Progressive Clergy of Georgia

Wells,

I can think of several "practicing homosexuals" in our congregation who do not fit "a pattern of rebellion and sin of a child (of God) who is incorrigibly disobedient." If you did not know their sexual orientation, you'd probably be eager to have them in your congregation.

The fact of the matter is, the only difference is that the person whom they love is the same sex. That's all. No other differences.

Joshua

[ August 24, 2001: Message edited by: CJoshuaV ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can think of several "oracticing homosexuals" in our congregation who do not fit "a pattern of rebellion and sin of a child (of God) who is incorrigibly disobedient." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you not see the inherent contradiction in this statement? That is like saying that someone who constantly steals does not fit the pattern of a thief. They may not brag about it or flaunt it, but they are no less rebellious.

For example, many has been the pastor who dallied in an affair on the side. The congregation did not know it (at least for a while) and were delighted to have them in their church. Once the sin became known, they were removed.

Concerning homsexuals you said, " The fact of the matter is, the only difference is that the person whom they love is the same sex. That's all. No other differences."

Concerning the adulterous pastor (or anyone else for that matter) I would say, "The only difference is that the person whom they love is not their wife. That's all. No other differences." Does that make it right? Does that justify it? I hardly think so.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
[QB]Robert,

Deut. 21:18-21 is a ficticious example of how the Levitical justice system should work. We're shown an example (suppose) of a pattern of rebellion and sin of a child who was incorrigibly disobedient. No hope remained for such a person who flagrantly violated the fifth commandment (Ex. 20:12), so in the example, he was to be stoned to death by the town leaders (governing body of the town). This was the equivalent of a legal trial with the authority to impose the death penalty. There is no indication that this actually happened but was used as a teaching example to illustrate the seriousness of sinning against God.
QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wellsj,

This is what non-fundamentalist mean when they say intellectual dis-honesty. The bible has no errors you claim, but then claim that important parts of it are fictional. Only teaching moments. "God didn't really mean all that stuff" LOL.

Scott

 

Larry,

A person who commits adultery violates their vow to another person. A person who is in love with a person of the same sex does no such thing.

Some hypotehesize that it violates some theorietical created order - which presumably the polygamy of the Old Testament did not violate.

Joshua

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CJoshuaV:
Larry,

A person who commits adultery violates their vow to another person.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True. However, it is the disobeying of God's Word that makes it sin. Some married couples willingly swap partners. If we apply your apparent rule, they have not committed sin since their spouse approved. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A person who is in love with a person of the same sex does no such thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, if we accept man's opinion as the standard then you have a point. However, if we accept the clear standard of God then their violation is against Him.

Also, whether accidental or purposeful, I notice that you use "in love with" as opposed to "loves." Perhaps I am nitpicking you but "in love with" implies a sense of helpless fatalism based on feelings to me (which is how the world views love). The implication of "loves" is that it is a act of will (which is what the Bible teaches.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Some hypotehesize that it violates some theorietical created order - which presumably the polygamy of the Old Testament did not violate.

Joshua<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I am not aware of a passage that clearly condemned the OT polygamists, it is nonetheless clear that trouble followed this practice. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon all experienced terrible consequences in their families. I cannot think of any examples where OT polygamy created a harmonious family nor do I know of any positive examples of homosexuality in the Bible. Both of these things violate God's standard for sex and marriage.

 

So God did not want Jacob to marry Rachel and Leah (meaning God intended for there to be only 10 or only 2 tribes of Israel)? God did not want Tamar and Judah to have extramarital sex (leading, according to Matthew, ultimately to the birth of Jesus)?

Joshua

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RobertLynn:



Now, I'm a counselor and social worker. If I interpret this passage of scripture the way you have interpreted the passages you have listed here, then instead of counseling with families and working with kids to restore relationships, we should really just be taking them before the men in town and stoning them to death? Aside from working myself out of a job, something tells me that we're missing something in the interpretation of these passages of scripture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, homosexuals, adulterers, and other 'criminals' were stoned to death in the OT as well. OT Israel under the Mosaic law was a theocracy. Violation of moral laws was subject to civil justice.

These immediate and severe acts of justice lost the approval of God when Christ died, fulfilling the law and making a way for salvation by grace. Judgment is now reserved for those who refuse Christ as their substitution. In no way did Christ over turn the moral laws of the OT. Homosexuality, adultery, and child disobedience are still sins with a price- either one already paid or one to be paid for eternity.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CJoshuaV:
So God did not want Jacob to marry Rachel and Leah (meaning God intended for there to be only 10 or only 2 tribes of Israel)? God did not want Tamar and Judah to have extramarital sex (leading, according to Matthew, ultimately to the birth of Jesus)?

Joshua<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cannot say what God's perfect will might have been and will not speculate. However, there are numerous of examples throughout the Bible of God achieving His ultimate will through the evil acts of man. The deliverance of Israel by Joseph's slavery comes immediately to mind...Pharoah's hardened heart, Judas' betrayal, Peter's denial, Peter's sinking, etc.

 

So God has enough control over humanity to bring about God's will, but not enough to bring it about in a way that doesn't involve violating God's commandments?

Joshua

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
Robert,

Deut. 21:18-21 is a ficticious example of how the Levitical justice system should work. We're shown an example (suppose) of a pattern of rebellion and sin of a child who was incorrigibly disobedient. No hope remained for such a person who flagrantly violated the fifth commandment (Ex. 20:12), so in the example, he was to be stoned to death by the town leaders (governing body of the town). This was the equivalent of a legal trial with the authority to impose the death penalty. There is no indication that this actually happened but was used as a teaching example to illustrate the seriousness of sinning against God.

Practicing homosexuals who unashamedly parade their sin in the face of God Almighty also fit "a pattern of rebellion and sin of a child (of God) who is incorrigibly disobedient." I'm not saying we are to stone them. God will mete out His perfect justice and judgment in due time. I would that all homosexuals turn from their wicked ways and be cleansed from all unrighteousness, that they may be called children of God and avoid His wrath!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, how interesting. And convenient. Deutrononomy 21:18-21 is fictitious. But your prooftext from Leviticus isn't.

I think the children in Israel who were stoned by their parents under the law would probably not agree.