First, I apologize for coming across as insulting - my use of "most common sense" did not convey what I intended. I was simply pointing out that when read literally and at face value, the various passages relating to homosexuality seem to be quite clear on their meaning. There are definitely tough passages in the Bible where the passage was meant figuratively, or even sometimes that the primary implication of the passage was specific to a culture or time (though the general principal still applies) - but we must have a very good reason for diminishing what the inspired infallible word of God says. That was all I implied from "most common sense" - it was a poor choice of words.
I pointed out that there is a difference between gay sex and having a homosexual orientation (though I never mentioned gay relationships) - gay sex is definitely condemned in ANY context, and Romans 1 proves that this EVEN includes within the context of two persons of homosexual orientation (regardless of how committed their relationship is). The Bible most certainly provides a "moral argument against loving, monogamous relationships between two consenting adults " when it is outside of the context of heterosexual marriage, and at my core I believe it to be true.
And even if Paul's use of "para phusin" in Romans 1 did mean "sexual practices that were not the ones people usually perform" (apart from being contrary to nature), it is still clear what acts he is referring to - and he still condemns it as a dramatization of what happens when mankind exchanges the glory for images - I do not know how one can read Romans 1: 18-32 and say that any of the things Paul refers to have no moral significance! And I further see no grounds for distinguishing between v24-27 & v28-32.
It is true: "As Christians, we [are] not be bound to Jewish cleanliness laws" - but as I mentioned, Leviticus contains two clear sections: dietary & ceremonial cleanliness codes, and moral codes. Chapters 18 & 20 are very clearly referring to moral laws, and the other prohibition in there still applies today - they reflect the moral character of God, who has not changed, nor will He ever change. I will sometime have to look into the prohibitions of "man lying with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness" - I honestly don't know much about that topic.
Yes, there is some internal controversy within the church regarding the relationship between works & faith. I firmly believe that we are justified by faith alone, apart from works - and I believe this is an issue that is very important to come to a consensus on - and to be frank: I believe official Catholic doctrine is wrong on this and other points. But that is an entirely different argument.
I would also generally disagree with the statement that we "are not the Chosen People bound to God by a covenant" - but again that is a point of internal controversy. I hold to a covenant theology approach - that we as Christians are by extension true Israel (not physically, but spiritually - Romans 9:8). But again that is an entirely different argument.
I must emphasize this: The God of the Old Testament is the same God as the God of the New Testament. Yes, the OT dwells much on God's holiness & wrath, but also highlights His mercy & love (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5; Psalm 86:15; Psalm 108:4; Psalm 145:8; Joel 2:13), and both attributes are confirmed in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7; John 3:36; Rom. 1:18; 5:8-11; Colossians 3:6; Rev. 6:16, 17). Hell is not a modern invention - it is referred to multiple times in the NT (e.g. Matthew 10:28, 25:41, Revalation 14:11). Yes, God is love, but He is also much more - He is so Holy that not even the angelic Cherubim of Isaiah 6 could stand in his presence with faces & feet uncovered. Hell is real & terrible - it is defined as complete separation from God, and is prepared for those who in their lives did not embrace the God of love & wrath.
I really don't want to come across as personally attacking you here, but especially in a public forum like this, I must defend the truth and respond to your arguments - hopefully I have done so with grace in addition to truth (though I confess I need to improve in the area of speaking the truth with love).
It seems that there are many fundamental differences between our viewpoints such that we don't even agree on what being a Christian means and entails. I'm not really sure how to proceed with this discussion because it is apparent that we are perhaps not even talking about the same God. That being said, I would welcome learning more about your viewpoints, but I don't think this thread is the best avenue for doing so. I will be in Houghton all summer and through the coming fall/spring school year - perhaps we could have a face-to-face conversation sometime? It has been a long time since I've spoken with you. Also, if there are specific topics to discuss (especially that go beyond the immediate scope of this topic), perhaps we could at least start separate discussion threads?
First, I must appologize
First, I apologize for coming across as insulting - my use of "most common sense" did not convey what I intended. I was simply pointing out that when read literally and at face value, the various passages relating to homosexuality seem to be quite clear on their meaning. There are definitely tough passages in the Bible where the passage was meant figuratively, or even sometimes that the primary implication of the passage was specific to a culture or time (though the general principal still applies) - but we must have a very good reason for diminishing what the inspired infallible word of God says. That was all I implied from "most common sense" - it was a poor choice of words.
I pointed out that there is a difference between gay sex and having a homosexual orientation (though I never mentioned gay relationships) - gay sex is definitely condemned in ANY context, and Romans 1 proves that this EVEN includes within the context of two persons of homosexual orientation (regardless of how committed their relationship is). The Bible most certainly provides a "moral argument against loving, monogamous relationships between two consenting adults " when it is outside of the context of heterosexual marriage, and at my core I believe it to be true.
And even if Paul's use of "para phusin" in Romans 1 did mean "sexual practices that were not the ones people usually perform" (apart from being contrary to nature), it is still clear what acts he is referring to - and he still condemns it as a dramatization of what happens when mankind exchanges the glory for images - I do not know how one can read Romans 1: 18-32 and say that any of the things Paul refers to have no moral significance! And I further see no grounds for distinguishing between v24-27 & v28-32.
It is true: "As Christians, we [are] not be bound to Jewish cleanliness laws" - but as I mentioned, Leviticus contains two clear sections: dietary & ceremonial cleanliness codes, and moral codes. Chapters 18 & 20 are very clearly referring to moral laws, and the other prohibition in there still applies today - they reflect the moral character of God, who has not changed, nor will He ever change. I will sometime have to look into the prohibitions of "man lying with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness" - I honestly don't know much about that topic.
Yes, there is some internal controversy within the church regarding the relationship between works & faith. I firmly believe that we are justified by faith alone, apart from works - and I believe this is an issue that is very important to come to a consensus on - and to be frank: I believe official Catholic doctrine is wrong on this and other points. But that is an entirely different argument.
I would also generally disagree with the statement that we "are not the Chosen People bound to God by a covenant" - but again that is a point of internal controversy. I hold to a covenant theology approach - that we as Christians are by extension true Israel (not physically, but spiritually - Romans 9:8). But again that is an entirely different argument.
I must emphasize this: The God of the Old Testament is the same God as the God of the New Testament. Yes, the OT dwells much on God's holiness & wrath, but also highlights His mercy & love (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5; Psalm 86:15; Psalm 108:4; Psalm 145:8; Joel 2:13), and both attributes are confirmed in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7; John 3:36; Rom. 1:18; 5:8-11; Colossians 3:6; Rev. 6:16, 17). Hell is not a modern invention - it is referred to multiple times in the NT (e.g. Matthew 10:28, 25:41, Revalation 14:11). Yes, God is love, but He is also much more - He is so Holy that not even the angelic Cherubim of Isaiah 6 could stand in his presence with faces & feet uncovered. Hell is real & terrible - it is defined as complete separation from God, and is prepared for those who in their lives did not embrace the God of love & wrath.
I really don't want to come across as personally attacking you here, but especially in a public forum like this, I must defend the truth and respond to your arguments - hopefully I have done so with grace in addition to truth (though I confess I need to improve in the area of speaking the truth with love).
It seems that there are many fundamental differences between our viewpoints such that we don't even agree on what being a Christian means and entails. I'm not really sure how to proceed with this discussion because it is apparent that we are perhaps not even talking about the same God. That being said, I would welcome learning more about your viewpoints, but I don't think this thread is the best avenue for doing so. I will be in Houghton all summer and through the coming fall/spring school year - perhaps we could have a face-to-face conversation sometime? It has been a long time since I've spoken with you. Also, if there are specific topics to discuss (especially that go beyond the immediate scope of this topic), perhaps we could at least start separate discussion threads?