David f

'You wrote that I quote scripture wrongly. I quoted it exactly as it is written.

You are right. My apologies again.It is your interpretation that is clearly wrong. It contradicts the rest of Scripture and is a classic case of twisting a meaning to fit a view.

You write that the nature of marriage changes. I disagree. God allowed polygamy for a period of time due to the hardness of man's heart. His orginal intention was stated clearly in Genesis and endorsed by Jesus.

Rhian

you write 'Paul’s word is not necessarily God’s word.'

You may pick and choose what is God's Word but I won't. Again whenever instructions are given by Paul or Peter regarding marriage it is addressed to husbands and wives.

You also write
'At the very least, surely you recognise this passage can be interpreted different ways.

Scripture has always been interpreted in different ways. I am in no way hoping any homosexuals go to hell anymore than I would hope any fornicators or adulterers go to hell. One however has to twist the Scriptures that comes to any other conclusion. Thankfully Christ hung on a cross for sinners. We all have the opportunity to repent. Refusing to call sin sin blinds one to the need of Calvary.

Good morning. Interesting discussion. Thank you. Just a few questions.
Rhian, is there anything else in Paul’s New Testament writings besides women’s clothing and silence in church which you think may not be inspired by God, or not consistent with the message of Jesus?
Runner, would you agree that the Church throughout history has often misunderstood the intention of the writers of Scripture and the Spirit that inspired them? And that the work of the Church in each generation has been to correct past errors of translation and interpretation?
David f, would you agree that the accounts of David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi suggest possible same-sex relationships but don’t actually confirm them definitively?

Dear runner,

You wrote: "God allowed polygamy."

That is absolute nonsense. The morals of a particular people at a particular time allowed polygamy. That is not the word of God.

Equating your superstition with the word of God is rubbish.

To take a book full of ancient myths and legends and say it is the word of God is merely superstition.

Muslims, Christians, Jews, Bahai'is and others all claim to have the word of God. Why prefer your superstition to the other superstitions?

Dear Alan,

Yes, I would say that. Same sex relationships are suggested but not confirmed. The suggestion in the case of David and Jonathan is very strong.

Alan you ask

'Runner, would you agree that the Church throughout history has often misunderstood the intention of the writers of Scripture and the Spirit that inspired them? And that the work of the Church in each generation has been to correct past errors of translation and interpretation?'

By and large the work of the church is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Essentially it is to present and offer to people salvation and forgiveness for their sins through repentance. Changing the definition of what the bible clearly calls sin leads only to deception.

Where error has been in the church it should be the work of theologians to bring correction. It is also up to true believers to defend the faith and not allow perverted men to corrupt what is plain. It is what men know that they need to be concerned about not what they don't know. The gospel message in itself has been and always will be very simple except to those who deliberately corrupt it. Unfortunately much of the mainstream 'çhurch'has a lot to answer for simply because they have ignored the plain teachings of Scripture larely due to sin and unbelief.

Thanks, Runner. I actually agree with every substantial point in that post.
I certainly agree that ‘Changing the definition of what the bible clearly calls sin leads only to deception.’
Where we disagree is whether or not same sex marriage is ‘what the bible clearly calls sin’. I have recently joined the growing numbers of believers, including theologians (which I am definitely not), rethinking this.
In my youth, I fervently believed blacks were inferior, suicides could not have a Christian burial, a divorcee could never remarry, drinking a glass of wine with a meal was evil, women could never teach men, baptism by immersion was essential for salvation, all Catholics were bound for hell and Anglicans were mostly in serious error. All based on clear Biblical passages I could readily recite.
Before my time, the church condemned Galileo as a heretic for claiming the earth revolved around the sun. It burned alive Giordano Bruno for claiming that the universe is infinite. Thousands of unfortunates with mental illnesses were tortured or killed for demon possession. Alfred Loisy was excommunicated for teaching that the Genesis creation stories were not literal history. All these actions were based on very clear, simple, straightforward texts. Every one.
Yes, the passages you have quoted on homosexuality seem to be clear. But so do those declaring the sun rises and sets. And those that speak of demons. Science forced the church to rework its interpretation of certain passages - in astronomy, mental illness and various other fields. This is happening now in human sexuality.
As Rhian posted here last December after another article, ‘modern understanding is that homosexuality is not a choice, is not a reversible condition, is not harmful, and most of all is as integral to the being and person of gays as heterosexual orientation is to straights. This means that past prejudices against homosexuality were ill-founded. It is no sin to be who God made you.’
This fresh insight from science is forcing scholars to look at the texts again. In theological halls around the world we are increasingly hearing ‘Oops!’