Christianity and Homosexuality

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd argue that the reason for the relatively greater decline of the mainline churches compared to the fundamentalist churches isn't the specific doctrinal positions taken, but the means by which they've taken them. The mainline protestant churches have generally taken an approach to scripture that at a minimum involves textual criticism and at the extreme involves a considerable analysis of the validity of various passages.  That's well within the enlightenment tradition, but it places a premium upon individual opinion and hence individual thought.  That individuality leads towards a lesser emphasis placed upon being strongly committed to a church.

(My own multiple church going has more to do with other reasons, yet if I did feel more strongly I might well limit myself to just the one.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ross Douthat posted an argument that relates to this about Catholicism. Douthat suggested, that liberal Catholics, have opened up far more problematic issues in their reform debates. For example, he cited a liberal theologian who said while arguing for the RCC to allow divorce and remarriage (paraphrasing), "Jesus was caught up in the apocalypticism of the day and expected the world to end soon. Of course its easy stay married if the world's going to end next year. If Jesus had known better, he would have allowed for divorce"

In arguing for divorce and remarriage, this liberal fellow suggested that Jesus wasn't the son of God. Of course if that's true, the church's position on divorce is a non-issue compared to the problems Jesus' non-divinity would raise, namely "Why are we doing all this religion stuff if it isn't true?"

Suggesting Jesus was not omniscient during the time of his ministry is not the same as suggesting he wasn't the son of God. Indeed, beyond the textual evidence in the Bible that at times he was not, there's also the fact that if he were omniscient, it renders the whole crucifixion and resurrection into a farce rather than a triumph. That's one of the reasons I'm an Adoptionist when in comes to my understanding of Christ's incarnation. That said, there are far better Bible-based arguments in favor of showing leniency to the remarried than speculation as to what Jesus knew.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The textual issue in Mark 7:19 literally rests on a single letter which determines the gender of a participle, thereby determining whether it is Jesus or the stomach that is doing the cleaning/purging. At the very least, if Jesus were meant, it clearly is the case that his apostles didn't grasp that he meant that it was alright to eat whatever thou wilt. More importantly, the subject of Mark 7 is not kashrut but ritual hand washing, so I can't see using the verse to prooftext such a limited point.

In any case, regardless of how important the SDA diet may be for one's spiritual health, there is no disputing that it very helpful in promoting physical health.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And the Bible is clear that no practicing homosexual will enter the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9).  If one takes the Bible seriously, then allowing gays as ministers is a sign of a church that does not take the full counsel of God seriously. 

I'll point out in passing that the meaning of arsenokoites as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians and Deutero-Paul in 1 Timothy is questionable, and has historically has not always been interpreted as a generic homosexual.  I say in passing because frankly, if one holds that the Bible is inerrant and that its teachings are immutable, then Leviticus alone provides a fairly clear place to decide upon it.  That said, I'm not one of those who treat the Bible as a fourth member of the Trinity.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And the Bible is clear that no practicing homosexual will enter the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9).  If one takes the Bible seriously, then allowing gays as ministers is a sign of a church that does not take the full counsel of God seriously. 

I'll point out in passing that the meaning of arsenokoites as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians and Deutero-Paul in 1 Timothy is questionable, and has historically has not always been interpreted as a generic homosexual.  I say in passing because frankly, if one holds that the Bible is inerrant and that its teachings are immutable, then Leviticus alone provides a fairly clear place to decide upon it.  That said, I'm not one of those who treat the Bible as a fourth member of the Trinity.

There's still Jude 1:5-8 and Romans 1:26-28.

Jude 1?  You've got to be kidding me.  You do realize that linking Sodom exclusively to homosexuality was not something that happened in the 1st century.  Indeed, for a number of languages today the primary meaning of "sodomy" is bestiality. All one can infer from the text alone is don't engage in unnatural sex, but it leaves the interpretation of unnatural very much in the air.  Romans 1 suffers from the same problem as its presumed blanket condemnation of homosexuality hinges upon the presumption that procreative heterosexual sex is the only "natural use".  The only solid prescription of homosexuality to be found in the Bible is in Leviticus.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Jesus also says multiple times that a man will come of age when it is time to marry a woman.

You do realize that the synoptic gospels are mainly retellings of the same stories from two or three different emphases, don't you?  Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 12 are two versions of the same teaching on divorce.  Considering the primary point of that tale, if fundamentalists use that passage to condemn the mote of homosexuality, they really ought to be tackling the log of divorce as well. Yet during the now concluded political debate on SSM, I never heard a word about rolling back the permissive divorce laws available in this country or elsewhere.  For a movement that claims that the entire Bible is a unified and inerrant whole, fundamentalism is awfully selective in what it seeks to target.