“Room for Everyone”: Swedish Union Issues Statement about LGBT+ Individuals


(Michael Wortman) #168

I don’t know, George. There were a lot of rumors of Nazis fleeing to that area of the world after WWII. :slight_smile:


(David) #169

I don’t know George. You know how I feel about conversational therapy (and you don’t even charge me for it).

It seems though that when I do talk about it (like my comment about Pete’s hypocritical stand on his Creator), some people get all butt hurt, cry irrelevant, and then run to the @webEd.

It looks to me like some folks can say irrelevant and others can’t. Where I come from they call that a kangaroo court. That’s not good for anyone’s therapeutic relief. What it has proven to me is that there is nothing fair and balanced about Spectrum.

I think the bottom line is what Christ referred to in John 7:7.

“The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.”

The world is clammoring to invade the church. It’s no mystery George. It’s inevitable, and I’m at peace with it because I know what the end result will be.


(Bryan Ness) #170

I don’t know about “butt hurt,” I just felt it was irrelevant and said so. As for the @WebEd, I have no idea what that is about, since I didn’t complain to anyone. They must have intervened of their own accord. It appears that my response has also been deleted. One should not judge others based on circumstantial evidence like this.


(David) #171

I could draw you a picture George but I don’t think the webEd would appreciate it.

@GeorgeTichy


(Carol June Hooker) #172

Finally! Thank you, Swedish Union!


(David) #173

Me thinks your proposal misses the mark Elmer (I know you meant it TIC). But it brings up a good point about purity (I sure hope purity isn’t off topic in this discussion-it’s getting as bad as F7).

Genetic testing won’t purify the church. It is only the acceptance of God’s word that purifies. The antithesis of that is, the rejection of God’s word putrefies.

"You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you". (John 15:3)

…as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her that He might sanctify and cleanse her with with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. (Ephesians 5:25-27)

You be the judge Elmer. Do you reject God’s word regarding the proscription against gay sex?

@elmer_cupino


(Bryan Ness) #174

You keep making this point, when the Bible makes no such claim. According to “tradition” the Bible proscribes all same-sex sexual behavior, but are we to rely solely on tradition when interpreting the Bible? What about present truth? I would hope that as we learn more from nature, God’s second book, remember, that we would then want to use what we learn there to take a fresh look at what the Bible says in that new light.

The Bible also condones slavery. Thankfully many Christians have been able to see that in spite of this, slavery is wrong. The Bible also says we are to stone children who disobey their parents. Thankfully we have gotten past that as well.


(David) #175

Do you reject God’s word regarding the proscription against gay sex?

I wish you would make up your mind Bryan. You were right the second time.


#176

In Bryan’s defense, you left off the first and important part of his sentence:

In fact, you missed the entire point of his entire sentence.

Forgive me, but it seems you might have been trying to make a joke, but to Bryan this seems dead serious.

He was contrasting “tradition” and “progressive truth” and “new light.”


(Bryan Ness) #177

Are you trying to be funny, or do you just find it difficult to quote in context?

You assume God has proscribed same-sex sexual behavior, I do not assume that. So, no, I do not reject God’s proscription since it is not clear that he has proscribed it. I simply conclude that God, being the loving and just being he is, that he fully blesses same-sex sexual behavior within a committed, monogamous relationship (i.e., marriage), the same as he does within heterosexual marriage. Now, if that doesn’t make clear where I stand, I am not sure what else to say.


(Bryan Ness) #178

I prefer to see it as live serious.:wink:


(David) #179

There is no tradition involved. The texts speak for themselves. That’s the wonder of being able to read.

Romans 1:26-27. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful.

2 Pet… 3:3, scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,

No, I dismissed it. It was an invalid point. Tradition has nothing to do with the proscription of gay sex or the understanding of texts that proscribe gay sex.

Bryan,
Please refer to the quote by Paul above. (Warning) The last time somebody read that quote they nearly blew a gasket.


#180

With all due respect, you sound patronizing. Just what is progressive truth in your view?

When you are dismissive of people who are experiencing the issue, you seem not to be able to defend your own idea. I’d like to hear your response to progressive truth. While it is obvious you disagree with Bryan, perhaps you could explain.


(Bryan Ness) #181

Several things need to be recognized here. Firstly, Paul is not describing behavior between two committed, monogamous men. How could he, since same-sex marriage did not exist in Roman times. Therefore, this couple of verses has little to say about same-sex marriage and sex in that context.

Secondly, Paul is assuming that same-sex attraction is against nature, as all people believed at that time. The assumption is that men like this were just looking for more opportunities to have sex. It was not until the 20th century that we have come to recognize that some men do, by nature, have a sexual attraction for other men. Note I say “by nature,” i.e. it is based on natural, biologically based sexual attraction. It is only out of biological ignorance that anyone today can say that same-sex attraction is unnatural.

Third, the bulk of Romans chapter 1 is almost certainly not the words of Paul. Most theologians believe, based on context and the linguistic differences, that Paul is quoting an extended diatribe often used to whip the faithful into better moral behavior. No one knows who the author is, and it doesn’t really matter, since Paul’s purpose seems to be to entrap the reader into feeling superior. The reader, presumably a devout believer, reads this list of sins, and what a list!, and begins to feel like, oh boy, look how bad those other people are. I’m glad I’m not like them. Then Paul springs the trap in Chapter 2, v. 1: ​ You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.

So, point number three makes clear that Paul’s point in chapter 1 is not to share with believers a list of dos and don’ts. It is a rhetorical device. Whether things on the list are actually right or wrong is not the point. Oh, and by the way, by quoting from chapter 1 as you have, and using your quote as a way to cast judgement on gays, you have fallen right into Paul’s trap. Maybe you should now read Romans 2 and see what Paul suggests you need to do.

You didn’t bold this, but I thought it worth also commenting on it.

In the original Greek this is by no means a clear-cut statement. It has often been assumed to refer to lesbians, but since this would then be absolutely the only text anywhere in the Bible to mention lesbians, one needs to carefully consider other possible meanings. One interpretation, completely consistent with the Greek is that the writer is describing women who take the dominant role in a sexual encounter. Within the culture of the time women were to be subservient to men, including in sexual encounters, and for a woman to behave in a dominant fashion would have been seen as contrary to nature. Now, I realize, that in our more enlightened times no one would fault a women for taking the lead in the bedroom, so this interpretation may not occur to most people.


(Elmer Cupino) #183

I will answer the first part (proscription) of your loaded question and like Mueller will leave the second part (gay sex) unanswered. Like Paul’s circumcision dilemma, I reject the church’s blanket interpretation of homosexuality because I am convinced our gender and sex identity foundations are influenced by factors even before birth. Our church policy which is not supported by nature was formulated by sincere men without medical training who have no business pontificating in medical aspects of sex development.

I choose to refrain from answering the second part because it won’t make any difference what my opinion is regarding someone’s sexual activities. Besides I do not remember any church officer/leader asking me what my sexual activities are, so I should not do likewise.


(George Tichy) #184

Yes, a couple of them. But they drank way too much coffee down there and died because of it… LOL…


(Bryan Ness) #188

Not sure what more I can say. I don’t feel a great need to continue defending my position. I have carefully reviewed the last text you shared and showed why it does not address the issue of same-sex marriage. You have not even engaged with my arguments (I guess you do a little, in your second response). Apparently you have dismissed them out of hand. Do you not believe that it is valuable to carefully read Biblical texts in their original language and cultural contexts? Surely the textual context is also important, or do you think that isn’t important either?

Just sit down and read Romans 1 & 2 straight through without stopping. Don’t you notice what Paul is doing in these chapters? Paul is trying to tell his readers to stop judging others and recognize one’s own need of redemption. Considering that context, it is inappropriate to use isolated texts in Romans 1 to judge others’ behavior. That is missing Paul’s whole point, whether or not any of those individual statements say what traditional interpretations claim for them.

And you are completely misusing these verses. I hate to be repetitive, but: ​ You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Romans 2:1.


(Charlie) #195

You think that homosexual orientation is a behaviour and this where you are wrong. Sexual orientation is an attraction that is distinct from a decision to act on that attraction. It is not sinful to be attracted to someone.


(Charlie) #196

Is it immoral for a married man to have sex with this partner?


(Charlie) #197

I’m wondering what is considered a sin for gay people too.
Can I kiss another man if I’m gay? I’m thinking that’s something Paul recommended.
Can I hold another man’s hand if I’m gay?
Can I share a house with another man if I’m gay?
Can I be friends with another man if I’m gay?
Can I love another man if I’m gay?
Can I sleep in the same bed?
Can we cuddle?
What is considered sex if thou are a gay man?
Who will conduct these interrogations?