tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203279421625687035.post4887068055414905441..comments2011-06-28T04:57:04.795-07:00Comments on Methodist Preacher's Guest Page: Terry Wynn - Pelvic piousnessUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203279421625687035.post-80676889711432262532010-10-30T01:34:48.600-07:002010-10-30T01:34:48.600-07:00This bit stuck out to me:
He has a go at homosexu...This bit stuck out to me:<br /><br /><i>He has a go at homosexuality in Romans and in 1Corinthians 6. Here he says “the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God”. But amongst his list of those who are “wicked” are not only Gay people but “adulterers, thieves, the greedy and drunkards.” That would limit us all somewhat.The question is why do we signal out gay people when God has made them the way they are?Is an adult Gay person in some way sinful because of his or her sexuality?</i><br /><br />But what the Terry Wynn forgot to say is that Jesus also tells people to "go and sin no more".<br /><br />Is it true that God makes people gay? And is Paul referring to homosexual orientation or homosexual acts? These big questions were conveniently avoided.<br /><br />If I was a kleptomaniac, a compulsive thief, should I be able to say "God made me this way, I'll be stealing for the rest of my life". Of course not, and we wouldn't expect the church to endorse such a view. So why do we take a different line with homosexuality?<br /><br />I would agree that the church has a PR problem and is seen as judgemental.<br /><br />But the love of Jesus is a love that calls us to repentance, to become more like Him, not to continue in our sinful state.<br /><br />So the church needs to proclaim not just the unconditional love and acceptance of Jesus, but also His call to live a life of holiness, because that is God's desire for His people. Balancing these two is not an easy task.Peter Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203279421625687035.post-62580076936509091692010-10-28T16:31:49.733-07:002010-10-28T16:31:49.733-07:00There is no evidence at all that shorthand existed...There is no evidence at all that shorthand existed in those days. Q is not Matthew's notes of Jesus' teachings, it is a variable collection of sources (if indeed it exists at all - it's all very hypothetical). Jesus probably did know some Greek (no evidence at all for Latin, and significantly no evidence for any visit to Sepphoris - a noticeable silence in the Gospel traditions), but there is sufficient evidence of an Aramaic substratum to the Gospel traditions that it is pretty certain he preached in Aramaic.<br /><br />Like you, I believe in the authority of scripture. And yes, I do know about the rules by which it can be interpreted. Appealing to Matthew being 'inspired' may be a nice doctrinal point, but in this context it sidesteps the evidence. I don't think you have answered my point about the range of possible meanings in what Jesus actually said.Rev Tony Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09248241050776947372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203279421625687035.post-56875259847520774302010-10-26T16:20:28.061-07:002010-10-26T16:20:28.061-07:00Rev Tony B, Matthew as a levite and a tax-collect...Rev Tony B, Matthew as a levite and a tax-collector was an educated man with tax-collector's shorthand (Q?). We have to trust that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit , he did not misrepresent Jesus. We cannot assume that Jesus , from Galilee of the Gentiles (greeks) spoke Aramaic. He could have spoken Greek - or even both. Not to mention Latin. As a carpenter/builder there would have been a lot of work for Joseph&Son in nearby Sephoris.<br /><br />The Bible does NOT work by picking and choosing texts. There are rules, as you clearly know.They are linguistic, historical contextual, logical and, most importantly, if God is the ultimate author, the interpretation of scripture with scripture. <br /><br />"Blind unbelief is sure to err and scan His work in vain. God is his own interpreter and He will make it plain".<br /><br />Which is not to suggest that you, or others, do not believe; but it does question the extent of belief. I do not like to let scripture judge me, but my salvation does not lie in letting me judge scripture.Felonious Monknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203279421625687035.post-68409067422137014302010-10-26T02:29:48.256-07:002010-10-26T02:29:48.256-07:00"If we are going to use scripture, let's ..."If we are going to use scripture, let's use it accurately. What Jesus said was that some were eunuchs (in the Greek) from birth."<br /><br />Well, to be accurate, that's what Matthew (in Greek) said what Jesus said (in Aramaic). There is no way of knowing precisely what Jesus said in Aramaic. We can reconstruct from the Greek, but that's conjecture. We have no way of knowing what the Aramaic term translated into Greek as 'eunuch' might have included figurately - and it probably did have figurative uses, because that's one of the ways in which Hebrew and Aramaic worked.<br /><br />'Picking and choosing texts' seems to me to be one of those phrases. Like someone who rejected advice I gave him on the grounds that it was just 'a load of theology' - one of his friends told him that 'a load of theology' was his code-word for 'biblical teaching I don't want to hear.' We all pick and choose texts, because that's how the Bible works. The question is whether the texts are read against their context, or chosen because they reinforce what we already think.Rev Tony Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09248241050776947372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9203279421625687035.post-42190537044171757692010-10-25T16:53:07.737-07:002010-10-25T16:53:07.737-07:00If we are going to use scripture, let's use it...If we are going to use scripture, let's use it accurately. What Jesus said was that some were eunuchs (in the Greek) from birth. Are we saying that gays are eunuchs?<br /><br />The OT laws that burden the people were the ritual laws excessively applied and NOT the moral law. Jesus tightened some of them up - including the one on adultery.<br /><br />The woman caught in adultery was a political trap - and - someone was missing for the case to be proved beyond doubt. He also said,"Go and sin no more".<br /><br />Just three examples of the many errors of logic and exegesis in this article. However, this is what we expect when someone tries to justify sin. <br /><br />It is not good to encourage a form of behaviour that is spiritually and physically destructive. <br /><br />When people say that the Church is not like Jesus, I wnat to know what they think Jesus is like and how often they read their Bibles.<br /><br />Finally, we are not supposed to pick and choose texts. Therefore, we cannot ignore what Paul or Jesus says when we do not agree with it. We need the whole counsel of God. Something clearly missing here.Felonious Monknoreply@blogger.com