Episcopal Bishop Homosexuality is not a Sin

[AEON]

The basic assumption of Melon’s argument – which is not different from the million of other activist posts online – is that Paul was not including modern, consensual homosexual relationships in his list of acts of the sinful nature. Surely, a well-educated man like Paul, educated in Greek philosophy and the Hebrew theology -- would have known that homosexuality consisted of more than pederasty and male prostitution. Plato talks about loving homosexual relationships in the Symposium. Therefore, it definitely existed back in Paul’s time – especially in Corinth.

The use of the word arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 demonstrates that Paul understood the prohibition of adult homosexuality in Leviticus. Many theologians point out that Arsenokoitai, which literally means "male [sexual] beds," is an allusion to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

The "do nots" of Leviticus 18:6-23 and 20:10-21 set forth the sexual boundaries of God’s created order. Among the "do nots" is the prohibition of same-sex relations:
Lev 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable"
Lev 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman both of them have done what is detestable.” What kind of same-sex activity is in view in these passages? The use of the Hebrew "male" (zakar, "man") rather than "youth" (na’ar) shows that pederasty, youth prostitution, or youth sexual abuse are not the subject. The equal punishment of the parties involved indicates that both are CONSENTING adults. "Their blood be on their heads" (20:13) shows that both are aware of what they are doing and of the consequences. The seriousness of the offense is made plain by the term "detestable" a Hebrew word used of offenses deemed particularly heinous in God's sight.
As far as loving homosexuals as brothers and sisters, of course I do. I do not take their plight lightly. I believe they should be treated with love, integrity, and fairness. I understand the pain in that God has allowed the desire, but forbids the acting on it. I do not claim to know all of the reasons why God does what He does. But I do trust Him, and that one day, probably after I die - I will know the answer. I cannot relate to that particular desire, but I certainly have my share of internal battles.

Love is more than sex. Much more. The Greek word for the love I am speaking of is AGAPE. Agape love is best described in 1 Corinthians 13 - often regarded as one of the most beautiful passages in history. I will post that next.

There are many sins that Jesus didn't call out specifically, it doesn't mean they are not sins. His focus was on love. Love Him and love your brothers and sisters. The closer you are to Him, the more obedient you will become. It is part of the deal.

I cannot look into your heart and see your motivation, only God can. My basic rule of thumb to test my own motivation is this: Is what I'm about to do out of love for me? Or is out of love for others, or God? Will this action bring glory to God? Or to myself?

Is this a perfect system? No. Do I ALWAYS do this test on my actions? Nope. But I do know that day by day God is fulfilling His promise into making more and more into the image of His son, Jesus Christ (Phil 1:6). And I can think of no other being I want to emulate more than Him.

 

[Dreadsox]

In my sick and twisted mind....I think GOD is more than capable of knowing what is in our hearts.....

Have I had sex with a woman I did not love? Have I been with multiple partners? Have I felt temptation in my heart?

Heterosexuals are perfectly capable of fornicating without abandon. So are homosexuals. What does it prove? We are human. WE are capable of doing things that hurt our souls.

Can God see the diference between sexual activity within the context of that relationship I think we all would like to have with someone.

 

[Dreadsox]

Again with the Leviticus......

Has your Chirsitian Church held you to the letter of Leviticus? Can you say you have lived up to the standards of leviticus?

 

[BVS]

Again with the Leviticus......

I know, I don't know whether to laugh or cry when people use this as their argument.

And so much of Paul's referring to homosexuality is based on Leviticus.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]I do not take their plight lightly. I believe they should be treated with love, integrity, and fairness.[/q]


my "plight" has also given me the most rewarding source of joy and happiness i've experienced as an adult.

if this God you speak of thinks of this as an abomination, then i think we really need to find ourselves a new God.



this also struck me:

[q]which is not different from the million of other activist posts online[/q]


can we not turn around and deride your understanding of some Biblical passages as little more than "activist" -- which is to say anti-gay activist -- understandings of Scripture?

 

[BVS]

this also struck me:

[q]which is not different from the million of other activist posts online[/q]


can we not turn around and deride your understanding of some Biblical passages as little more than "activist" -- which is to say anti-gay activist -- understandings of Scripture?

I also found that part quite humourous...

 

[AEON]

Take out Leviticus, you still must contend with all the other New Testament passages.

Leviticus is a starting point. Paul refers to it. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

But this whole discussion is going to end up being a debate about the meaning of the word "is".

At the end of the day, all sexual activity outside of marriage is considered wrong. Gay or not gay. Lust or actual intercourse.

Yes, even Jesus calls this sin out. (Matt 5:27-28) and (Matt 15:19-20).

And the nature of the Christian marriage is clearly spelled out in Ephesians 5. Unless of course, we are now going to debate that the Greek words for man and woman, husband and wife, are now wrong.

Again, I am curious about the nature of Melon's (and the numerous other activist postings) criticism regarding the Biblical passages. Maybe I'm way off, but they don't seem like the normal "I'm a Christian and this passage confuses me.." type of posts.

If you really want to know what the Bible says regarding this and all other issues, do not take my word or Melon's word for it - do your own research. Please - try to understand both points of view, even if you don't agree.

Personally, if I take into account the entire Bible - calling homosexual activity a sin fits right into the general theme regarding sexual immoraility. It takes much more "stretching" and "imagination" to try and assert it is not considered a sin

 

[Irvine511]

At the end of the day, all sexual activity outside of marriage is considered wrong. Gay or not gay. Lust or actual intercourse.

so you support gay marriage then? so that gay people will actually be able to choose to not have sex outside of marriage since, now, there's no option -- any sex is sex outside of marriage (except in Massachusetts).

if not, then just what is a homosexual to do?

can we love each other, but just not fuck? isn't that what this is really all about?

 

[AEON]

my "plight" has also given me the most rewarding source of joy and happiness i've experienced as an adult.

Just because something feels good, doesn't make it right.

 

[AEON]

can we love each other, but just not fuck? isn't that what this is really all about?

I believe that is precisely what the Bible is advocating.

 

[Irvine511]

Just because something feels good, doesn't make it right.

so just because love feels good, that doesn't make it right?

have you ever been in love?

 

[BVS]

Take out Leviticus, you still must contend with all the other New Testament passages.

Leviticus is a starting point. Paul refers to it. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

Have you read Leviticus? I mean all of Leviticus? If so explain elimination of all the other man made laws of Leviticus?

At the end of the day, all sexual activity outside of marriage is considered wrong. Gay or not gay. Lust or actual intercourse.

Yes, even Jesus calls this sin out. (Matt 5:27-28) and (Matt 15:19-20).

And the nature of the Christian marriage is clearly spelled out in Ephesians 5. Unless of course, we are now going to debate that the Greek words for man and woman, husband and wife, are now wrong.

I love how so many cop out to this argument. So you focus on sex outside of marriage and then say because we don't allow you to marry you'll be forced to sin?

So just because the first marriage was one between heterosexuals means no homosexuals can ever marry? How many openly gay relationships were there then? This is all they knew. I mean these were men who thought the earth was flat. If they wrote that in the Bible would you believe that?

 

[Irvine511]

I believe that is precisely what the Bible is advocating.

so you're admitting that romantic love is very much possible between two gay people, however they can never, ever consummate this love?

but straight people can.

so it is about sex, isn't it? it's about fucking.

 

[BVS]

I believe that is precisely what the Bible is advocating.

This is the worse argument I've ever heard.

If this is the case then you should support lesbian marriage and lesbian bishops.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Just because something feels good, doesn't make it right.

It "feels good" for Irvine to be the person that he is, not to deny that in order to be considered acceptable by anyone or any group. Sorry but you really have no right to tell him otherwise, no one does.

My "Christian walk" led me to Jesus as the ultimate source of love and empathy. What he gave me when I was at the lowest point in my life (and what He continues to give me every day) made me want to give the same to others who feel they are "outcasts" for whatever reason. And I believe that is what He demands of us. There is a reason that Jesus sought out the "outcasts".

 

[AEON]

It "feels good" for Irvine to be the person that he is, not to deny that in order to be considered acceptable by anyone or any group. Sorry but you really have no right to tell him otherwise, no one does.

My "Christian walk" led me to Jesus as the ultimate source of love and empathy. What he gave me when I was at the lowest point in my life (and what He continues to give me every day) made me want to give the same to others who feel they are "outcasts" for whatever reason. And I believe that is what He demands of us. There is a reason that Jesus sought out the "outcasts".

Love and empathy is not the same as saying "if it feels good - do it." That is quite contrary to what Jesus taught. And Jesus tells us specifically to deny ourselves.

And believe me, I am the outcasts in today's culture. The above posts in reply to mine is the majority opinion. But I don't worry too much about that.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Love and empathy is not the same as saying "if it feels good - do it." That is quite contrary to what Jesus taught. And Jesus tells us specifically to deny ourselves.

Well I think it's quite presumptuous of you (to put it nicely) to say that Irvine (or any other homosexual person) lives his life according to the premise of "if it feels good do it". I think perhaps there are many many more heterosexuals who live their lives by that premise. Even some God fearing ones.

I think he just wants to be who he is, and what do you know about his personal life and how he conducts it? My guess is nothing, other than what he reveals here if you read it.

Jesus taught us to do many things other than to deny ourselves. I think they're even in The Bible.

And you are certainly in no way an outcast in the way that homosexuals still are in today's world. For example, have you ever wanted to kill yourself because you are not being allowed to be who you are?

 

[Irvine511]

Love and empathy is not the same as saying "if it feels good - do it." That is quite contrary to what Jesus taught. And Jesus tells us specifically to deny ourselves.

but i just told you that i am in love with my boyfriend, and that has given me joy, and then you told me that was nothing more than "if it feels good do it."

which is it?

 

[AEON]

but i just told you that i am in love with my boyfriend, and that has given me joy, and then you told me that was nothing more than "if it feels good do it."

which is it?

Just because you are in love and you feel joy does not, in itself, mean you can act on your desires.

That is according the Bible. The world teaches something very different.

 

[Irvine511]

Just because you are in love and you feel joy does not, in itself, mean you can act on your desires.

That is according the Bible. The world teaches something very different.

so i have to live life without romantic love simply because i am gay?

 

[AEON]

so i have to live life without romantic love simply because i am gay?

Why do you consider romantic love such a supreme necessity? Of the types of love mentioned in the New Testament, this is considered the lowest form of love below Agape (divine, self sacrificing love) and Phileo (brotherly, friendly love). It is considered lowest because it is usually temporary and usually leads to hurt and confusion. There are so many ways to find joy and happiness outside of romantic love.

Today's culture teaches that Romantic Love is the ULTIMATE goal. Movies, songs, and books are all claiming this as the prize above all prizes. However, romantic love by design is temporary and is not that worthy of a pursuit in the grand scheme of things. Even Bono calls out today’s culture in the song Miracle Drug when he sings "I've had enough of romantic love, I'd give it up."

I cannot fully understand your dilemma regarding your desire romantic fulfillment versus spiritual fulfillment. Personally, I think it is more important to choose the latter. We are only alive on earth for a short period of time, but we eternity to look forward to. What we do in this life has eternal consequences.

 

[BVS]

Why do you consider romantic love such a supreme necessity? Of the types of love mentioned in the New Testament, this is considered the lowest form of love

Where did you get this from? Seems interesting that minsters say quite the opposite during wedding ceremonies...

I cannot fully understand your dilemma regarding your desire romantic fulfillment versus spiritual fulfillment. Personally, I think it is more important to choose the latter. We are only alive on earth for a short period of time, but we eternity to look forward to. What we do in this life has eternal consequences.

Who said he's doing this versus his spiritual fullfillment?

 

[Dreadsox]

I know, I don't know whether to laugh or cry when people use this as their argument.

And so much of Paul's referring to homosexuality is based on Leviticus.

You must be a cut and paste Christian too...

 

[Irvine511]

Why do you consider romantic love such a supreme necessity? Of the types of love mentioned in the New Testament, this is considered the lowest form of love below Agape (divine, self sacrificing love) and Phileo (brotherly, friendly love). It is considered lowest because it is usually temporary and usually leads to hurt and confusion. There are so many ways to find joy and happiness outside of romantic love.

but you'd never ask a heterosexual to do this. at least you're being honest: if you're gay, you're supposed to be a priest, or something akin to it, a Buddhist monk, maybe.

so i'm not allowed to be fully human, to love and be loved, to have a family, to raise a child, to do any of these things based upon the simple fact that i am emotionally and physically attracted to members of my same gender.

might it also be possible that i would be better able to have a life filled with Agape (which i am quite familiar with on an intellectual level) and Pileo love if i also had romantic love? why pit one form against the other?

 

[Dreadsox]

I will let my grandparents, married 60 years next spring that their love is the lowest form of love.

It must be temporary.

They probably should not have had sex, to demonstrate how much they love each other. Instead they cheapened it.

 

[Dreadsox]

might it also be possible that i would be better able to have a life filled with Agape (which i am quite familiar with on an intellectual level) and Pileo love if i also had romantic love? why pit one form against the other?

because that would recognize that there is a difference between sexual imorality and love between a couple...

and that would lead to...shudder....a cheapening of marriage as we know it....making my heterosexual marriage equal to yours.....ewwww....

 

[Muggsy]

Why do you consider romantic love such a supreme necessity? Of the types of love mentioned in the New Testament, this is considered the lowest form of love below Agape (divine, self sacrificing love) and Phileo (brotherly, friendly love). It is considered lowest because it is usually temporary and usually leads to hurt and confusion. There are so many ways to find joy and happiness outside of romantic love.

That was in the times when we girls were sold for 20 chickens and a goat. Maybe I should go to my bf and tell him that if he doesn't give me a drawing table and a box of watercolours I won't love him anymore and tell him that the spiritual bond that we have beetween us is shit, because he can't gave me a drawing table ... or even worse, like dreadsox said, maybe I should go to my parents and tell them that a guy who hides behind a bible said that the things they build together is crap.

Who are you to say that romantic love is a cheap thing? and don't come with more bible stuff because I want to know what the real AEON (if there is a real one) thinks. You don't know if Irvine feels the "Spiritual fullfilment" that you are talking about, through his happiness... what if the "spiritual fullfilment" can be reach through romantic love? two people growing together, being HAPPY together aren't spiritualy rich??

 

[Dreadsox]

Thank GOD that Sodom was destroyed to save this f'd up bunch

[Q]Finally, the two virgin daughters hit upon a plan. They found some grapes. They made them into wine. They prepared the wine for their father. Their father, not knowing what their plan was, drank the wine. Finally, their father became completely drunk. They carried Lot into his cave and laid him down.

One daughter left the other alone with Lot in the cave. The daughter in the cave with Lot had sex with her father. Lot was completely drunk and did not know what he was doing. The next day, Lot had no memory of this.

The next night, the two daughters brought some more wine. Lot drank the wine and got drunk again. Again, they took them into his cave. This time, the other daughter had sex with her father. The next morning, Lot had no memory of any of this.

The two now no longer virgin daughters both became pregnant from having sex with their father. Each daughter gave birth to a baby boy. The name of the first boy was Moab. The name of the second boy was Benammi. These two boys each became the founder of a great tribe.

[/Q]

It must be all about the sex......

 

[Irvine511]

and that would lead to...shudder....a cheapening of marriage as we know it....making my heterosexual marriage equal to yours.....ewwww....

i'm not married ... yet ...



(in all seriousness, we're just happy, and letting the relationship evolve naturally)

 

[Dreadsox]

i'm not married ... yet ...



(in all seriousness, we're just happy, and letting the relationship evolve naturally)

Excellent....

And I am more than willing to be your flower girl when the time comes