- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why have churches started allowing gay preachers?
Posted on 5/11/24 at 11:53 pm to Prodigal Son
Posted on 5/11/24 at 11:53 pm to Prodigal Son
Champagne, I appreciate the good will! This was a quote from Dan McClellan. I didn’t mention the name because it could cause bias and be dismissive. His slogan is data over dogma, and is points out the difference between scripture and theology. I’m not sure of the Methodist position.
To prodigal- while his delineation of homosexuality and same sex intercourse may seem semantical,(although definitionally one can be homosexual and not engage in same sex acts) his point is that their way of life and culture is alien to us.
I think it’s hard to deny his point about one sin being magnified while others are minimized, and it being due to identity politics, and structuring of power.
Many will quote Levitican prescriptions to support their beliefs, but not only do they cherry pick prescriptions from that book, they only adopt half of a prescription and dont follow trough and support their execution? Or do you? Do you think same sex actors should be executed?
We can’t superimpose this type of culture on our own and create meaning. Sure we can learn from history, but we are modernity washing it if we pretend we were like them.
Women were property back then, premarital sex prescriptions were about tainting the fathers property. That’s why if you raped a woman you could pay dad 50 scheckles, and y’all would be square. And this is how they treated their sisters, daughters. When it came to others outside the tribe and slaves, the laws literally did not apply. It was not seen to be extramarital to have sex with your slave(possibly male slaves also).
There was a system of hierarchy that just isn’t comprehended today, (it was men, then way way down the list it was property-women, children then slaves all grouped together)and some say that same sex acts were forbidden not because it was not fruit bearing, or contradictory to the sanctimony of marriage, but because it wasn’t right for a man to be in a submissive position, and supported by the idea that a woman should not be on top, in a dominant manner.
To prodigal- while his delineation of homosexuality and same sex intercourse may seem semantical,(although definitionally one can be homosexual and not engage in same sex acts) his point is that their way of life and culture is alien to us.
I think it’s hard to deny his point about one sin being magnified while others are minimized, and it being due to identity politics, and structuring of power.
Many will quote Levitican prescriptions to support their beliefs, but not only do they cherry pick prescriptions from that book, they only adopt half of a prescription and dont follow trough and support their execution? Or do you? Do you think same sex actors should be executed?
We can’t superimpose this type of culture on our own and create meaning. Sure we can learn from history, but we are modernity washing it if we pretend we were like them.
Women were property back then, premarital sex prescriptions were about tainting the fathers property. That’s why if you raped a woman you could pay dad 50 scheckles, and y’all would be square. And this is how they treated their sisters, daughters. When it came to others outside the tribe and slaves, the laws literally did not apply. It was not seen to be extramarital to have sex with your slave(possibly male slaves also).
There was a system of hierarchy that just isn’t comprehended today, (it was men, then way way down the list it was property-women, children then slaves all grouped together)and some say that same sex acts were forbidden not because it was not fruit bearing, or contradictory to the sanctimony of marriage, but because it wasn’t right for a man to be in a submissive position, and supported by the idea that a woman should not be on top, in a dominant manner.
1
Posted on 5/12/24 at 1:52 pm to Rust Cohle
quote:
No, you don't understand his analysis. He argues that the Bible condemns some same sex sexual activity, but, not the kind of same- sex sexual activity that exists in a loving Gay Marriage.
Yes, I do. What he’s doing is called eisegesis , which is reading one’s own biases into the text- when it is not what the text says. Scripture interprets scripture- meaning that when there is a question of interpretation in a particular verse- we weigh that verse against the other verses that deal with the same topic. This is the benefit of having scripture as the ultimate source of authority. Everything thing that Rust Cohle (RC
) is spouting is nonsensical heresy that is easily debunked by a faithful exegesis of scripture. This is the benefit of Protestantism- we are free to disagree with and rebuke (and will be held accountable to God if we don’t) any/all teachings that are in clear contradiction of the well established interpretation of scripture by the early church. quote:
I'm not going to comment on how "Bible Alone" leads to these kinds of problems, because what I'm after here in this thread is to read an Official UMC analysis of this new interpretation of Scripture. We have already discussed "Bible Alone" in a dozen other threads. No need to do so here.
Please, spare us the “holier than thou” rhetoric. Your behavior in the majority of these threads is detestable. You complain, incessantly, about “Catholic bashing,” yet here you are, completely unprovoked- attacking Protestants- Protestants that I will not defend, because they are intentionally taking the Word of God out of context to suit their own sinful desires.
Where I see an opportunity for RC’s and Pros to come together to defend the infallible Word of God- you see an opportunity to start a fight. Very interesting.
What’s more interesting, is that you are always in lockstep agreement with atheists, and now heretics, as long as it serves your purpose of dividing the church.
Apologies, Rust. This post was intended for Champagne. Though, I will say that your views on this topic are in clear contradiction to a faithful and consistent exegesis of scripture.
This post was edited on 5/12/24 at 2:31 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News