Comments on: Tupper’s ‘Homosexuality and the Church’ option (2of4) http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/07/02/tuppers-homosexuality-and-the-church-option-2of4/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tuppers-homosexuality-and-the-church-option-2of4 Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living. Tue, 22 May 2012 22:06:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: A Christian and a LGBT person walk into a bar: An Overview of the Discussion Had « Mattr of Fact: On Seeking the Truth in Time http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/07/02/tuppers-homosexuality-and-the-church-option-2of4/comment-page-1/#comment-245812 A Christian and a LGBT person walk into a bar: An Overview of the Discussion Had « Mattr of Fact: On Seeking the Truth in Time Sat, 19 May 2012 03:49:41 +0000 http://homebrewedchristianity.com/?p=1725#comment-245812 [...] 2) LGBT Welcomed but not Affirmed [...] [...] 2) LGBT Welcomed but not Affirmed [...]

]]> By: Theology UnCorked on "Christianity + Homosexuality = ?" http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/07/02/tuppers-homosexuality-and-the-church-option-2of4/comment-page-1/#comment-245800 Theology UnCorked on "Christianity + Homosexuality = ?" Fri, 18 May 2012 23:17:47 +0000 http://homebrewedchristianity.com/?p=1725#comment-245800 [...] different perspectives summarized 1)Rejection of God’s Design 2)Welcoming but not Affirming 3)Welcoming and Accommodating 4) Welcoming & [...] [...] different perspectives summarized 1)Rejection of God’s Design 2)Welcoming but not Affirming 3)Welcoming and Accommodating 4) Welcoming & [...]

]]> By: Matthew Van Hook http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/07/02/tuppers-homosexuality-and-the-church-option-2of4/comment-page-1/#comment-7402 Matthew Van Hook Sat, 05 Sep 2009 19:10:14 +0000 http://homebrewedchristianity.com/?p=1725#comment-7402 I was reading your post here and it generally paralleled your post on the other page. I have a question. When you wrote, "For me, it is not sinful to participate in a homosexual sexual act with a God blessed committed partnership." How do you know that? How do you know that God would bless a partnership that he explicitly prohibited in the Bible? You make a lot of assertions but you don't say what you base them on. Christians, by definition, follow the teachings of Christ which is why they base their theological principles in the Bible and Christian tradition. You seem to accept the existence of sin but you write like that is just a subjective phenomenon meaning whatever you want it to mean. Do you have some inside track to the Holy Spirit that the gospel writers and 2000 years of tradition just missed? How can one be a Christian and reject Christian teaching? You claim Christ is your pattern but reject the source from which you got the pattern to begin with--the Bible and Christian tradition. That is self-contradictory. You cannot have it both ways. If you believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable that's fine, but in doing so you are making an argument that Christian belief is false because it contradicts your claims. I was reading your post here and it generally paralleled your post on the other page. I have a question. When you wrote, “For me, it is not sinful to participate in a homosexual sexual act with a God blessed committed partnership.” How do you know that? How do you know that God would bless a partnership that he explicitly prohibited in the Bible? You make a lot of assertions but you don’t say what you base them on. Christians, by definition, follow the teachings of Christ which is why they base their theological principles in the Bible and Christian tradition. You seem to accept the existence of sin but you write like that is just a subjective phenomenon meaning whatever you want it to mean. Do you have some inside track to the Holy Spirit that the gospel writers and 2000 years of tradition just missed?

How can one be a Christian and reject Christian teaching? You claim Christ is your pattern but reject the source from which you got the pattern to begin with–the Bible and Christian tradition. That is self-contradictory. You cannot have it both ways. If you believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable that’s fine, but in doing so you are making an argument that Christian belief is false because it contradicts your claims.

]]> By: A Devout Uncertainty: Homosexuality and the Church | Homebrewed Christianity http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/07/02/tuppers-homosexuality-and-the-church-option-2of4/comment-page-1/#comment-5569 A Devout Uncertainty: Homosexuality and the Church | Homebrewed Christianity Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:31:52 +0000 http://homebrewedchristianity.com/?p=1725#comment-5569 [...] can find the opening post here and the 4 different views presented (1,2,3,4).  Big Daddy Weave, Pop Theology, and Baptimergent have also blogged about this [...] [...] can find the opening post here and the 4 different views presented (1,2,3,4).  Big Daddy Weave, Pop Theology, and Baptimergent have also blogged about this [...]

]]> By: Jo Ann W. Goodson http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/07/02/tuppers-homosexuality-and-the-church-option-2of4/comment-page-1/#comment-5525 Jo Ann W. Goodson Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:08:57 +0000 http://homebrewedchristianity.com/?p=1725#comment-5525 The characterization of any human person as a "pervert" is a denial that all human persons have been created in the image of God". (I agree) "The homosexual person must repent of his or her homosexual behavior and accept the intention of God in creation: the norm of heterosexual relationships". (I disagree) For me, it is not sinful to participate in a homosexual sexual act with a God blessed committed partnership. Sexual activity between man and wife or committed God blessed partners is not sinful but a God given gift to lovers. "Marriage" the word in the past has been a ceremony that joins a man and woman,and allows them to live together. Now whether the people joined together behave as "Christians" has always been left up to the individuals and God the judge. The couple decides all things. They usually participate in sexual activity to show their love for each other and for the purpose of having children. I have never seen a list that tells us, it's not in the bible, of what sexual acts are sinful or blessed acts. Society has determined that caressing, kissing, intercourse, etc. entered into with love and respect, and consent, for the other is acceptable behavior. These acts between homosexual partnerships should be entered into with the same consent as any other partnership. "Sometimes persons who have been caught up into the practice of homosexuality are heterosexual, and these persons experience the healing of their perverse sexual behavior in the celebration of heterosexual marriage." Now that is quite a statement. We all know that some people in heterosexual marriages engage in acts that are the same as homosexuals enter into. Now does that mean that one is participating in a sinful act and the other is not? Is it the acts (behavior) or that the fact that it is between man and man and woman and woman. I have know people who have been in a heterosexual marriage and then after divorce, entered into a homosexual committed relationship and vice versa. "Although sexual identification is an essential part of human personhood, sexual gratification whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not essential to the wholeness of a person's humnity." "Thanksgiving for the gift of life endures apart from sexual fulfillment." Now how did this get into this particular part of the discussion. We are talking about SIN. The choice of being married or single could only come into this if we think that a homosexual person, in order not to sin, must live a celebate life. If anyone marries or enters into a committed partnership for me it would not be in order to have sexual gratification. There is never a guarantee of sexual gratification. These unions must be based on the deep love, respect and affection for each other. A natural gift from one to another in these situations is the practice of sexual activity that demostrates the oneness of their union. And the two of them are as one. This is a very holy picture. There is satisfaction in this participation whether you have an organsim or not. "Fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness requires self-discipline and self-control, because the loss of self-restraint is self-indulgence, whether single or married, proves personally and relationally destructive. (I agree). However, there is self-indulgence that I think has nothing to do with sin. Love is both giving and receiving. To be single or married is simply a personal choice or the right partner has not been found. The ultimate for me would be to be married to a man who loved me and thought of me as special and unique as God does. The characterization of any human person as a “pervert” is a denial that all human persons have been created in the image of God”. (I agree) “The homosexual person must repent of his or her homosexual behavior and accept the intention of God in creation: the norm of heterosexual relationships”. (I disagree) For me, it is not sinful to participate in a homosexual sexual act with a God blessed committed partnership. Sexual activity between man and wife or committed God blessed partners is not sinful but a God given gift to lovers. “Marriage” the word in the past has been a ceremony that joins a man and woman,and allows them to live together. Now whether the people joined together behave as “Christians” has always been left up to the individuals and God the judge. The couple decides all things. They usually participate in sexual activity to show their love for each other and for the purpose of having children. I have never seen a list that tells us, it’s not in the bible, of what sexual acts are sinful or blessed acts. Society has determined that caressing, kissing, intercourse, etc. entered into with love and respect, and consent, for the other is acceptable behavior. These acts between homosexual partnerships should be entered into with the same consent as any other partnership. “Sometimes persons who have been caught up into the practice of homosexuality are heterosexual, and these persons experience the healing of their perverse sexual behavior in the celebration of heterosexual marriage.” Now that is quite a statement. We all know that some people in heterosexual marriages engage in acts that are the same as homosexuals enter into. Now does that mean that one is participating in a sinful act and the other is not? Is it the acts (behavior) or that the fact that it is between man and man and woman and woman. I have know people who have been in a heterosexual marriage and then after divorce, entered into a homosexual committed relationship and vice versa. “Although sexual identification is an essential part of human personhood, sexual gratification whether heterosexual or homosexual, is not essential to the wholeness of a person’s humnity.” “Thanksgiving for the gift of life endures apart from sexual fulfillment.” Now how did this get into this particular part of the discussion. We are talking about SIN. The choice of being married or single could only come into this if we think that a homosexual person, in order not to sin, must live a celebate life. If anyone marries or enters into a committed partnership for me it would not be in order to have sexual gratification. There is never a guarantee of sexual gratification. These unions must be based on the deep love, respect and affection for each other. A natural gift from one to another in these situations is the practice of sexual activity that demostrates the oneness of their union. And the two of them are as one. This is a very holy picture. There is satisfaction in this participation whether you have an organsim or not. “Fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness requires self-discipline and self-control, because the loss of self-restraint is self-indulgence, whether single or married, proves personally and relationally destructive. (I agree). However, there is self-indulgence that I think has nothing to do with sin. Love is both giving and receiving. To be single or married is simply a personal choice or the right partner has not been found. The ultimate for me would be to be married to a man who loved me and thought of me as special and unique as God does.

]]> By: Baptists, Homosexuality, and the Church | Homebrewed Christianity http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2009/07/02/tuppers-homosexuality-and-the-church-option-2of4/comment-page-1/#comment-5517 Baptists, Homosexuality, and the Church | Homebrewed Christianity Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:44:32 +0000 http://homebrewedchristianity.com/?p=1725#comment-5517 [...] 2. Acceptance of persons but rejection of homosexual behavior: the norm of heterosexual marriage, the a... [...] [...] 2. Acceptance of persons but rejection of homosexual behavior: the norm of heterosexual marriage, the a… [...]

]]>