Posted on 10/26/2011 9:26:04 AM PDT by Cronos
Before returning to New England for the second time, I served two African American Presbyterian Churches. And during that time I never thought, two decades ago, that the entire church body would change its position on LGBTQ worshippers.
But a historic yet bittersweet moment happened on October 8th in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
And the moment didn’t happened without a long and arduous struggle against the church’s ecclesiastical heterosexism.
After decades of open struggle with the church’s recalcitrant attitude and discrimination against its lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) worshippers who wanted to serve as pastors, elders or deacons, the Presbyterian Church (USA), known as the more liberal and tolerant branch of the denomination, finally conducted its first openly gay ordination.
...As a church that is borne out of a liberal Protestant Christian tradition, the Presbyterian Church’s problem with its LGBTQ worshippers is a history of how it not only broke the backs and souls of the many who wanted to serve, but also how the church recklessly discarded the gifts we bring.
...as a church that proudly touts itself as “reformed and always reforming,” when it came to all things LGBTQ prior to this recent Amendment, the church was not only losing its theological ground of being one that affirms diversity without divisiveness, but it was also losing its public face of inclusion.
(Excerpt) Read more at ukprogressive.co.uk ...
Separating sex from procreation has led to great evils. Exaclty correct - if the genital pleasure is the only thing that matters, then ultimately it matters not how that pleasure is obtained. Animal, vegetable, mineral.
I'm sorry, but to us Christians, believing that Jesus Christ is God, part of the Triune God is not a heresy.
you've said before that you don't follow our Christian belief in the Trinity. So be it, that is your choice.
Oh, it has everything to do with your post. Your post calls the trinity— Jesus as God with the Father and Holy Spirit as a heresy.
Because it’s a lot easier for libs to infiltrate and ruin churches than to start one of their own. Plus, there are enough gullible, Biblically illiterate folks who will think along the lines of “if the Presbyterians(or Lutherans or Episcopalians or Methodists or Roman Catholics) say a sin is OK, it must be.”
Married couples, according to you, “can simply abstain from sex. Or is that not an option to you?”
No, it’s not an option. Scripture is very clear: “Do not deprive one another, EXCEPT perhaps by agreement for a LIMITED time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but THEN come together again ...” (1 Cor. 7:5).
Your stance is unbiblical. Indeed, your stance is anti-biblical. It is against the clear teaching of Scripture to dictate that husband and wife not enjoy sexual intercourse on a regular basis.
Furthermore, this passage shows that sexual intercourse isn’t all about procreation, but about fulfilling each other’s relational desires. Procreation isn’t mentioned at all in that section of Scripture.
I ask again: Should a wife past menopause cease to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband because there is no chance she’ll become pregnant? They’d be “doing it” for some reason other than procreation ...
“... if the genital pleasure is the only thing that matters ...”
That is what is called a Straw Man Fallacy. Nobody has said that pleasure is the “only thing” that matters. And nobody has said that sexual intercourse is only about mere “pleasure.”
Furthermore, Scripture is clear that sexual activity between anyone other than husband and wife is sin.
I asked you to give me an example where the wife would be in danger of dying if she were to conceive. You did not.
Scripture is ALSO very clear, be fruitful and multiply. Using contraception is unbiblical. Using it because you don’t want to have kids is unbiblical. Using it because of ‘depression’, when you don’t want to have kids is unbiblical.
I agree it is only for a time, and I am not saying that you should abstain ALL the time. I am saying that you should abstain SOME of the time. That is a legitimate way in which one can conduct themselves.
“It is against the clear teaching of Scripture to dictate that husband and wife not enjoy sexual intercourse on a regular basis.”
It is against scripture to deliberately seek out CONTRACEPTED sex to do an end around of that whole ‘be fruitful’ thing.
“this passage shows that sexual intercourse isn’t all about procreation, but about fulfilling each other’s relational desires. Procreation isn’t mentioned at all in that section of Scripture”
Where does it say that it is permissible for sex not to be about procreation at all? That’s what contracepted sex is doing. I agree with you that sex should be about BOTH, which is what I just posted. You are attacking a strawman, and one I already, clearly, argued against.
“I ask again: Should a wife past menopause cease to engage in sexual intercourse with her husband because there is no chance she’ll become pregnant? They’d be “doing it” for some reason other than procreation ...”
No, there is a difference between not being able to conceive through no fault of your own, and deliberately stopping up your fertility through contraception.
But if sexual intercourse is only about procreation, then why *should* post-menopausal women engage in sexual intercourse with their husbands? What is the *purpose* for them?
Checkmate.
Your question appears to be a commentary on what you already believe about my perspective, rather than a genuine inquiry. The entire canon of the OT was in place while Jesus walked the earth. Does this mean all believers are beholden to the Jews who were the custodians of these texts? Of course.
The NT was written better than 200 years before the Roman organization thought of hijacking the world. Go read history not created by your papal pals. The real world understands exactly how the Scriptures were delivered to us. Your group, on the other hand, is enmeshed in a self-aggrandizing cult-like mutual admiration society. The only proof they can tolerate is that which supports their preconceived ideas. Does that help?
Where did I say that sex was only about procreation? Again, it’s about both pleasure AND procreation.
Taking the procreative aspect out of it through CONTRACEPTION is no different than using fertility treatments to take the PLEASURE aspect out of it entirely.
I’d also state that contraceptives ain’t really about pleasure but expedience.
“The entire canon of the OT was in place while Jesus walked the earth. Does this mean all believers are beholden to the Jews who were the custodians of these texts? Of course.”
Does this mean you use all the books contained in the Septuagint?
The Septuagint contains some books not found in the Hebrew Bible. These books — now referred to as the Apocrypha — were recognized even during the first few centuries AD (by such church leaders as St. Jerome) as not having the weight and authority of Scripture. Historical — kinda maybe sorta — but God’s Word? No.
“The Septuagint contains some books not found in the Hebrew Bible.”
What hebrew bible? The septuagint was the bible that was around when Christ walked the earth. Are you saying me that we shouldn’t trust the septuagint because it’s in greek?
“These books — now referred to as the Apocrypha — were recognized even during the first few centuries AD (by such church leaders as St. Jerome) as not having the weight and authority of Scripture.”
Which is why St. Jerome included it in the Vulgate? St. Jerome merely stated that he didn’t possess hebrew originals of these (as he did other books), but that’s partially because these books were written originally in greek, or because he just didn’t have the hebrew books.
“Historical — kinda maybe sorta — but God’s Word? No.”
Who was the first person to take them out of the bible?
Thank you for saving me the time. These spurious comments just create background noise.
Where did Jesus quote from Maccabees?
I am suffering from dentist appointment overload and my wits are not as sharp as they could be (are they ever?). I had been reading a bit of the dialogue last night and agreed wit what Ben Kenobi had said.
Once sex is divorced from monogamous marriage and the potential of procreation, it becomes solely genital sensation, which then naturallly becomes “anything goes”, if that sensation becomes the sole purpose of sex.
Hedonists do say that pleasure is the only thing that matters, not everyone, and certainly not people who are trying to do God’s will.
If there is no potential for procreation, sex between husband and wife is not violating God’s law because the couple are not actively trying to subvert it, any more than if one is infertile for some reason.
It’s not “only” about procreation; if that was the case, every act of conjugal relations would invariably result in pregnancy, by nature’s arrangement!
no, it doesn’t help because it doesn’t answer my question.
you indicate you know history. if so, you are aware that many books claim to be Scripture or were at one time believed to be Scripture, yet are not included in the NT canon. you are also aware that there is not one book of Scripture that contains a table of contents for the canon. so if you agree with the above statements, there must be someone or something that can once and for all declare the canon infallibly, someone or something with authority that is not from man. my question is, who is this authority for you? no one? ( which means we aren’t sure if what we have called “Scripture” is really Scripture ), yourself? ( not sure what basis you would use ) or someone else?
pretty straight forward question, would seem pretty easy to give a straight forward answer.
Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.
John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.
Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.
For more go to Deuterocanonical books in the New Testament
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.