In response to your last reply Pluralist, having proposed your were in error of the Bible account, it is not surprising you proposed the Bible is in error.

We are interested in relationships, not just sex, I have not disputed that, it is just that the two aren’t the same thing.

I would also question, logically if society has abandoned a worldview where sex is for faithful marriage, why have polygamy punished but not divorce or same sex partnerships?

If DavidW is right, then it is not we but the Bible is in error or inadequate as any sort of guide to relationships. We are interested here in relationships, not just sex. I think, however, that there is some emphasis on not divorcing, which implies faithfulness. Anyway, on DavdW's basis we may as well enjoy polygamy (by the way, I'm with Stephen Fry on this: why is polygamy illegal and can attract sentencing when having an affair doesn't? Better to have the honest arrangement.)

IMO an excellent post by Ken Petrie, I think this is how the church has understood the issue and I think it exactly what Jesus meant.  

To Puralist,

[quote] The Bible has nothing to say about faithful, same-sex relationships and yet has much to say about faithful, honest relationships. [/quote] No. This is again bad error. The Bible refers to same sex relationships, as opposed to the God created male and female, as error. Therefore a faithful same sex relationship is as much error as an unfaithful one; the Bible makes no reference to the faithfulness of any relationship except man/woman. What you have done here is twist and misrepresent. Unless you can be open to what the Bible actually says without receiving it through preconceived ideas it will remain error.

NB As the Bible does make reference to faithful man/woman marriage but just refers to same sex relations as error, why would you intentionally fail to mention faithfulness with man/woman, but imply it could be with same sex? That to me that is pure deception.

This is where the anti-gay views espoused by some here lead :--

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/12/30/birth-mother-ordered-to-hand-over-child-to-lesbian-ex-partner/

It is harldy the Basileia of G-D  , now is it...

Carl,

'Having then set aside the Scripture as fundamentally unknowable, what do you offer in its place?'

Extraordinary! I have done nothing of the sort. Where do you find that in what I have written?

Carl,

'Having then set aside the Scripture as fundamentally unknowable, what do you offer in its place?'

Extraordinary! I have done nothing of the sort. Where do you find that in what I have written?

DavidW

'alas the pro-gay lobby in the church aren’t making their case except from Biblical silence and assumptions'

Really? Where have you been? Have you really read none of the thoughtful, biblical debate on these Fulcrum threads or anywhere else in recent years? How have you missed it? I don't expect you to agree but I do think it is Christian to take the trouble to be informed and to engage with the best in our opponent's arguments.

Meanwhile this thread is drifting into a rather predictable cul-de-sac.  

DavidW

'alas the pro-gay lobby in the church aren’t making their case except from Biblical silence and assumptions'

Really? Where have you been? Have you really read none of the thoughtful, biblical debate on these Fulcrum threads or anywhere else in recent years? How have you missed it? I don't expect you to agree but I do think it is Christian to take the trouble to be informed and to engage with the best in our opponent's arguments.

Meanwhile this thread is drifting into a rather predictable cul-de-sac.  

David

"So I think it a matter of biblical responsibility, having come to a realisation that biblical teaching, and the 'plain' teaching of Jesus, on divorce is now to be understood with much more subtly, with much more care taken over context and background,  that we approach other areas of human and ethical dilemmas with an openess to change."

So let's assume this statement is true for the sake of argument.   I don't in fact accept that it is true, but let's leave that aside.  Three questions immediately come to mind.

1.  What then becomes your moral standard for evaluating ethical dilemmas?

2.  What if anything limits the range of 'openness to change?'

3.  What authority justifies your answer?

Please do not appeal to reason.  It is not and never will be a standard.  It is not and never will be an authority.  Reason presumes an authority and acts under its cover.  It presumes a standard and applies it.  To appeal to reason is simply a disguised way of saying "Man is his own authority, and so sets his own standard."   Having then set aside the Scripture as fundamentally unknowable, what do you offer in its place?

Besides Nietzsche and his Will to Power, I mean.

carl

only in exceptional circumstances? I would undertake almost no weddings at all, if I did not officiate at the weddings of those previously married and divorced.

Kevin

Dear Ken,

I am very sure this thread is not meant to become another way of debating homosexuality though the comparison between that and divorce re-marriage was explicit in David H’s  introductory post.

I agree with you that a more careful reading of scripture leads us to the merciful possibility of divorce and re-marriage (– though interestingly I find I do not accept all the arguments you offer in support of this). 

I agree that it is possible to find acceptance of divorce in scripture while not finding support for homosexuality. That is your position. I respect it whilst not agreeing with it.

I note that the reasons you give (in an admittedly compressed response) as to why you find biblical arguments in support accepting homosexual orientation unconvincing are regularly used by people unpersuaded by your arguments for divorce.

But the real biggie is this …. and it has big implications ….

I note that your position and mine on divorce means we are saying that there are at least when times the apparently ‘plain meaning and teaching of scripture’, accepted as such until the last 50-80 years of church history, is not to be understood as such. We will insist that the task of understanding the bible and interpreting it, particularly in areas of considerable human pain, fallenness, searching and longing, is much more subtle than has been presumed.

So I think it a matter of biblical responsibility, having come to a realisation that biblical teaching, and the 'plain' teaching of Jesus, on divorce is now to be understood with much more subtly, with much more care taken over context and background,  that we approach other areas of human and ethical dilemmas with an openess to change.