Ok, I'm tired of this!!

It is extremely telling that confidently casting aside the ancients (in what Lewis called chronological snobbery) and substitute one's own authority leads just glibly missing the obvious context. It is not a mystery what terms like arsenoskoites meant to Paul or his recipients (which is why the Church has interpreted them in such a consistent manner until modernism crept in). This is because Paul was a Hellenized Jew and a rabbi writing to a group where the core original members were largely Hellenized Jews or Gentile converts to Judaism. They would have immediately picked up on Paul's use of the Septuagint.

Tiffy if you are not going to actually stick to the topic but instead make the discussion about your own personal dislike of Stalwart, there doesn't seem to be much utility.

 

I think I have stuck to the topic fairly closely. I certainly harbour no personal animosity to Stalwart. Disagreement with his theological opinion is not animosity and dislike should not come into it, we should all be above letting that get in the way of reaching understanding of the truth.

The four Gospels contain 1,854 red letter verses with the spoken words of Jesus. Of these 341 are just comments, casual conversation etc. with his disciples or his audience at the time, not actual teaching. This leaves 1,513 verses to be analyzed. The Gospel of Matthew has the most red letter teaching verses both in numbers (1,071) and percentage (55%) of the total material in the book.

The top ten subjects addressed in the teaching of Jesus are these: eternal life and salvation (46 vv; 3.04%); prayer (48 vv.; 3.17%); persecution (54 vv; 3.57%); judgment and hell (61 vv; 4.03%); predictions, especially about his disciples and himself (67 vv; 4.43%); hypocrisy (73 vv; 4.82%); second coming (79 vv; 5.22%); fate of Jerusalem and the evil generation that rejected Jesus (119 vv; 7.87%); Jesus’ identity and mission (129 vv; 8.53%). The subject that Jesus spoke about most was the kingdom (159 vv; 10.51%)—its nature, entrance requirements and nearness. There are sixteen verses which have the primary teaching emphasis on marriage and divorce (1.06%), and forty-three verses (2.84%) that address treasure and greed.

And apparently nothing whatever on same sex relationships (per se), gender reassignment or confused sexual identity or sodomy as such, but three key verses on Child Abuse, presumably by male adults, (presumably in positions of authority, and possibly implying 'leading astray sexually, as well as more general abuse'). 0.2%

If we have to think about unpleasant human activities and sexual perversion, we should keep that in mind, particularly with a male only priesthood.

Since it seems Stalwart has declared 'War' on me, I will leave you both with this good Apostolic advice regarding subjects of this kind.

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

So, OK I'm tired of this too now, and so I am going to follow St Paul's sensible advice and refrain from making any further comments in this thread, and think of better things.

 

It seems that most of your posts have devolved into whether Stalwart has "judged" you and have made it personal.

The vast majority of the rest of your post has very little bearing on the subject. Are we supposed to believe that if Christ did not directly discuss it, then it is not Scripture? This would be to deny the canonicity of the OT (Marcionism) or the rest of the NT. If Christ did radically alter traditional Judeo-Christian sexual ethics, it absolutely would've been noted. Considering He aligned Himself with the Shmmai faction in the Hillel-Shmmai divorce dispute (Hillel being more liberal and affirming of divorce, Shmmai being more conservative), there seems absolutely zero basis for any sexual libertinism in Christ's teaching and seems to be arguing for omission. Instead you see Him upholding the moral code of the Law, a moral teaching preserved and expounded upon by the Apostle Paul. It is only in the last century that anyone has pretended it means anything than the face value teaching.

 

I just glossed over this whole thread and didn't see a "...I'm gay and this is my experience..." post, so here is mine.
It shall be brief.
I am gay and this is my experience. I am/was is more like it a gay catholic in the Archdiocese of New York. Our seminary is Dunwoodie. The seminary and diocese are a festering cesspool of homosexual misconduct ( I am not referring to pedophilia/ephebophilia here). My problem is that no one is honest about it. I joined TEC (officially this Easter 2019) where you may have a gay priest BUT he tells you "hey! I'm a gay priest! here is my partner bob!". In the Roman church the priest that led my Courage group (Catholic apostolate for gay men to lead a celibate life) was just accused of improprieties with young men, Showering them down. powdering them and then watching them do calisthenics. the priest who sent me to Courage is in a life long committed relationship with another priest. this particular priest when hearing me confess to some sexual sins one day said, and I quote "One day God will cease to be merciful, and instead be just!!" The Hypocrisy!!!! The then-Bishop, Now-Cardinal (whom I have just decided not to name) who confirmed me in the faith is a homosexual involved in an homosexual S&M cabal at Dunwoodie where he is known as "The Master"

I joined TEC so I could be chaste and celibate in peace!!!! I pretty much think everyone else should be able to live there lives in peace provided others aren't getting hurt. And I am not going to ram my morality and religious beliefs down other's throats.

 

I hear you. Even the ones who are trying to live a 'godly life' within a homosexual context rarely ever produce the kind of fruit or have the fullness of grace that normal God-given relationships have. There is something defective at the heart of homosexuality that prohibits that from blooming. As a person who struggles with the same feelings as you do, when I was trying to justify it biblically with a lot of the same arguments the liberals use nowadays, I always saw, in spite of never having been in a relationship in my life and still being a virgin, the inherent deficiencies of the practice, especially coming from those involved in it and their advocates.

"For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter; nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin.
For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding, and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in."
(Wisdom of Solomon, 1:4-5)

 

God has truly blessed you by getting through this in this sex soaked world and maintaining your virginity!!! I unfortunately have a lot more battle scars. What I love about TEC is the peace, love and acceptance I have from others so I can heal from these scars that have accrued over decades and the freedom to be left in peace while I do penance (under the eye of a spiritual director).

 

In my experience TEC spiritual advisors are far more likely to reduce and remove one's virginity than to celebrate it, especially in LGBT counseling

They do not view LGBT attraction as a cross to bear, and some of them even celebrate LGBT lifestyles rather than working to diminish them as the old Episcopal Church had always done

 

I agree with you to a large degree. But I have been blessed to find TEC Priests who understand and respect my decision to live a chaste celibate lifestyle. I had to leave Rome partly because the outright hatred of homosexuals was creating an exquisitely toxic environment where I couldn’t practice my faith. And yes, there were other reasons I left Rome.

 

Christians are not bound by the Torah. Judaism has very strict laws about sexual behavior. That being said, whether people choose to engage in sodomy is between them and God.

Testament opposes is the pederasty of the Greco-Roman culture; the attitudes toward pederasty and, in part, the language used to oppose it are informed by the Jewish background." Robin Scroggs, Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

"One cannot be absolutely certain that the two key words in I Corinthians 6:9 are meant as references to male homosexual behaviour." Victor Paul Furnish, Professor of New Testament Perkins School of Theology, Dallas.

"The strongest New Testament argument against homosexual activi ty is intrinsically immoral has been derived traditionally from Romans 1:26, where this activity is indicated as para physin. The normal English translation for this has been 'against nature.' Two interpretations can be justified concerning what Paul meant by the phrase. It could refer to the individual pagan, who goes beyond his own sexual appetites in order to indulge in new sexual pleasure. The second possibility is that physis refers to the 'nature' of the chosen people who were forbidden by Levitical law to have homosexual relations." John J. McNeill, Adjunct Professor of Psychology, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.

 

These professors' private exegesis is in dire contrast to the testimony of the undivided Church on this topic. The textual and historical consensus is clear. The moral prohibitions inherited from the Old Testament when it comes to sex are in full force in the New Testament Scriptures.

 

I agree with JoeLaughon. I understand how difficult and complicated the issue of homosexuality is, but it is disingenuous to claim that the scriptures don't mean what they clearly say. One can argue that what they say is wrong, that it isn't what God really believes, but the words themselves are quite clear.

 

Just as importantly, since we are on an Anglican web-site, the undivided Anglican teaching on these questions must be accepted as final, for truth does not evolve but is one and the same, for ever

 

Agreed, anglican74. It only makes sense to abide by forum rules, otherwise we should go play in some other sandbox.

I know there are plenty of 'judgmental' Christians in the world who will criticize someone to his face, when they should 'MYOB' instead. Get the plank out of their own eyes, and all that. They don't set a good example, and they make the rest of the Christians look bad.

If two people of the same sex care so deeply for each other that they want to spend their lives together, fine. (I would even support their relationship being given some legal status other than "marriage".) But if they engage in sexual intimacy, they've crossed a bright red moral line. Even so, I am not their judge (even though I may judge right and wrong behavior) and it's up to the Holy Spirit, not me, to convict them and bring them back into right relationship; if they're not looking for my counsel, my role as a Christian is to be respectful and caring.

As for gay celibacy, sure it's tough! But they don't have a corner on the market. Plenty of people are in life situations where they should be celibate... single people, and yes even some people in hetero marriages are obliged to be celibate. I don't think gay folks should feel sorry for themselves, like God is being especially unfair to them or something. Folks sometimes have to suck it up and move on with life. "Take up your cross, and follow Me."

 

I think there are two entirely different issues at hand. Some things are sin and we must avoid them. My wife and I are middle aged. If a young woman moved in next door and I found her more appealing to look at than my wife and eventually had sex with her I would be committing a very serious sin. It is simply wrong. Likewise, people of the same sex cannot engage in sex with each other or live as a couple. Some things are wrong and we must not do them even if we want to do them. That is our cross and we must bear it.

Now I am not going to commit adultery it was just an example. However, I would not expect to be stoned to death if I did become an adulterer. Equally, if someone is a homosexual no one should subject them to any form of abuse or harassment. However, it is not abuse for Christians to point out what is sinful.

If you do not think it is a sin for two people of the same sex to have sex you will have to take that up with God. I do not make the moral law, He does.

 

The problem is, as I have seen in our culture, what is defined as "abuse" happens to be in the eye of the beholder! Therefore if you feel abused, then you are, even if the other party only meant to share the Christian (and the natural/normal) view on the issue

I don't know how I feel about this definition of abuse from what the person themselves feel.... It does not seem like the best approach, but it does paralyze us, and immunize them from any criticism

 

Whether it's the best approach depends on what the goal is. What if paralyzing us and immunizing them from any criticism is their goal?

 

Very true!!

 

The problem is if we follow this then we dare not say anything to anybody. I wasn't suggesting that we force our religion on to anyone but I wouldn't consider it abuse to inform someone that I believed certain behaviours were immoral. I wouldn't feel abused, for example, if an atheist were to tell me that I believed in a myth.

It seems to me to be an attitude of what's being called the millennial generation. Nothing must be done that might hurt their feelings. I find it absolutely ridiculous. Life at times can be damned hard. It does no one any favours so let them think everything in life must be just so for them.

 

Brilliant

 

Jesus Christ drank with, ate with, taught and associated with both saints and sinners of all kinds, yet did not become one himself. Should we not do likewise? The most 'in your face' sinners, that Jesus Christ conversed with were the Pharisees not the tax collectors and publicans. In fact he pointed out to the Pharisees, (who prided themselves on their strict observances), that whores, harlots and publicans were entering heaven before them. Matt.21:28-32. Mark 2:15-17.