« 1 link= 1 ton of carbon emissions offset, fair swap! | Main | For all football fans... »

Comments

Anne Witton

That's very interesting. It seems that homosexuality always seems to generate outspoken and insensitive pronouncements, but it's good to see that there are people (other than us of course!) who feel strongly enough to respond to these ridiculous horse comments! My concern is that, yet again, a big heated debate ensues and the pastoral needs of Christians struggling with their sexuality and trying to live for God are sidelined.

John

It strikes me as a quite reasonable comparison. As Horrocks argues, once one tosses out the traditional Christian view of marriage, what is to stop further changes? In America, the gay marriage movement has already spawned a growing movement for the legalization of polygamy. And I've read somewhere that there are efforts in the Netherlands to legalize...how do I put this...interspecies marriage.

Zoe

John, throughout most of the bible polygamy is the norm. It frustrates me so much that you can take this line and it shows the superficiality of your thought process regarding homosexuality. Take the log out of your own freakin eye and concentrate on thanking God that you don't have to deal with such a difficult issue in your own life.

John

Sure, God once permitted polygamy...and ended it in NT teachings.

But not a single portrayal of homosexuality in the Bible is positive. Not even one.

The history of marriage throughout all of human history has been male to female. Now, suddenly, contrary to wisdom through the entire body of human history, we're supposed to let men marry each other? Absurd. One might as well marry one's horse.

Phil Smith

John. Thanks for your comments. A Couple of things though;
1) "God once permitted polygamy...and ended it in NT teachings". I think the only reference related to this is Paul suggesting it is good for an elder to have 'but one wife'. I don't think that necessarily has the scope you seem to suggest, perhaps Paul made this comment because having more than one wife was time consuming and therefore couldn't be done well enough by someone who also had to look after a congregation. There is certianly no suggestion that one wife (or one husband for that matter) is the God's prefered choice. In my opinion it is what works best in western society (baring in mind the nuclear-ish family, life-expectancy and the fact that women work) and should therefore be encouraged by the church.
2) "Absurd" Irrespective of whether you think it's right or wrong, I don't think it's fair to call gay marriage absurd or compare it to marrying a horse. Those of a homosexual orientation have a natural desire to share there life with A.N. Other, the same as a hetrosexual. To the best of my knowledge the desire to share one's life with a horse is not a natural instinct of human kind. Nor are the feelings or depth of relationship between a horse and it's owner comparible to those that can be reached by a loving monogomous couple (irrespective of whether that couple is homosexual or hetrosexual)
Hope that makes sense, incidentally I've still got no reply from Don Horrocks :-(

Ruthe

John your comments (and seemingly those of Don) seem to show a lack of love and sensitivity to people God loves. While the Bible classes homosexual practise as sin so it does with a lot of things. Sinners, all of us, the ones Jesus came to save (Mark 2:17).
How is comparing beastiality with homosexuality (however related you consider them to be) in a national newspaper going to show and love and sensitivity to those who struggle with such issues. Once again the Church is labelled as bigotted, insensitive and unloving.

John

You're quite wrong. I'm no Fred Phelps by any stretch. I get along with homosexuals just fine. But I don't pretend that their lifestyle isn't sinful.

Jesus loved everyone that he came into contact with, but he also called them to account for their sin.

Sometimes he offended people (e.g. Pharisees) with his teachings. But he taught on anyway. So must we.

ruthe

There is no way I am pretending homosexual lifestyle is not sinful, I just think the Church for too long has opened its mouth out of opinion not love and unecessarily offended people from up on their hobby horse without thinking about the consequences.
I am a great believer in speaking the truth, and it's generally not going to be liked because the truth about Christ is counter cultural, problem is are we doing all we can to win people over to Christ with our truth speaking or becoming caught up in minor issues that we have a certain problem with?
Why does the Church get so bogged down in these issues but fail to tackle abuse, lies, theft, deceit and adultery within its own doors?
Before I get carried away ranting I am not anti-Church, but we need to recapture the balance of speaking the truth in love and not making sweeping statements that serve no purpose.
Jesus spoke in love to the woman at the well, he spoke truth to her and challenged her sinful life then sent her on her way with the command to change, he didn't drag her up in front of others and ridicule her.
To me the statement from Don seems to have done nothing more that rile people, not reach people.

Wesley’s Commentary On Romans One

John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, had this to say about Romans One: “1:26 Therefore God gave them up to vile affections - To which the heathen Romans were then abandoned to the last degree; and none more than the emperors themselves. 1:27 Receiving the just recompense of their error - Their idolatry being punished with that unnatural lust, which was as horrible a dishonour to the body, as their idolatry was to God.”

Wesley says nothing about women, specifically, when commenting on Romans 1:26. For Romans 1:27 he says that the men’s idolatry was punished by God with an unnatural lust for one another. This “unnatural lust” we have concluded to mean the practice of sodomy.

seo analysis tool

My spouse and I stumbled over here different website and thought I should check things out.

The comments to this entry are closed.