• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) Approves Gay Marriage

TownieDeac said:
are you using "that" here as a definite article (describing Rev's view) or an indefinite article just meaning any conception of morality?
Click to expand...

definite article, sorry for not being more precise. Also I'd say that Rev's conception of morality is much easier to make sense of in the context of Christianity, not necessarily that Christianity is the only way to make sense of that view.
 
RChildress107 said:
definite article, sorry for not being more precise. Also I'd say that Rev's conception of morality is much easier to make sense of in the context of Christianity, not necessarily that Christianity is the only way to make sense of that view.
Click to expand...
I'd be trouble if it were otherwise. And to be clear, my sense of the universal ethic isn't a list of rules (such as the Ten Commandments) , but rather something more like "living in the God's purposes," which is a more open/flexible/graceful understanding.
 
RevDeac06 said:
I'd be trouble if it were otherwise. And to be clear, my sense of the universal ethic isn't a list of rules (such as the Ten Commandments) , but rather something more like "living in the God's purposes," which is a more open/flexible/graceful understanding.
Click to expand...

I can dig it. The best professor I ever had in college (my Ethics professor coincidentally) was a Divine Will theorist. I wasn't entirely sold at the time (and honestly it's been years since I read up on the subject) but it was by far the most intriguing of all the theistic options, IMO.
 
My personal belief is that intent and motivation have much stronger ties to morality than consequences do, at least in a religious sense, but I include irresponsibility and recklessness as immoral motivation.
 
bym051d said:
Thought this was interesting. Thoughs, Rev?

http://www.upworthy.com/there-are-6...n-the-bible-heres-what-they-really-say?c=huf1
Click to expand...

Interesting video, and he makes a few good points.

1) Sodom story isn't about homosexuality, so he's right on that one.
2) Leviticus- harder to get around that one. His argument there is weak, and he makes a supersessionist argument (which is really problematic).
3) Romans- As I've said before, Paul wasn't talking about sexual orientation, so his point remains.
4) Cor and Tim- Again, the word study is a real issue because it's not as clear at our English translations don't get at the issue.

I didn't think the video was that great- and if I didn't agree with his conclusion, I don't think it would come close to swaying me. From what I can tell, he's not a Biblical scholar, nor does he have any formal training in Biblical studies, Hebrew, Greek, or exegesis. Not to say he doesn't, but I couldn't find any reference to it. And that's also not to say that only professionals with degrees have a right to have an opinion on the matter, but if you're going to be the "face" of the movement, credentials are important.

So, for me, here's what it comes down to:
OT references are legit, it's fairly black and white. Same sex intercourse is bad. Nothing in there about same sex relations, as those didn't exist in the sense that they do today. But there's no "explaining away" what it says in Lev.
NT references are problematic due to the words used and the wide range of interpretations.

But it's a bigger question than Scripture, but rather about hermeneutics and systematic theology- which these promo videos (on both sides) are lacking. Like it or not, the Bible is not inerrant, nor is it the Word of God (that's Jesus. You can say that the Bible is the word of God, but not the "W"ord of God). Furthermore, the Bible has been used to support a lot of negative things that actually go against the spirit of Scripture, while other parts of it are ignored. It's nearly impossible to make any argument (with apologies to Luther) on the basis of sola scriptura. Reason (and common sense) as well as tradition (both of the Church, but also personal experience) is vital in this conversation. And that's where I think the room to embrace same-sex ordination/adoptions/ordinations/rights comes from. The Bible should point us to the grandeur/mystery/majesty of God, not reduce God to an answer. The problem is that we're using the Bible as a microscope instead of a telescope.

The question isn't "what does the Bible say?" That's the wrong place to start. The question is "what is God's will/what is God calling us towards." The Bible is a part of that answer, but it is not THE answer. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church in the past, so to say that the Holy Spirit can't lead us to a new understanding of sexual identity and relations is actually more blasphemous than saying that the Bible isn't the final authority on the text.
 
Seems like as good of a place as any...

Welcome aboard, Kentucky!
 
RevDeac06 said:
The question isn't "what does the Bible say?" That's the wrong place to start. The question is "what is God's will/what is God calling us towards." The Bible is a part of that answer, but it is not THE answer. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church in the past, so to say that the Holy Spirit can't lead us to a new understanding of sexual identity and relations is actually more blasphemous than saying that the Bible isn't the final authority on the text.
Click to expand...

Wow. Especially to the first part if this quote. Hard to believe a minister would say that seeking wisdom through the bible "is the wrong place to start". Amazing.

Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
 
Last edited:
Wrangor said:
Wow. Especially to the first part if this quote. Hard to believe a minister would say that seeking wisdom through the bible "is the wrong place to start". Amazing.
Click to expand...

That's not what he said.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
That's not what he said.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what he said. He said don't start by going to the Bible. Start by asking yourself what is God's will, and use the bible as a tool to find that. Using that method the Bible can say whatever you want it to say, because you can pick and choose what you want out of it.
 
Wrangor said:
That is exactly what he said. He said don't start by going to the Bible. Start by asking yourself what is God's will, and use the bible as a tool to find that. Using that method the Bible can say whatever you want it to say, because you can pick and choose what you want out of it.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what you do anyway?
 
That's exactly what you do or you would support the keeping of slaves as The Bible says:

" However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

And you can sell your daughters into slavery:

" When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)"

Do take these verses word for word? Or are they inconvenient and thus allowed not to really to be followed?
 
Wrangor said:
That is exactly what he said. He said don't start by going to the Bible. Start by asking yourself what is God's will, and use the bible as a tool to find that. Using that method the Bible can say whatever you want it to say, because you can pick and choose what you want out of it.
Click to expand...

You should apply your literalism to his post, because that's not exactly what he said.
 
Wrangor said:
Wow. Especially to the first part if this quote. Hard to believe a minister would say that seeking wisdom through the bible "is the wrong place to start". Amazing.

Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Click to expand...

Then His words about selling your daughters into slave must not "pass away" either.

Or are you only a "literalist" when the "words" suit you?
 
Wrangor said:
Wow. Especially to the first part if this quote. Hard to believe a minister would say that seeking wisdom through the bible "is the wrong place to start". Amazing.

Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Click to expand...

Which Bible would you propose we consider? Just the Hebrew Bible (the only notion of Scripture that Jesus would have known)? Or which NT books do we consider? Not sure how much you know about the history of the canonization process, but you have to take off the rose-colored glasses when considering that history. It was about politics and power (what isn't?). Several books were cut that could have made it had political alliances gone the other way. And vice versa. Many theologians (even Luther) argued against the books of James and Revelation being a part of the NT.

Here's what Evangelical (capital E) Christianity doesn't understand- they're actually more Muslim than Christian in their theology. In Islam, the Qur'an is literally the spoken words of God, and thereby, are inerrant. This is the fullest/complete/final revelation of God. This isn't true for Christians, but when you put emphasis too much emphasis on the Bible, or start with it, you're getting the cart before the horse.

In orthodox Christian theology, the fullest/complete/final revelation of God is the person of Jesus Christ, not the humanly written, edited, and fought over writings about the early Church. So, no, I don't start with the Bible, nor should any follower of Jesus. The disciples didn't. Paul didn't.

You want to worship a book, that's fine. But call it idolatry, not Christianity. I'm a Christian because I follow Jesus Christ, and if you think that you can encapsulate, summarize, and contain him to the pages of a book, then you don't know much about him.
 
Last edited:
Wrangor said:
That is exactly what he said. He said don't start by going to the Bible. Start by asking yourself what is God's will, and use the bible as a tool to find that. Using that method the Bible can say whatever you want it to say, because you can pick and choose what you want out of it.
Click to expand...

Any of us can make any passage of Scripture say whatever we want it to say. That's why we need to read the text through Jesus. And that's why we need to start with him, not start with the text.
 
Told him in pos rep, but just want to say how much I love reading RevDeac's posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top