August 29, 2006
-
the longing
Voila the "vision". "...freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression."
This raises many interesting questions... such as the existence (or nonexistence) of a moral standard that applies to everybody, the practicality (or impracticality) of certain societal arrangements like traditional man-woman-marriage in the raising of healthy, well-adjusted children and the subsequent strength of a society, and the involvement (or non-involvement) of government in 'legislating morality' - which arrangements get legal protections and which don't.
The underlying question, though, is much more basic - Does the God of the Bible exist? The answer to this question will watershed the others.
Comments (11)
Yes God exists, and without God we wouldn't know what moral values are.
Heather
I agree...
Since there exist MANY different interpretation of your bible, and with written texts of this sort we necessarily have to interpret such in a way that leaves such open for multiple possibilities, I would argue that there actually exist many different gods of your bible.
Since there exist many different interpretations of your comment posted above, does that mean that an interpretation that summarizes as follows: "Amen, Tim! Worship the One True God alone, since He is the only One who deserves glory" would be a correct interpretation of what you wrote?
I would agree with you that people interpret the Bible in many ways. However, I disagree that people's subjective interpretations change objective reality in any way - it is possible to hold a wrong belief about what the Bible teaches.
There ARE many interpretations within what we would consider a Christian perspective. It's primarily about God and his communication and love to us in the form of Christ and his sacrifice. Not that everything else is trivial, but if a person trusts that Christ is the propitiation for their sins, reconciling them to God by the only means possible, and this person thinks that homosexuality is ok, he or she is still a Christian, although the two of us may not agree with such a person.
Maybe we'll have "non-fellowship of convenience" with them (as per the discussion brought up by
lj).
Interesting questions raised by Spoonwood and Mulletrooster...
On Mulletrooster's comment, although I sadly (and quite personally) agree that "Christians"* can still sin, I'd rather focus on the question of "is homosexuality right/approved-by-God" or not.
* --- What is a "Christian"? Wasn't this merely a descriptive label applied in Antioch to the disciples of Christ? And if so, what does it mean to be a disciple of Christ? ...and what does it mean to "believe in Him" as "the Lord Jesus Christ"? I think I understand what you meant by "Christian" - the common definition, which you referred to in believing in Christ's propitiation... his or her sins been forgiven.... but this type of talk annoys me. Why should we spend all this time with caveats and such? "He may be an adulterer and an envious man who spreads slander and a homosexual and a glutton, but he's still a Christian." ?!?! Whatever... It may be 'technically correct' (then again, it may not! if someone's fruits-of-life are not godliness, it becomes difficult for me to consider them saved... they may indeed be saved, God knows, but "by their fruits you shall know them."
And:
9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
Paul could have spent time delineating technicalities (as admittedly he did in Romans 6-7..), but instead his emphasis is " but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified".
So Mulletrooster after all that rambling, I think you and I are in basic agreement...
And Spoonwood, although we differ on the foundational issue (does God exist), I respect you and wouldn't mind discussing some of your reasons why you think the Bible does not clearly present One God.
I would love to meet those girls, if opportunity knocks. No, I haven't read anything by Flannery O'Conner. What would you suggest I read?
very interesting. thanks for your comments on church.
Thanks for the welcome Tim! I'm sure I'll be seeing you at church and CBF in the near future.
"Wouldn't it be best to say that East and West have a lot to learn from each other?"
I think that's what the quote is implying...
"...rather than saying the one is all right and the other all wrong?"
I don't think Victor is saying that at all -- I think he's just emphasizing the aspect that he has recently been discovering.
I think there is great strength in "explaining everything," but also that it is dangerous to neglect a focus on wholistic understanding. Sort of like a depth and breadth issue...
I have been praying for your exam coming up-- hope it goes really well!!
Comments are closed.