Forum Thread
Uganda's proposed anti-homosexuality law

"Somebody has to make a convincing, positive and coherent case to evangelicals why we should accept homosexual relationships" - Matt

Matt - please yourself. We're not going to start justifying ourselves to you.

I'm not sure who you think you are.

Full of arrogant hubris.

Stuart,

It might be true that we're talking past one another, and like you I'm finding this whole conversation rather dull and would like to move on to other things. Somehow, though, I don't think the media and the gay rights lobby is going to allow the CofE (and particularly the CofE) to do that.

My request to hear a positive case is a sincere one. If there is one out there, I'd like to hear it, but I never have. The whole Christian and pro-gay position just seems incoherent to me. I'll try and get hold of The Body's Grace. I certainly hope it's better than Jeffrey John's "Permanent, Faithful, Stable".

Colin Coward,

Could you provide us with a reference of a reputable evangelical who argues that divorce is a "good thing", in the same way you think homosexual relationships are a "good thing"?

I notice you couldn't make a positive case but made the same negative points I talked about before, unfortunately rather proving my point.

BMS, bless you too.

Please let us have a list of the dozen or so scriptures which clearly exclude and condemn same sex relations. More than 12, please, and demonstrate the clarity of their condemnation for us. If you cannot, then your stance towards scripture and homosexuality is merely that - a stance.

You didn't write the Bible, thank goodness, but you write as if you alone have an authoritative understanding of what God has revealed through the Bible. I don't believe you do.

For the record, I too am alive in Christ and count myself dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus - same verse in Romans. I am a new creation in Christ - isn't it wonderful that we are both equally Chistians, living the truth in the Church?

 Oh, and when you have time - those more than a dozen verses, please.

The question for you, Brightmorningstar (and others), is that if you see homosexual acts as a crime, and quote the Bible to support your view, why do you then go against the Biblical punishment for such a crime?

When you say "why should this sin be punished more severely than any other sin particulalry sexual immorailty such as adultery?", someone else could legitimately agree with you and use your words to support legislation that adultery ought to carry that penalty too.

Like most here, I can make the case for sex being best expressed inside a life-long monogamous relationship. But I am not alone in believing that ethic should be embraced by homosexual couples as well - what a shame us straights are making it so damn difficult for them.

To Colin Coward,

Thank you for your reply. In the face of a dozen or so scriptures which clearly exclude and condemn same sex relations, you have yet to offer any scripture or reasoning to support what you propose.  This is of course because there is none as what you propose is contrary to what the scriptures say. I fail to see how you can attribute the word of God, as cited and quoted, as somehow my version, as though I wrote the Bible!

 “With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness.” - James 3:9

For the record, when I accepted Jesus Christ as Lord, I died and became alive in Christ.  “In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. “ - Romans 6:11
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" 2 Coriunthians 5:17 

Bless you

MattS wrote: Somebody has to make a convincing, positive and coherent case to evangelicals why we should accept homosexual relationships and not other forms of loving, consensual and non-married sexual relationships. So far, I'm not hearing one. And this has to be done in a way which takes the authority of scripture seriously. Why? Because as Christians we don't see ourselves as at liberty to throw the teaching of Jesus, including his definition of marriage, under the bus.

Why are evangelicals a special case, MattS? In fact, they are not, because I know many evangelicals who disagree with you and welcome lesbian and gay people in loving same-sex relationships. Perhaps you mean to identify a different category - conservative evangelicals, perhaps? Do you and all conservative evangelicals take a consistent position on Jesus' and St Paul's teaching on divorce and the role of women in church? When I read a totaolly, 100% consistent attitude on divorce and women, you will have the right on what the Bible says about me.

BMS wrote:

You wrote ‘the teaching of the church when it has been wrong’, yet even I have on this post presented the word of God on the issue which shows same sex relations are detestable to God and error. The Anglican Communion decided on this with Lambeth 1.10. Clearly your view is in error and your view is disobedient to both God’s purposes and the church. By the way I am a confirmed and practicing member of an Anglican church.

At present your whole argument of same sex relations is not only scripturally baseless but contrary to scripture, and why most of the Church recognise this as major departure and disbelief from core Christian belief.

BMS, thanks for the hyperbole in your writings. I simply disagree with you and I would rather be a healthy homosexual than a half-alive person who has been forced to conform to your version of the word of God and what the Anglican Communion has decided. I am not clearly in error and I am anything but disobedient to God's purposes, but I am happy for you to live in conformity to your own version of Christianity.

MattS may be right to say that the way this thread is going is typical. As usual we all seem to be talking past each other.

At either end of this debate there are people who, on one side, reject scripture and, on the other, people who are straightforwardly homophobic. In between, however, are people who hold to the authority of scripture but who interpret it differently - to forbid or to allow same gender relations - and people with different views on how this relates to church order (MattS, if you are looking for a serious reading of scripture allowing for same gender relations, "The Body's Grace" by Rowan Williams would be a good place to start - and he is also a good example of those who believe that the Bible allows such relations, but that church order constrains his freedom to act according to that belief).

To the point of this thread being "typical", I must confess I've rather drifted away from reading posts on this forum because after a time all we seem to be doing is repeating the same comments past each other over, and over, and over. Maybe this serves a valuable social function by keeping us all off the streets where we might annoy the regular populace, but I do wonder if there is any way to get this debate out of its perpetual rut - other than the predictable response from each side that the other should just accept they're totally wrong and everything would then be fine.

Any thoughts? Or is it more fun to just keep on shouting past each other?

"Somebody has to make a convincing, positive and coherent case to evangelicals why we should accept homosexual relationships" - Matt

Okay then, here's a start:

Jonah 3 v. 9: " Perhaps God will change his mind..."

If God made up the rules in the first place, then s/he is perfectly at liberty to modify/alter/change/adapt/undo/reverse any of them as s/he so chooses, that's if we accept the premise in the first place that God had certain fixed views about things and didn't allow for a change of mind at a later time.

We are, after all made in her/his image, and it is a particularly human trait to change one's mind about things (and indeed for a certain gender a prerogative, we are told ;)

BMS - you seem surprised by some posts but please note that anyone can post, regardless of beliefs - and some are not Christians or Anglicans but offer their suggestions for the CofE nevertheless.....very "helpful", or maybe not.    What is said in the forum is not necessarily in line with Anglican let alone CofE evangelical thinking....quite often, it seems most posts are not from CofE evangelicals but from  "liberals"  (even if some taking a "liberal" line insist that they are evangelicals)......in the end, the forum represents nobody.  The Fulcrum statements are much more important in seeing where "open" CofE evangelicals stand  (not "liberal"  but  perhaps more loyal to the institution and accepting of its faults than "conservatives")

(ps not sure your chosen forum name is appropriate....not really your title to use, is it?)

Thank you Stuart for the link. The intentions for the law are all good and in line with God's purposes for man and woman and children, however the punishments are very severe, why should this sin be punished more severely than any other sin particulalry sexual immorailty such as adultery? In my view if as Christians we are not to judge the world our prayer is that people committing same sex acts would come to know repentance through Christ than be punished in these ways.

This way this thread is going seems to be typical. The revisionists tell us we've got the interpretation wrong (but it doesn't matter anyway because the bible has no authority on this matter). Negative points are made (non-sequitors like slavery, women, etc,) but no positive case is put forward.

Somebody has to make a convincing, positive and coherent case to evangelicals why we should accept homosexual relationships and not other forms of loving, consensual and non-married sexual relationships. So far, I'm not hearing one. And this has to be done in a way which takes the authority of scripture seriously. Why? Because as Christians we don't see ourselves as at liberty to throw the teaching of Jesus, including his definition of marriage, under the bus.

At least Changing Attitude try to be consistent on this one...They think one-night stands can mediate grace. That is consistent with their view of sexual ethics, unfortunately inconsistent with their Christianity.