tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post2493402903931381107..comments2023-11-09T02:43:59.293-08:00Comments on Christian Medical Comment: Evangelical Christian leaders speak of personal experience of being same-sex attracted whilst remaining committed to biblical sexual moralityPeter Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-61682520165668519742013-09-11T02:55:34.692-07:002013-09-11T02:55:34.692-07:00Well getting past who was talking, how do we know ...Well getting past who was talking, how do we know these people are making the correct decision. It seems to me that Jesus spent a lot of his time schooling the disciples on what they were doing wrong. Paul never met Jesus while he was alive and he was alone when he had his revelation. Peter was also alone when he had his vision. How do we know that they are teaching the right thing?<br /><br />And connected to that is the definition of sexual immorality. My whole point here, is that I'm much less interested in what the church thinks as opposed to what God thinks. Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-67215908273888910702013-09-07T03:06:06.028-07:002013-09-07T03:06:06.028-07:00I didn't mean to be rude when I said you could...I didn't mean to be rude when I said you could sound ill informed. There are a lot of subjects on which I'm ill informed. But it rather depends on the type of questions you ask. There are genuine questions asked by people who want to be better informed, and then there are 'clever' questions, like the ones the pharisees kept asking Jesus to try to trip him up or make him look foolish so that they could arrest him for blasphemy. Those kinds of questions can back-fire and make the questioner look foolish instead.<br /><br />Paul was an apostle sent by Jesus Christ to teach the Church - it was his job to make these kind of decisions. There were a lot of people at the Council of Jerusalem - it wasn't just Paul speaking. In fact, as far as I can see, it was actually James who said the words you quote, in response to what Paul had told them about the Gentiles. If you read the whole of Acts, it will tell you the story of the early church - it wasn't just one lone person telling everybody else what to do.<br /><br />What constitutes sexual immorality is something more scattered across the whole of scripture. It's also something that theologians and Church councils have been discussing for 2000 years. I'm not sure exactly when the early debates over homosexuality occurred, or the issues discussed, but it was discussed in the early centuries of the Church. Orthodox teaching has always settled on natural law - that you can see God's design for sex from how our bodies are made and how they function. I know gay couples think that's all nonsense, but dissenters haven't yet been able to convince the Church to change its position.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12167148545316932402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-33612057937263600262013-09-06T21:58:16.911-07:002013-09-06T21:58:16.911-07:00Rosy, imo asking questions is never a waste of tim...Rosy, imo asking questions is never a waste of time, especially if you are ill informed. How are people meant to learn if they don't go looking for answers?<br /><br />So a google search of church laws first century bought me eventually to Acts Chapters 10 to 15, culminating in Paul saying<br /><br />19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."<br /><br />Two more questions, why does Paul get to decide what laws to follow, and what constitutes sexual immorality?Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-82468949134093578292013-09-06T01:48:53.316-07:002013-09-06T01:48:53.316-07:00I'm sorry, but I just think you're wasting...I'm sorry, but I just think you're wasting your time.<br /><br />The Church held a meeting in the Fist Century when they sat down and said to themselves 'These rules have proved impossible to keep. Which should we insist the Gentiles follow and which should we forget?' The rules of sexual conduct were amongst the ones they decided to keep because they believed that they were part of natural law that had been there from the beginning, rather than the ceremonial law that had been given specifically to the Jews. Of course, I'm not an expert on this stuff myself, but I know enough to know that simply picking out verses from the Leviticus and saying 'Look, you eat shell fish, don't you? Caught you out!' just makes you look kind of ill-informed and could be mistaken for trying to be clever (and perhaps I was mistaken - so I'm sorry).<br /><br />You're certainly not likely to convince Peter with any of these arguments.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12167148545316932402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-83548170226283790052013-09-05T23:25:45.451-07:002013-09-05T23:25:45.451-07:00Rosy, that is not my argument. Not even close. And...Rosy, that is not my argument. Not even close. And Peter doesn't care what I think. He cares what God thinks. So my argument can not be based on the rational argument that all people are free and equal and can therefore do anything they choose, so long as it doesn't impinge on another person's freedom, no matter how logical that argument is. My argument must come from scripture, as that is where Peter's argument comes from.<br /><br />So my argument is, "How do you justify cherry picking the parts of the bible you deem to be important?" Why the focus on the first part of Leviticus 20:13 and why ignore the second part that says we should put all men that have same sex relations to death? Focussing on that same chapter:<br /><br />Leviticus 20:9 - Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. <br />Leviticus 20:25 - You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those that I have set apart as unclean for you.<br />Leviticus 20:27 - A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.<br /><br />Next Chapter<br /><br />Leviticus 21:5 Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies.<br /><br />Anyway, there are plenty of posts like this pointing out the laws set forth by God in the Old Testament that no-one follows now, or feels the need to inflict the harsh punishment set therein. How does anyone who uses the bible as a basis for a belief in anything justify picking the parts they want to use and/or ignoring the contradictions? You might think people that point these things out are playing games, but I would suggest it is because the people that use it as a building block for their own point of view are not taking it seriously either.<br /><br />Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-63733354563374392642013-09-05T22:47:19.436-07:002013-09-05T22:47:19.436-07:00Anonymous if you mean by God, then yes. He forgive...Anonymous if you mean by God, then yes. He forgives everything. If you mean by people, then sometimes not. Often by people that use God as a motivation for their hate. And that's just very sad.Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-43151716495508591192013-09-05T01:37:29.681-07:002013-09-05T01:37:29.681-07:00Shane, your argument goes something like 'scri...Shane, your argument goes something like 'scripture says we all sin simply by wanting to commit adultery, therefore we're all sexual sinners, therefore it's ok for people to have sex with the same sex'. It's like me saying, 'Hey, last week i wanted a dress I couldn't afford in a shop window, so I'll teach my kids that it's ok to nick their friend's ipod'.<br /><br />People have been playing these kind of scripture games for centuries. 'So, scripture says I can divorce my wife and remarry, but when I die who is my wife then?', 'Hey, scripture says that Christ is glorified by His victory over my sin, so why don't I sin some more so that Christ can get more glory? Great! Always wanted to sleep with my mother-in-law!' Sound familiar?<br /><br />You see, if you just said 'Peter, I disagree with you. I think all people, no matter what their sexual orientation, should be able to have sex with the person that they love, and I don't think it matters which sex that person is.' I would respect that. That would be honest and straight forward. That might even be the basis for a constructive conversation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12167148545316932402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-7291060819111002692013-09-04T16:40:16.467-07:002013-09-04T16:40:16.467-07:00I think this post is about "conservative Chri...I think this post is about "conservative Christians" trying to live out their faith as Dr Saunders understands it.<br /><br />"So people who become Christians, who recognize that they experience same-sex feelings or have a homosexual orientation and/or identity, are in the same category as anyone who has opposite-sex feelings but is unmarried, divorced, widowed or in a marriage relationship where, for physical or psychosexual reasons, sex is not possible.<br /><br />They must accept that not having sex is their only option."<br /><br />My replies are trying to point out that if people understand it in incorrectly then living out their faith is erroneous. As Dr Saunders says above<br /><br />"It is God’s Word that must guide us, not our feelings."<br /><br />but previously defined marriage as <br /><br />"a life-long exclusive monogamous heterosexual public covenant relationship"<br /><br />and as I point out, that is not defined in that way in the bible. I would posit that he himself is being guided by his own feelings and not God's word.<br /><br />I don't care if you think I'm trying to be clever and I'm not interested in impressing you. I'm interested in honesty and truth and fact. I'm interested in affording all people the same respect, rights and privileges. I am interested in speaking out against someone who has the temerity to tell others how they should live their life.Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-81728999114657541392013-09-03T01:56:21.015-07:002013-09-03T01:56:21.015-07:00This post isn't actually about that, Shane. I...This post isn't actually about that, Shane. It's about how *conservative Christians* are trying to live out their faith as they understand it. It's not saying anything about anybody else's life. People are free to disagree and live their lives as they choose.<br /><br />It seems like you're trying to be clever, and, to be honest, you're not impressing me.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12167148545316932402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-76122987001708535502013-09-02T16:56:48.008-07:002013-09-02T16:56:48.008-07:00gerv, I possibly didn't word that as well as I...gerv, I possibly didn't word that as well as I should have. I didn't mean that there shouldn't be any external temptations but that there shouldn't be any internal temptation to give into the external one. For example if Satan tempts Jesus with riches and power and Jesus is at all interested in them he would be guilty of the sin of coveting. As he was sin free he did not want riches and power and therefore it was easy for him to turn it down.<br /><br />I am intrigued by your notion of "being tempted to covet". I don't see how that could work. Trying to make someone want to want something?Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-5355301733771669222013-09-02T16:40:01.274-07:002013-09-02T16:40:01.274-07:00But Rosy, I "wanted" my wife before we w...But Rosy, I "wanted" my wife before we were married. <br /><br />And it matters me because this post is about denying basic human intimacy to a selection of the population, by singling out a line of text in an old book, when so many of the other lines of text are ignored. And whilst I'm thinking about intimacy, can I have a specific ruling on what's acceptable? Is kissing okay? Is holding hands all right? What about hugging? Can they give each other back or foot rubs as long as their hands don't go above the knee or below the waist? Where do you think you should draw the line on how people in love with each other should be able to show their affection? These questions are not just for you Rosy, but for anyone that thinks they deserve to have an opinion on how others lead their lives.Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-43617140537668014372013-09-02T08:20:55.233-07:002013-09-02T08:20:55.233-07:00Shane: how does your comment: "To be victorio...Shane: how does your comment: "To be victorious over the sin of temptation is not to be tempted at all" fit with Hebrews 4:15?<br /><br />"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to feel sympathy for our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are – yet he did not sin.<br /><br />Jesus was tempted in every way, but was without sin. Therefore, to be tempted is not a sin.<br /><br />Covetousness is the sin of desiring to possess what is not yours. While I agree that it is simpler to disentangle "being tempted to steal" from "stealing" than it is to disentangle "being tempted to covet" from "coveting" (because both the latter are things which happen solely in your head), we need to make the distinction if we are to believe the truth in Hebrews 4:15.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-938162701811564592013-09-02T06:14:37.002-07:002013-09-02T06:14:37.002-07:00Yes, having sexual desire for your wife is not sin...Yes, having sexual desire for your wife is not sinful (if you don't have it, your marriage is in deep trouble) ... desiring someone ELSE's wife, well ...John Thomashttp://www.affirmingthefaith.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-35815208487749927192013-09-02T05:31:18.224-07:002013-09-02T05:31:18.224-07:00Yes, Shane, of course God’s laws have changed. You...Yes, Shane, of course God’s laws have changed. You have only to read the Bible to see that. The Pentateuch is full of rules which are ALL presented as solemn commands of Yahweh. They cover not only what people may and may not eat, but prohibitions of wearing clothes made of mixed fibres, sowing two kinds of grain in a field, mating your cattle with those of another kind, rounding off your hair at the edges and trimming the edges of your beard, and all sorts of other bagatelles. These prohibitions are accompanied by repeated reminders that each and every one of these commands is to be rigorously obeyed and threats of dire punishment for anyone who infringes even one of them, whatever it may be (e.g. Lev. 18:29).<br /><br />When we come New Testament times, God has clearly changed his mind. He has decided that, on reflection, he really isn’t that bothered about any of these things that he used to get so turned in about them.<br /><br />With polygamy, on the other hand, we are told that it’s the other way round. When all those Old Testament “heroes” had several wives, God didn’t utter a single bleat of protest. The surest sign of approval of polygamy is God’s attitude to King David. David had several wives – it’s difficult to keep track of them all – but God only turned stroppy about the way that David got his hooks on Uriah’s wife Bathsheba, and even then he finally decided to punish the poor little baby boy whom David sired with her instead of punishing David himself. We are, in fact, told explicitly that “David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (1 Kings 15:5). We’re now told, however, that after several centuries of cogitation God came to the conclusion that perhaps polygamy isn’t such a good idea after all and decided to forbid it. Actually even that isn’t quite so clear: the only explicit prohibition of polygamy in the New Testament is the command that bishops and deacons shall be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2, 12). It’s possible to interpret that as meaning that non-bishops and non-deacons are allowed more than one wife each. That’s obviously how Martin Luther understood it, since he wrote, “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture.” When Philip Landgrave of Hesse wanted to marry an additional wife, Luther said to him, in effect, “That’s OK, Philip old chap, if the Old Testament patriarchs can do it, you can do it too.”Guglielmo Marinarohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07396792423650373650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-28034188690677243602013-09-02T02:31:12.861-07:002013-09-02T02:31:12.861-07:00Well, I think you're allowed to want your own ...Well, I think you're allowed to want your own wife! But why does any of this matter to you? Are you on a quest to live a sin free life?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12167148545316932402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-50645807767199263382013-09-01T14:38:24.017-07:002013-09-01T14:38:24.017-07:00Anonymous, you are incorrect. Coveting is a sin, a...Anonymous, you are incorrect. Coveting is a sin, and by definition it is a thought sin.<br /><br />Also James is wrong. God telling Abraham to kill Isaac is tempting him to sin.<br /><br />Genesis 22<br />22 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.<br /><br />Also<br /><br />Deuteronomy 4:34<br />34 Or hath God assayed to go and take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by temptations, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?<br /><br />Matthew 6:13 entreats God to "Lead us not into temptation". Why? ... because otherwise God would lead people into temptation.Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-29728632846247140722013-09-01T14:24:00.189-07:002013-09-01T14:24:00.189-07:00Rosy, I am saying that he can't claim a victor...Rosy, I am saying that he can't claim a victory over the temptation of other women if he is still tempted. Wanting anything is sin. The only way to have a shot at living a sin free life is to want nothing.Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-82841026834227910382013-09-01T10:03:46.888-07:002013-09-01T10:03:46.888-07:00Yes, but I mean I don't understand the point y...Yes, but I mean I don't understand the point your making. Are you saying that we can never be without sinful desires so we should just give up and give in to sinful desires? Please clarify?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12167148545316932402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-32797146286137941992013-09-01T09:38:57.010-07:002013-09-01T09:38:57.010-07:00Hi Martin
Thank you for your comment here.
This is...Hi Martin<br />Thank you for your comment here.<br />This is the nub of the issue and why we have The Great Divide. Many of us view civil partnered couples as couples-committed-to-marriage-but-for-whom-marriage-is-unavailable and on this basis will accord them the same privacy, autonomy and respect that we currently extend to married couples in our congregations. Other Christians will view civil partnered couples as sinful (and certainly not deserving of privacy, autonomy and respect) and on this basis consider themselves justified in making them feel very unwelcome when they visit for family communion. God’s wider kingdom purposes involve these couples coming to faith, deepening discipleship, taking their place in the Body of Christ and completing those works that he has ordained for them to do – none of this may happen, if they find church membership untenable. <br />The issue is not about sex, the issue is about inclusion and we need to look very closely – not at what they are doing (the civil partnered couples) but at what we are doing (unwelcoming and judgmental congregations). God is perfectly able to convict of sin by the power of the Holy Spirit and while we insist on doing his job for him, we run the risk of undermining his ongoing work with specific people at specific times in specific churches.<br /><br />Janenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-84661689173561825542013-09-01T08:41:36.356-07:002013-09-01T08:41:36.356-07:00I think that the definition of how desires become ...I think that the definition of how desires become sin is in the verse below. Obviously, with sinful natures, we have sinful desires, but it's when we act on them that we sin. Abstaining from acting on our desires rather builds character towards the place where we no longer even have that desire. <br />James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-77641995657713462122013-09-01T07:05:00.440-07:002013-09-01T07:05:00.440-07:00No, it is fact that determines the label. I am a b...No, it is fact that determines the label. I am a bald man with blue eyes. No deed or thought on my part is going to change that. Desire is a fact. I desire/am sexually aroused by women, not men, so I am heterosexual. I could die a virgin at the age of 100 but that wouldn't change the fact that an image of a naked women gives me an erection, but an image of a naked man does not.<br /><br />You seem to be clinging to a label that someone could give another person. "He never slept with a man, so we can't call him a homosexual." An omnipotent God doesn't need any sort of outward sign of such proof, but knows what is truly in a person's heart. That's why coveting is a sin, as I said above. God knows what you and everyone thinks, and we are held accountable for it. Except for Abraham ... apparently He had to let him almost murder his son before He knew he was truly faithful.Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-40893109125530697422013-09-01T06:45:16.741-07:002013-09-01T06:45:16.741-07:00Are you suggesting that Gods laws, and therefore w...Are you suggesting that Gods laws, and therefore what constitutes sin, has changed over time because of the actions/beliefs of people on earth?Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-15537091308269167572013-09-01T04:38:15.589-07:002013-09-01T04:38:15.589-07:00There were laws in the Old Testament that God (via...There were laws in the Old Testament that God (via Moses,) set up because of Polygamy among His own people, that do not apply now to God's people via Christianity now polygamy is all but extinct except among some small sections of Mormonism.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-32980769777036615602013-09-01T04:30:27.000-07:002013-09-01T04:30:27.000-07:00Shane Fletcher, it is the, "deed," not t...Shane Fletcher, it is the, "deed," not the, "thought," or "desire," that determines the label one puts on a person. It is what a person chooses to do with a thought, feeling, or desire that should determine a label for that person. We are not slaves to our thoughts or feelings. If a person chooses to act out a homosexual thought and actually does it, then at that point, that person can be labeled as having committed a homosexual act. But if that person chooses to not act on such a thought or feeling but rejects it, how can anyone say that such a person is Gay when he or she never acted out the gay thought or feeling? Again, humans are not slaves to their thoughts or feelings.<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-41182965734137911042013-09-01T04:25:13.719-07:002013-09-01T04:25:13.719-07:00Exodus 20:17
New International Version (NIV)
17 “Y...Exodus 20:17<br />New International Version (NIV)<br />17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”<br /><br />Deuteronomy 5:21<br />New International Version (NIV)<br />21 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”<br /><br />cov·et <br />/ˈkəvit/<br />Verb<br />Yearn to possess or have (something).<br /><br />Wanting something is sinful. To be victorious over the sin of temptation is not to be tempted at all ... to have no desire to have sex.<br /><br />To put it another way, Jesus was not free from the sin of sex because he was a virgin but because he was not at all interested in sex, and thus free of the sin of coveting. Personally, I think anyone that has no desire to have sex can not really claim a moral victory of their virginity.Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.com