tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post6859461077434381510..comments2024-03-30T00:33:32.285+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Can a government redefine the meaning of marriage?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-91713381918910924932012-03-13T13:09:44.725+13:002012-03-13T13:09:44.725+13:00Spell-check, please. Sometimes, the greatest cause...Spell-check, please. Sometimes, the greatest cause of grievance on web-sites is the appalling spelling. Against that, there really should be a law.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60289948238691894112012-03-12T13:50:46.139+13:002012-03-12T13:50:46.139+13:00Ron,
"This is my last engagement here with S...Ron,<br /><br />"This is my last engagement here with Shawn"<br /><br />Don't be so childish (not to mention exlcusive, which you claim to be against). Surely we can have an adult debate without throwing all our toys out of the cot and refusing to play anymore merely because one person says things you do not like.<br /><br />" I have even more reason to suspect his motivation here"<br /><br />My only motivation is to engage in debate and discussion, and I find it very silly that you would insinuate that I have some hidden agenda. Seriously, get a grip. Take your own advice, which you dole out frequently to others, and take a cold shower or a holiday. It's just debate for goodness sake.<br /><br />"The modern world is an abomination. It rejects God as the center of the Cosmos, and replaces him with man"<br /><br />Which is simply a statement of fact, not a "pentecostal" diatribe. The modern world (Western secular liberalism) is based on the philosophy of Humanism, which does make man the centre of all things, and ignores God.<br /><br />That is idolotry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-40228326984438410912012-03-11T21:25:20.167+13:002012-03-11T21:25:20.167+13:00Peter, you need not worry about my taking issue wi...Peter, you need not worry about my taking issue with 'Shawn' any more. I had already given up. But now, I have even more reason to suspect his motivation here, after this recent statement of his, that sounds like a pentecostal diatribe:<br /><br />"The modern world is an abomination. It rejects God as the center of the Cosmos, and replaces him with man"<br /><br />This is my last engagement here with Shawn - I promise!<br /><br />Suem, keep on talking, I am quite enjoying your comments here. Agape.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80204607650544061342012-03-11T12:58:16.568+13:002012-03-11T12:58:16.568+13:00Suem,
Your using a standard liberal rhetorical ta...Suem,<br /><br />Your using a standard liberal rhetorical tactic, claiming that we only have two choices. Either we adopt the liberal agenda, or we are superficial fundamentalists who believe in young earth creationism.<br /><br />But this is a false choice, and a dishonest way to frame the debate.<br /><br />Sola Scriptura does not mean we must adopt a superficial literalism with regards to every part of Scripture, (I do not believe God actually has wings for example, as the psalms say), and the truth is that mainstream Evangelicals do not do so. For that matter neither do many Pentecostals or Independent Evangelicals.<br /><br />It DOES mean that we must honour all of Scripture as God's Word, and not, as Ron would have us do, pick and choose those parts that simply suit us and our cultural/political worldviews. Human beings are far too prone to self-serving self-deception for that to be a viable hermeneutic.<br /><br />The term "fundamentalist" has been rendered meaningless by its use by liberals as a term of abuse and ridicule, and by the way it is used to describe anyone who is not a liberal.<br /><br />But as Peter rightly points out, we are all fundamentalists about some issues, you included.<br /><br />My own theology is closer to the classical confessional Reformed tradition, grounded in the Westminster Standards. <br /><br />Thus, while I believe in Sola Scriptura, I do so with reference to good theology, and with reference to the tradition of those who have gone before us in the faith, from the Church Fathers (and Mothers!) as well as classical Reformation theology.<br /><br />Hardly a "fundamentalist" approach.<br /><br />Peter is right that we must carefully weigh Scripture to ensure that we are reading it rightly. Sometimes we get it wrong, both as individuals and as Church. I believe this is so with regards to the ordination of women, which is why I support WO and women in leadership positions in the Church, though I also respect those who disagree.<br /><br />But weighing Scripture carefully is not the same thing as superficially picking and choosing only what suits us, and claiming that some parts are not the Word of God. That is theologically untenable, leading as I said above, to a "canon within the canon" which apparently can only be discerned by reference to the worldview of Western liberals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-32142157939806688872012-03-10T19:45:00.627+13:002012-03-10T19:45:00.627+13:00Perhaps Ron and Shawn we could spend less time spe...Perhaps Ron and Shawn we could spend less time speculating on what kind of Christian the other is, and more time on wrestling with what it means to understand Scripture.<br /><br />It is a false dichotomy (for instance) to divide the living Christ from the written Word of God: we have no sure access to the former without the latter (and telling us that the Spirit has spoken to a few individuals here and there in the Western world is not "sure access" to the living Christ).<br /><br />Conversely, "weighing the words of Scripture etc" is not, in my view, picking and choosing, but doing just what we have to do in working from the many words of Scripture written in different genres to the way we are to live today in our world. If (for instance) we think that charging interest is okay as a means of checks and balance on the growth of the economy, then we have weighed - one would hope - the words of Scripture on usury rather than picked them out and chosen to ignore them!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62941703887584483302012-03-10T19:12:37.104+13:002012-03-10T19:12:37.104+13:00Ron,
"But is this not the biblical fundament...Ron,<br /><br />"But is this not the biblical fundamentalist's understanding of scripture - that every word is from God? At least, that is my under-standing of their position."<br /><br />No. It is the traditional position of the whole Church throughout most of its history. It is not merely a "fundamentalist" view.<br /><br />"The more commendable way: of modern hermeneutical study; it to weigh every word - in order to discern the wheat from the chaff."<br /><br />What you really mean is going through Scripture and picking and choosing which parts fit your liberal ideology and which do not.<br /><br />That is not a valid hermeneutic. It is placing yourself above God, above the Holy Spirit, and placing your liberal political ideology above all. <br /><br />Basically, you only want those parts of Scripture that fit a white, Western, middle class liberalism.<br /><br />That's called conveniance, not hermeneutics, and most of the global Church has rejected that approach.<br /><br />It leads to a "Canon within the Canon" in which we somehow have to discern, throug some kind of gnostic insight, what God did and did not say. It is a recipe for self-delusion and political corru[tion. It leads to liberals simply picking and choosing what suits them, as though white Western liberals were the wisest people who have ever lived.<br /><br />The arrognace of that is astounding, and it is an approach that lacks the humility of true Christian discipleship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-26221368636538371622012-03-10T19:05:19.209+13:002012-03-10T19:05:19.209+13:00I think, Suem, that you know I do not consider you...I think, Suem, that you know I do not consider you to be a biblical F.ist.<br />I appreciate your responses in this site. <br /><br />My point Peter, from my last post, was that God's Final Word has been delivered through & in the Crucified, Resurrected and Ever-Living Chris -, rather than remaining within the covers of The Book, holy as it is.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-21602873185476803982012-03-10T19:01:20.293+13:002012-03-10T19:01:20.293+13:00Ron
"Shawn, do you have any formal theologic...Ron<br /><br />"Shawn, do you have any formal theological qualifications to teach Bible hermeneutics? If not, I think you need to listen to those who have."<br /><br />I do listen to those who have. Andreas Kostenberger is one, and I read many other Biblical theologians. I just don't bother with liberal theologians, because they do not respect God's Word.<br /><br />"This is not just a matter of airing one's own personal prejudices, but a serious search for God;'s will for his children in the world of today."<br /><br />God's will for his people today is the same as it was two thousand years ago. He Word and Will do not change.<br /><br />"We no linger live in the Middle East world of pre-enlightenment determinism. The Church and the world have moved on."<br /><br />Most of the Church does not agree with you. But that irrelevant point aside, all you doing Ron is elevetaing Modernism above Scripture and claiming that Western, secular modernism should determine Christian Faith and practice. I think Bryden Black on an earlier thread pointed out the flaw in this. Why is your particular moment in history, seen throu8gh the eyes of Western secular liberalism, better than any other? Your just pretending that your specific cultural/political views are somehow so wise and perfect that the Church must bow to them.<br /><br />Jesus told us to IN the world not OF the world. This is a point you seem to be very confused about.<br /><br />The modern world is an abomination. It rejects God as the center of the Cosmos, and replaces him with man. It elevates every moral perversion as a "right". It engages in the industrial scale mass murder of babies through abortion.<br /><br />The Church must not bow to the modern world, the modern world must repent and bow to the Lord of Hosts.<br /><br />Suem,<br /><br />Actually, yes I do, because unlike you I take God as He has revealed Himself, not as I want Him to be to suit myself. Aslan is not a tame Lion. Our God is loving, but also fierce and terrible to behold. He is not captive to the simpering political correctness of Western, urban, latte liberals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-22425295617148876532012-03-10T18:31:10.858+13:002012-03-10T18:31:10.858+13:00Hi Ron // Rosemary
Might be good to leave the '...Hi Ron // Rosemary<br />Might be good to leave the 'fundamentalist' tag off comments? We are all fundamentalist on something. It strikes me Ron that on the eucharist you are quite the fundamentalist building a lot on a a literal interpretation of our Lord's words ... :)<br /><br />As for Rosemary's comment above: if that is not weighing what Scripture says then I do not know what is. No fundamentalism there.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-7760967132176043562012-03-10T17:26:36.091+13:002012-03-10T17:26:36.091+13:00How hard it is to understand you sometimes Ron. Y...How hard it is to understand you sometimes Ron. You quote me, so I must presume you have a point to make. Are you suggesting that Suem is a fundamentalist? It could sound that way. But remembering your letter to our last Bishop about me, and the accusations you made. Your accusations and rudeness during a public meeting in Christchurch, I have a feeling you have always assumed that I am a fundamentalist. Have you changed your mind? Is that the point of your post?Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-66799896079930004752012-03-10T13:03:52.947+13:002012-03-10T13:03:52.947+13:00"... but I think you're leaving the '..."... but I think you're leaving the 'Fall' out of your consideration, and accepting as gospel that anything written is almost a command from God"<br /><br />But is this not the biblical fundamentalist's understanding of scripture - that every word is from God? At least, that is my under-standing of their position. <br /><br />The more commendable way: of modern hermeneutical study; it to weigh every word - in order to discern the wheat from the chaff. And remember, the Words of Scripture have now been fulfilled in the Word-made-flesh of Jesus Christ.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-24116581804931168292012-03-10T12:12:15.321+13:002012-03-10T12:12:15.321+13:00Suem, I'm sorry, but I think you're leav...Suem, I'm sorry, but I think you're leaving the 'Fall' out of your consideration, and accepting as gospel that anything written is almost a command from God. You appear to see that a loving God wouldn't do such and such, so you doubt the Scriptures you quote, yet ignore the plain meaning in another passage. The 'Fall' in chapter 3 of Genesis, is followed in chapter 4 by <b>evidence</b> of that 'Fall.' Including polygamy and murder. So the Bible doesn't sanction polygamy, it records it. That doesn't mean it's accepted by God when He has made so plain His intentions such a short time previously.Rosemary Behanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16631238218649271544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90489708500125286882012-03-10T09:35:37.776+13:002012-03-10T09:35:37.776+13:00Not only am I familiar with scripture, I am also f...Not only am I familiar with scripture, I am also familiar with the way that some evangelical fundamentalists make dishonest and frankly terribly implausible attempts to explain away verses such as those above. I grew up with fundamentalists and witnessed at first hand the ability some of them have to lie to themselves and others while simultaneously accusing liberals of "twisting" scripture to their own ends!<br /><br />You really think our holy and loving God hands women over to rape and adultery to punish those who disobey him? He actively facilitates adultery as part of his "work with a sinful world"? I don't think so! And if you are prepared to be honest - nor do you!Suemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128736092253293640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3990282833021812342012-03-09T21:50:31.868+13:002012-03-09T21:50:31.868+13:00Shawn, do you have any formal theological qualific...Shawn, do you have any formal theological qualifications to teach Bible hermeneutics? If not, I think you need to listen to those who have.<br />This is not just a matter of airing one's own personal prejudices, but a serious search for God;'s will for his children in the world of today. We no linger live in the Middle East world of pre-enlightenment determinism. The Church and the world have moved on.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-16632932143901238942012-03-09T13:43:14.600+13:002012-03-09T13:43:14.600+13:00"To say that the only model scripture offers ..."To say that the only model scripture offers is that of one man and one woman either shows ignorance or complete dishonest about the matter"<br /><br />Not at all. The problem is that your confusing two different issues. One, how does God define marriage, and two, how does God work with sinful people in a sinful world.<br /><br />I suggest reading 'God Marriage and Family' by Andreas Kostenberger , which deals with the ussues you raise.<br /><br />God does define and positively bless only one form of marriage. While he works with the reality of where humanity is in our sin and brokenness, he does not positively bless any of the examples you give, and he actively defines marriage in only one way.<br /><br />So perhaps you just are not as familiar with Scripture as you think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74639515917826380702012-03-09T10:59:08.088+13:002012-03-09T10:59:08.088+13:00Shawn, you write that, "The point is that in ...Shawn, you write that, "The point is that in Scripture God defines marriage in one way only, between a man and a women. Examples of polygamy do not negate this, because at no point does God endorse them."<br />I am afraid this simply doesn't hold any water! There are several points at which scripture claims God directly promotes non monogamous behaviour. One example is in Samuel when he says he will take David's wives and give them to other men:<br /><br />"This is what the LORD says: Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight."<br /><br />Moreover we are told that God took Saul's wives away and gave them to David as a reward. There are other points where scripture outlines what an man can do and this is outside the bounds of monogamous lifelong relationships. For example, a man can go in to a female prisoner of war and know her as a wife but then "let her go" when he tires of her. Effectively this is the sanctioning of rape with no requirement for the man to commit to any long term (let alone life long commitment to the women thus abused.)<br />To say that the only model scripture offers is that of one man and one woman either shows ignorance or complete dishonest about the matter.Suemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128736092253293640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-27354119613905483572012-03-07T13:13:08.905+13:002012-03-07T13:13:08.905+13:00Ron,
"For Shawn's enlightenment here. Th...Ron,<br /><br />"For Shawn's enlightenment here. The word 'homosexual' (pp Concise Oxford English Dictionary) means: 'feeling or involving sexual attraction to people of one's own sex'"<br /><br />This proves my point, not yours. "Feelings AND sexual attractions".<br /><br />Otherwise your view would mean that ANY feelings of agape live between men would be homosexual. Your own point defeats you.<br /><br />"This is one of the problems most homosexual people have with rabid anti-gays; they always presume that homosexuals are necessarily engaged in overt sexual behaviour."<br /><br />I never mentioned "overt" sexual behaviour, so this is a false accusation. And using terms like "rabid anti-gays" does nothing but prove your own rabid hatred of Evangelicals and, well, anyone who does not think the modern world is the supreme authority in all matters of Christian Faith and practice.<br /><br />I would guess that over my life I have known more homosexual persons than you, and many of them have been, and are, friends. I, and others posting here against gay marriage, are not "rabid anti" anything. We just believe that God's Word is more important than the political ideology of white, middle class, latte liberals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53684979249477897952012-03-07T07:42:05.810+13:002012-03-07T07:42:05.810+13:00No, one swallow does not make a summer, but I know...No, one swallow does not make a summer, but I know many more swallows who have brought up or are bringing up children well. I am sure you do too. Life is complex and complicated as you say, therefore we must be careful not to fall back on simplistic ways of seeing and judging others, including,I think, their fitness to parent.Suemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128736092253293640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-22095527102485585392012-03-06T14:07:48.461+13:002012-03-06T14:07:48.461+13:00For Shawn's enlightenment here. The word '...For Shawn's enlightenment here. The word 'homosexual' (pp Concise Oxford English Dictionary) means: 'feeling or involving sexual attraction to people of one's own sex'. In other words, it does not, per se, specify physical sexual activity!<br /><br />This is one of the problems most homosexual people have with rabid anti-gays; they always presume that homosexuals are necessarily engaged in overt sexual behaviour. What happens in the bedroom, between adults of any gender, is their own private business, for which they are answerable to their own conscience - not yours. The Church can never subordinate to itself the conscience of an individual human being. "Judge not, that ye be not judged".<br /><br />What the Church can do is offer advice - on the basis of doctrine. It can never legislate another's right to exercise their conscience.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-23728428110174212112012-03-06T13:34:51.160+13:002012-03-06T13:34:51.160+13:00Ron,
"I am aware that this does not indicate...Ron,<br /><br />"I am aware that this does not indicate a specific sexual content, but neither does it discount it."<br /><br />From what we know about Hebrew moral culture, yes, it does discount it. We can know with some degree of satisfaction that it would have been, at the very least, extremely unlikely.<br /><br />This is why the argument that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality is misleading. He did not do so, because it was so rare in Jewish society at the time, and, more importantly, considered a serious moral perversio. Paul has to deal with the issue because by that time the Church was spreading into the wider Empire, and Imperial culture, especially that of thr Greeks and Romans, was essentially liberal, that is, tolerant of many gods and religions, and tolerant of a diversity of sexual lifestyles. The Church, it should be noted, stood firmly against both. Today, sadly, the demand that Christians betray Christ and conform to Caeser is coming from within the Church itself.<br /><br />Deep male friendships are not homosexual merely because they are deep. <br /><br />Two men can bond on an emotional level and feel great love for one another, without it having anything to do with homosexuality.<br /><br />But my point remains that there can be no valid comparison between David's friendship and homosexuality, because homosexual relationships DO have a sexual component. In fact the sexual component is what makes it homosexual in the first place.<br /><br />The point is that in Scripture God defines marriage in one way only, between a man and a women. Examples of polygamy do not negate this, because at no point does God endorse them. <br /><br />This is the bottom line. God has defined marriage clearly.<br /><br />Our task as disciples is to obey God, not the political fashions of liberalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-57339272617167760932012-03-06T13:29:45.923+13:002012-03-06T13:29:45.923+13:00Father Ron Smith;
The reference to the Ten Comma...Father Ron Smith; <br /><br />The reference to the Ten Commandments was a response to <b>your</b> implication that the Church and Christians should be subservient to the State even in situations where there is a conflict between God's commandments and the State's.<br /><br />In other words put the State's commandments before God's.<br /><br />As for these novel ideas about marriage doesn't it strike you as a little odd that this new revelation was given not to people within the Church but to those those indifferent or even hostile to it?<br /><br />The wikipedia article referenced in a comment above finds two historical references to same sex marriage<br />(1) The Roman Emperor Nero<br />(2) The Roman Emperor Elagabalus<br /><br />If this pair provide the precedent, well it is hardly a ringing endorsement of the concept - is it?Andreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04536593172412406428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29666504991721176602012-03-06T13:19:32.869+13:002012-03-06T13:19:32.869+13:00Ron; your post is fascinating in its assumptions. ...Ron; your post is fascinating in its assumptions. Let’s look more carefully at some of them.<br /><br />“A modern civil society”: it was CS Lewis who consonantly showed our contemporary arrogance in placing the present above all else, as if only the “modern” could possibly be correct. With most of history, there are in fact just good features and plain rotten ones, all mixed up. It is incumbent upon Christians of every age to try to practice discernment, therefore. Which is why Ron I am particularly fond of that adage you object to: “The last creature to ask questions of the water is the fish.”<br /><br />“Ridiculous”: I am sure many a Roman of the 1st - 4th Cs saw Christians’ refusal to engage in many a practice, like placing incense on the Emperor’s altars, or our viewing beggars and the like as “treasures”, to be “ridiculous”. There is documentary evidence of both of these pagan responses. So for the Church to oppose the State’s definition of things is not necessarily at all ridiculous. It may actually be necessary in some cases. The Barmen Declaration of 1934 certainly thought so. And there is an increasing body of work, of the likes of William Cavanaugh, which is warning of a head-on collision between the Church and the 21st C state. And I deliberately cite WC as he is by no means a Right-wing American Fundo! So for the Church to be on the receiving end of state “sanctions” might just emulate our Crucified Lord and many of his saints!<br /><br />Unfortunately your third paragraph again merely assumes the <i>illuminati</i> amongst us are correct, and that those without such a direct line to God’s Spirit are plain out of touch. But since this entire line of supposed ‘reasoning’ is simply an old hoary chestnut on which you seem incapable of adequate self-reflection, I truly give up! No amount of hermeneutical references and/or epistemological promptings seem to suffice. But then neither was Joachim of Fiore to be persuaded otherwise; he simply carried on speculating and writing! [BTW: I am diligently plowing my way through Tobias’s <i>Reasonable and Holy</i>, but so far I have to say his own attempted ‘reasoning’ has not sufficed to shift my own views either - though some of his points have added grist to the mill!]<br /><br />Lastly, I am mindful of the felt need of some in committed same-sex relationships to hammer out legal fairness in the realm of property rights and so on. Which is why I myself endorse the practice of civil unions, as a legal arrangement, to try to address such matters. <b>But this does not mean the Church has to follow suit at all!!!</b> To my mind, this is somewhat parallel to the very question of divorce to which Bosco keeps alluding. Given a fallen world (“hardness of heart” or “harlotry”, as Tobias reads Mk 10/Matt 5 & 19), then Law is the supposed answer. BUT as Jesus himself says, and as any Luthern will go on to say, the Gospel would seek another road/way, the renewal of creation itself. This Ron is what the Holy Spirit truly seeks to author - rather than (I suggest) spurious illuminations.Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-35384890505382855922012-03-06T12:50:14.944+13:002012-03-06T12:50:14.944+13:00Dear Ron
, And as for Shawn's voluminous comm...Dear Ron<br /><br /><i>, And as for Shawn's voluminous comment; I'm not at all sure that 'having a beer together' was the essence of David and Jonathan's same-sex relationship. It must have been much more than that - when the narrator speaks of a "Love that was above that of women and men". </i><br /><br />Respectfully Ron, this seems like eisegesis or special pleading.<br /><br />Jesus has a grand opportunity to introduce (& endorse) homsexual marriage in his conversation with the Pharisee in Mark 10.<br />In vv.5-6 Jesus emphasizes marriage as the permanent union between a man and a woman and goes back to Genesis (God's purposes at the beginning of creation). <br /><br />Scripture I think is very clear. There are two types of sexual expression that God endorses:<br />1. Heterosexual marriage<br />2. Unmarried Celibacy<br /><br />For us to argue that there is a third expression (i.e homosexual marriage) nullifies the authority of Scripture, subverts the created order (that Jesus cites in Mark 10) and also is a rejection of Jesus emphasis and endorsement of the exclusive definition of marriage - which is to reject Jesus authority on this matter. <br /><br />in Christ<br />JoshuaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48441169170842744202012-03-06T12:21:22.366+13:002012-03-06T12:21:22.366+13:00Andrei, I'm afraid the ten commandments say zi...Andrei, I'm afraid the ten commandments say zilch about marriage, so one hardly sees your point - in the context of this thread<br /><br />If,on the other hand, you are thinking that the partners in a marriage can sometimes be idolatrous - in their regard for their partner - they don't need to be gay for that to happen.<br /><br /><br />And as for Shawn's voluminous comment; I'm not at all sure that 'having a beer together' was the <br />essence of David and Jonathan's same-sex relationship. It must have been much more than that - when the narrator speaks of a "Love that was above that of women and men". I am aware that this does not indicate a specific sexual content, but neither does it discount it. We simply do not know. It is just that the very mention of a comparison between the two models has been spoken of here - in terms of a Same-Sex relationship.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-43963809379959126342012-03-06T12:10:18.927+13:002012-03-06T12:10:18.927+13:00Hi Bosco,
It is invidious to draw aspects of thes...Hi Bosco,<br /><br />It is invidious to draw aspects of these matters into the abstract of ethical enquiry, but I think it could be useful to raise the abstract question whether the difficulties the church has placed itself in re divorce and remarriage measured against scriptural teaching amount to support for changing the definition of marriage in respect of it being a relationship between 'a man and a woman'?<br /><br />As for you manner of posing the challenge to O'Brien and me, I see some differences: no matter what the church or the state is saying about divorce and remarriage, nothing (as I understand the situation) prevents the church teaching that marriage should be for life, should be between a man and a woman, that divorce should be countenanced only as a last resort, that remarriage after divorce has (in my experience, according to statistics, etc) a low success rate. For that matter I cannot see that there would be much reaction if Christian teachers taught that there should not be divorce (except for adultery).<br /><br />By contrast I am raising the question whether a change to the definition of marriage would bring consequential constraints on Christian teaching about marriage.<br /><br />I would be reasonably satisfied if assurance was given that no such constraints would be consequential. So far no one has given me that assurance.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com