would.

At this point, I can only implore you to do the honest research yourself. Trust the Holy Spirit to guide your thoughts and to lead you to the conclusions that God has designed.

To me, the Bible is very clear on this issue. To others, maybe not so clear. I can accept that.

Personally, I rely on the Holy Spirit to convict me of sin. Whether it be getting angry in traffic or feeling lust - the Holy Spirit sends out screaming alarms that what I am thinking or doing is WRONG. Most of the times I listen, sometimes I fail to listen - and usually somone gets hurt when that happens. Funny how that works out isn't it?

The Christian walk is a process. It takes years and years to change old habits and attitudes. I have changed quite a bit since my conversion, and I am thankful there is still more work to be done.

 

[Irvine511]

If I could cut and paste the ENTIRE Bible into a post - I would. If I could post an entire exegesis on the numerous references regarding homosexual behavior - I would.

tell me, is it okay for me to be in love with my boyfriend, to spend time together, to build a loving, trust-based relationship, but just so long as we don't engage in any homosexual "behavior" -- since all homosexuals do is fuck each other, and that's it, there's no love or intimacy or commitment or anything, just fucking, constantly -- then would that be okay with you and your God?

could it also be that in Biblical times there was no meaningful understanding of homosexuality or of a gay identity? could it be that, guess what, the Bible is reflective of the time in which it was written, and that a contemporary understanding of gay relationships reveals absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in their morality than heterosexual relationships?

if ass fucking is all you can see when you read those biblical passages, then perhaps you need to pull yourself out of the bible, meet some gay people, understand that homosexuality is EXACTLY like heterosexuality, only with two people of the same gender, and then go back to Scripture and see if it still says the same thing you think it does.

could it be that perhaps your understanding is flawed? that passages can be used to deepen and strengthen and justify and even make virtuous already existing prejudices? that if we start to get a broader understanding of the depth and breadth of human methods of loving that perhaps a deeper Scriptural understanding might arise from the text?

 

[Justin24]

Come on Irvine we know that Homosexuals only want sex

I agree with you totally with what you said. He needs to take his nose out of the Bible and meet with Gay people and see that they are human beings and not some other form of species. Who is he to judge, we will face our judgement when we die for what we have done in life. I am happy that you and your BF love each other. Does Washington plan on having a Pride Parade like SF does?

 

[Irvine511]

Come on Irvine we know that Homosexuals only want sex

it's also the thinking that the thing that makes someone gay is having homosexual sex. while that's certainly part of it, it's no more a part of being gay than heterosexual sex is about being straight. it's very insulting to have your romantic, emotional, and sexual life reduced to a sexual act.

I am happy that you and your BF love each other. Does Washington plan on having a Pride Parade like SF does?

we had one 2 weeks ago -- i have weird feelings about Pride Parades. i suppose they are necessary, and they're fun, but i have the sneaking suspicion that they do more harm than good as they tend to perpeturate stereotypes (Disco Twinks, Drag Queens, Leather Bears).

i have actually been to the SF pride parade and that was on a whole other level -- wow! massive.

 

[Justin24]

I think the Word Homosexual is a stereotype, where all people think is oh great, gay sex and other sorts, like many stereotype the black people with crime etc... whites as KKK, racists, asians as dog eaters etc... It's wrong! Well the Pride parade is this weekend just to let you know.

He/she should watch 30Days( by the guy who filmed that MC'Ds 30 day food binge) It's on itunes for 1.99

 

[BVS]

If I could cut and paste the ENTIRE Bible into a post - I would. If I could post an entire exegesis on the numerous references regarding homosexual behavior - I would.

Numerous references?

I bet you couldn't show me one. It's interesting because many have tried and failed.

 

[Justin24]

Numerous references?

I bet you couldn't show me one. It's interesting because many have tried and failed.

Hey BVS no laughing. Give him/her a chance

 

[BVS]

Hey BVS no laughing. Give him/her a chance

But it's just a fact. Even those that narrowly interpret the Bible this way can only find 2 or 3. Not numerous. That's why I laugh because it's obvious this person is exagerating out of desperation. Those 2 or 3 can easily be refutted once you look at context and the history of translation.

 

[Justin24]

But even if you do not agree with Aeon. They are still entitled to their opinion. I dont believe Aeon is being discriminate in anyway either. She or he is not saying you must follow god's rule or burn in hell forever. He/she is stating an opinion and thats all. Thats what I believe.

 

[nbcrusader]

Numerous references?

I bet you couldn't show me one. It's interesting because many have tried and failed.

You really don't invite discussion with a

And if you'd go back and look at all the prior thread's we've had on the subject, you would see multiple references in both Old and New Testaments.

I know each reference has been countered with different explainations, but you still have a string of repeated statements to deal with.

 

[Liesje]

Can you post the NT verses for me? I'm not going to argue them here, I'm just curious and would like to look them up since I'm stuck in front of this screen all day.

 

[yolland]

Those 2 or 3 can easily be refutted once you look at context and the history of translation.

Easily?

Anyone--regardless of conclusions drawn--who proclaims the interpretation of the Leviticus passages, at least, "easy" is not anyone to be trusted. I spent 15 years studying Hebrew, Tanakh, and Talmud growing up, plowed through thousands of pages of both Orthodox and Conservative responsa on the topic when I was confused college student trying to figure out where I belonged, and I still really do not know what to make of them. In the end, for me, this does not matter. But they are anything but easy to interpret definitively.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

If I could cut and paste the ENTIRE Bible into a post - I would. If I could post an entire exegesis on the numerous references regarding homosexual behavior - I would.

But how would you cut and paste Jesus into a post?


Jesus never called a gay person a sinner.
Jesus never called a gay person immoral.
Jesus never asked a gay person to change.
Jesus never condemned a single gay person.
Jesus never judged a single gay person.
Jesus never quoted scripture against a single gay person.

My Christian walk has taught me what Jesus is and was all about, and that didn't come from studying The Bible. I'm sure I'm not what you would consider the "proper type" of Christian, but I am one all the same.

 

[nbcrusader]

But how would you cut and paste Jesus into a post?


Jesus never called a gay person a sinner.
Jesus never called a gay person immoral.
Jesus never asked a gay person to change.
Jesus never condemned a single gay person.
Jesus never judged a single gay person.
Jesus never quoted scripture against a single gay person.

My Christian walk has taught me what Jesus is and was all about, and that didn't come from studying The Bible. I'm sure I'm not what you would consider the "proper type" of Christian, but I am one all the same.

Jesus would call each one of us a sinner. And He would say (as only He can) that our sins are forgiven.

 

[BVS]

Easily?

Anyone--regardless of conclusions drawn--who proclaims the interpretation of the Leviticus passages, at least, "easy" is not anyone to be trusted. I spent 15 years studying Hebrew, Tanakh, and Talmud growing up, plowed through thousands of pages of both Orthodox and Conservative responsa on the topic when I was confused college student trying to figure out where I belonged, and I still really do not know what to make of them. In the end, for me, this does not matter. But they are anything but easy to interpret definitively.

I meant in the context of this debate.

For example the Leviticus passages. As Christians they ignore every single verse surrounding and only focus on the one. Yet now laying with your wife why she's menstrating is not considered a sin. So it's an obvious case of cut and paste to suit their prejudices.

 

[nbcrusader]

Can you post the NT verses for me? I'm not going to argue them here, I'm just curious and would like to look them up since I'm stuck in front of this screen all day.

Here are three to start: Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8

 

[tackleberry]

According to those who ACTUALLY think it's a sin, I'm curious as to know what makes Homosexuality a sin?

We know why stealing is a sin.
We know why murder is a sin.

If I hold hands with my girlfriend, without being married to her, is that a sin?

Even if I "consumate" my relationship with her before getting married, I am still able to get married in a Catholic Church, even though according to them, I sinned.

Why then is homosexuality a sin?

 

[BVS]

According to those who ACTUALLY think it's a sin, I'm curious as to know what makes Homosexuality a sin?

We know why stealing is a sin.
We know why murder is a sin.

If I hold hands with my girlfriend, without being married to her, is that a sin?

Even if I "consumate" my relationship with her before getting married, I am still able to get married in a Catholic Church, even though according to them, I sinned.

Why then is homosexuality a sin?

Because it's icky...

 

[AEON]

Can you post the NT verses for me? I'm not going to argue them here, I'm just curious and would like to look them up since I'm stuck in front of this screen all day.

Sure - here are some NEW TESTAMENT references.



Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their
women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27)


Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit
the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)


knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Timothy 1:9-10)

These are the overt references. Once you place homosexual activity in the sexual immoral category (which is not a giant theological leap after reading the above passages) then there literally dozens of NEW TESTAMENT passages that rebuke homosexual activity.

I am sure there are counter arguments to the above passages. But I would ask yourself - what is your motivation in your argument? It is to seek the truth of these passages? Is it that you think the NT writers are wrong? Do you think that all of the different interpretations of the Bible are putting their own homophobic twist into it? Do you WANT this not to be true? Or, are you simply trying to understand what the Bible says regarding homosexual activity.

Trust me on this, the original Greek is far more explicit when it describes homosexual activity. It leaves little room for ambiguity. If you don't believe me, find a linear Bible (Greek/English side by side) and reply to this post stating that these translations are far fetched.


But hey, even if the Bible says all of this and it is clear, you are free to ignore it. I choose to accept what the Bible states on this issue. And I thank the Lord I live in a country where I am FREE to either accept it or reject it.

 

[nbcrusader]

Even if I "consumate" my relationship with her before getting married, I am still able to get married in a Catholic Church, even though according to them, I sinned.

Why then is homosexuality a sin?

What the Catholic Church allows and forbids is not the determining factor. (And there are likely many who are happy with that).

 

[BVS]

I am sure there are counter arguments to the above passages. But I would ask yourself - what is your motivation in your argument? It is to seek the truth of these passages?

Shouldn't you also ask what is the motivation behind taking the Bible as a literal word of God versus written by man and inspired by God?

 

[nbcrusader]

Shouldn't you also ask what is the motivation behind taking the Bible as a literal word of God versus written by man and inspired by God?

I think you can reach the conclusion by taking the Bible as God's inerrant Word.

If you leave room for discounting passages as man's opinion, what's to stop you from eliminating the divinity of Jesus Christ?

 

[AEON]

Shouldn't you also ask what is the motivation behind taking the Bible as a literal word of God versus written by man and inspired by God?

Sure - that's a valid question. I personally have accepted the latter of the two. However, my main motivation in any study of theology or philosophy is a desire to know the Truth. Yes, Truth with a capital T. I do not claim to know it, but I believe it exists. Truth by definition is exclusionary - it cannot be relative less it stop being truth; it would then become something else other than truth.

I have found that Jesus Christ is the manifestation of that Truth, and my relationship with Him is watered by prayer, study of the Bible, and by loving my brothers and sisters.

 

[yolland]

Sure - here are some NEW TESTAMENT references.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their
women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Timothy 1:9-10)

Trust me on this, the original Greek is far more explicit when it describes homosexual activity. It leaves little room for ambiguity. If you don't believe me, find a linear Bible (Greek/English side by side) and reply to this post stating that these translations are far fetched.

I can't claim to know New Testament Greek myself but melon has previously addressed some of the translation issues in dispute regarding these passages here.

 

[BVS]

I think you can reach the conclusion by taking the Bible as God's inerrant Word.

If you leave room for discounting passages as man's opinion, what's to stop you from eliminating the divinity of Jesus Christ?

But if you don't leave room aren't you being lazy? I mean just to take it at face value, it makes it easy when you're born in the right geography and are part of the majority.

But how are we to believe the inerrant word was written by sinful and imperfect men?

 

[tackleberry]

I have found that Jesus Christ is the manifestation of that Truth, and my relationship with Him is watered by prayer, study of the Bible, and by loving my brothers and sisters.

Are any of those brothers & sisters....homosexual??

 

[BVS]

I have found that Jesus Christ is the manifestation of that Truth, and my relationship with Him is watered by prayer, study of the Bible, and by loving my brothers and sisters.

I wonder why Jesus, the manifestation of the Truth, never mentioned homosexuality?

 

[Irvine511]

Jesus would call each one of us a sinner. And He would say (as only He can) that our sins are forgiven.

how about this as a distinction -- while no one is perfect, we are all human (gays and straights) and thus we sin, we can do all we can to recitfy this and lead a life as free of sin as we possibly can. gays and straights can choose to sin or not to sin on a fairly level playing field, *except* when it comes, of all things, in the manner in which one is biologically equipped to love and be loved.

it seems very easy, from the perspective of a straight person, to say that we are all sinners, sin is not ranked, etc. but please realize how damaging it is to a religious person to point towards the source of one's deepest and most vulnerable emotions, and locate them as as inherently sinful. thus, in order not to sin, to try to live a less sinful life, a homosexual is (by this logic) called upon to dismantle his humanity and to never, ever form a loving, intimate, adult relationship (let alone a marriage).

 

[Irvine511]

knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Timothy 1:9-10)

i will totally defer to Melon on this, because my knowledge of the Bible is limited to what i learned in CCD and in history classes, and while i think i can discuss the bible in a literary context, or a theoretical context, or a historical context, i wouldn't step in to debate specific passages.

however, until very recently, oral sex was considered Sodomy in the United States. is oral sex sinful?

here's something else, and i'll link to the whole article and i encourage you to read it, because it is very interesting:

[q]So how did the iron-clad connection between gay male sex and the divine destruction of Sodom get made? Notre Dame theologian Mark Jordan's "The Invention of Sodomy In Christian Theology," is the deepest recent exploration of the issue. From the beginning, Jordan argues, non-scriptural sources definitely associated Sodom with a variety of sins: pride, disobedience, inhospitality and sexual license. It was Augustine who first went further and linked the place to "stupra in masculos" (debaucheries in men) and "flagitia contra naturam" (violations against nature). But even in Augustine, the sexual sins of Sodom were not exclusively to do with same-sex sex. They were to do with sexual license, abandon, and what became known in Latin terminology as "luxuria," the sin of worldly excess, incorporating gluttony and drunkenness and general self-indulgence. This interpretation in the early centuries of the Church did not supplant the older notions of inhospitality and callousness among the inhabitants of Sodom. It merely added new layers of iniquity. And for the most part, references to Sodom were not primarily made to determine the nature of the still-opaque sins of the city but to remind believers of the divine wrath that destroyed it, and could destroy them.

It's worth stressing here, then, that from the very beginning, sodomy and homosexuality were two categorically separate things. The correct definition of sodomy - then and now - is simply non-procreative sex, whether practised by heterosexuals or homosexuals. It includes oral sex, masturbation, mutual masturbation, contracepted sex, coitus interruptus, and anal sex - any sex in which semen does not find its way into a fertile uterus. In fact, since the medieval theologians who came up with the idea had no conception of homosexuality as a condition, it simply couldn't have been a synonym for what we now understand as homosexuality.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030327

[/q]