Don we now our gay apparel? (God hates figs?): Stringfellow on a theologically absurd question

“to do with that peculiar state of beign bestowed upon men by God….”

With the … I would include by ones faith in Christ’s death and resurrection. I will say with regard to the term “homosexuality” I would add the word “practicing”. To become a Christian also requires repentence. “If you confess your sins He is Faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness.” “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation.”

At one time there was a pretty live question in the church about whether you could be a Christian and be a soldier in the Roman Army.

Stringfellow would say, yes. Some Christian fathers and some contemporary pacifists would say, no. I think they say no because they believe conduct is a part of Christian identity. You can’t cease to be beloved by God, but you can set aside the identity - the new life - that is put on in Christ. For some Christians killing other human beings - for any reason - is a violation of Christian identity and therefore places you outside the community of faith.

Isn’t that the basis on which many traditionalists argue their point on homosexuality?

The point they raise is not whether homosexuality is a state of being. Many (most?) would say there is nothing incompatible with being a Christian and having a certain set of sexual attractions. (Even perfectionist Wesleyans acknowledge that sin remains in the person even after it ceases to reign in him or her.) It is how people act on those attractions that raise problems for our Christian identity.

You can turn back the traditional argument by saying the behaviors they identify are not, in fact, the kinds of behavior that conflict with “being a Christian,” but I don’t think it is reasonable to suggest there is no such class of behaviors. You can reject your baptismal identity by the things you do, can’t you?

It seems to me that Stringfellow avoids the argument by the way he frames his point.

Nice title, very festive!

“Scripture is clear that there is no such thing as concensual loving homosexual sex.”

Not quite true. Scripture never mentions it. It mentions various forms of same-sex activity, which it condemns, but it never addresses the question of the relationship.

We’ve been round these mulberry bushes before, and I have no time to engage in a debate over the details of translation and exegesis. I simply want to make the point that there is a difference between ‘not affirming’ and ‘condemning’. Essentially, it’s the difference of approach (simply caricatured) between Luther and Calvin: Luther would allow what scripture didn’t forbid, while Calvin would forbid what scripture did not explicitly permit. You’d be quite right, DH, to say that scripture doesn’t affirm or permit loving consensual homosexual relationships; neither does it actually forbid it, because it never addresses the issue in those terms. Yours is an argument from silence.

Tony, it doesn’t need to when homosexuality is specifically mentioned and in light of the clear definitive definitions declared in Romans 1 “exchanging the natural uses”, etc., etc. Romans 1 by the very words in the chapter cover ALL forms of homosexual activity whatever it may be.

Romans 1 by mentions clearly that all forms of practicing homosexuality is sin. period

Tony and Kim are “adding to Scripture” by saying God approves of homosexual relationships. Yours is an argument of adding to Scripture.

Tony, it doesn’t beg the question for the reasons are not due to neglecting to mention it but how Romans 1 specifically mentions “exchanging the natural uses”. “Exchanging the natural uses” includes ALL aspects of homosexuality. There is no other way to interpret it in light of what Romans 1 specifically says.

Well Beth how else would you suggest to take “exchanging natural uses of the man for the women and natural uses of the woman for the man.”? I how it is clear to you that it isn’t ALL aspects. I’m not trying “to attack gay sex” I’m just pointing out that “exchanging natural uses” can only refer to all forms of homosexual sex. Just because the specific things seem to not be mentioned doesn’t mean that from a contextual standpoint and a literary standpoint that the only way to look at Romans 1 is “all aspects of homosexuality”.

The passage cannot be looked at as vague.

Read this from one of my favorite intellectuals:

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5301

“Don we now our gay apparel” - the Sydney Mardi Gras (held in March each year) always has some great outfits. I especially liked Joyce Maynge’s ensemble this year, very tasteful.

Thanks fat prophet.
Joyce is a fashionista and style icon, with a very quirky turn of phrase, who does not acknowledge bigotry or prejudice. I like her/him. Hope everyone at Connexions has a great Christmas!

Kim, homosexuals when practicing the sin are reporbates. I also don’t believe I need to say that I need to have an attitude on Romans 1 “Does Not Apply”. All people are reprobate and need repentence whoever they may be and homosexuality is a sin just like all of the other sins you mentioned “wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless”.

You can say all you want that I’m not consistent but it is you that is not consistent in reference to Romans 1 in that you believe that practicing homosexuality is not a sin when in fact it is “exchanging natural uses” is what it exactly says. When one practices homosexuality one is “exchanging natural uses” when one is not but has desires for that but is what Pauls calls “eunuch” then one is not “exchanging natural usues”. The term “uses” is something that is acted upon not the desire itself. So it is you Kim that is taking Romans 1 out of context. I will say that those who are “practicing homosexuals” do fall into the “progression of sin” that is mentioned in Romans 1.

Tim, did you read my url from Lee Stroble? It is clear that is referring to any practicing homosexual activity. “It says exchange the natural uses of the woman for the man” as well as “exchanging the natural uses of the man for the woman”. Scripture is very clear that it is practicing homosexual activity. I agree with St. Augustine but the passages includes way more than that in light of ALL of the passages in Scripture regarding homosexual activity.

With regard to charging interest Scripture mentions the term “usary” which is defined as interest above and beyond what market interest for a current risk category. So it is plain.

dh, the true meaning of Christmas (again) - that God became one like us. And Joyce Maynge is one of us. I thank God for that.
Instead of getting hung up on dissecting peoples’ sexual sins why not just “accept” and “love” and let God do the hard work of knowing what’s in their hearts. Can I implore you to enjoy the feast!

Pam, maybe I misunderstood, but Joyce Maygne is not God.

Pam, I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I do not “accept” and “love” people with whatever sin they may have. I will say Scripture says “By their fruit you shall know them.” If a person is attempting unrepentent sin then if we truly care about people we would desire to help people away from that sin. I will add more importantly that we take care of our sin first. However, our care for people is to include helping people away from whatever sin it may be.

Unrepentent sin is a sign of what is in a person’s heart. I will add though that we must show extreme care and softness on these issues and I appreciate (while I might disagree a little bit) your admonishment.

Acceptence and love does not include the actions that are sin. That is not being “hung up” but caring about people. I know people hate this statement but it is true one CAN love the person but hate the sin.

And for anyone who may be interested all of my statements and responses are the total opposite of those who hold up signs “God hates f_g’s” (I hope people will appreciate how I didn’t state the word. It is a word that should not be mentioned just like the n-word.

‘With regard to charging interest Scripture mentions the term “usary” which is defined as interest above and beyond what market interest for a current risk category. So it is plain.’

By who is it so defined? Not by the Council of Nicea, I know that. It forbad clergy from lending money at interest, period, and later decrees extended this to laity as well. The third Lateran Council in 1179 decreed that those who accepted interest on loans could receive neither the sacraments nor Christian burial, and in 1311 the Pope declared that belief in the legitimacy of charging interest was a heresy.

So it may be plain to you, DH, but your understanding runs counter to that of the church for much of its history.

The Council of Nicea is rejected because it is ‘Catholic’? Too bad about the Nicene Creed then. And if you’re rejecting decisions of 4th century councils as being too ‘Catholic’ then your Bible is in trouble, since no list of New Testament books identical to our current 27 exists until the late fourth century. Remind me to send you copies of the Shepherd of Hermas and Clement to add to your New Testament.

I think I have just sinned! I really did want to get hold of dh and give him a shake or a kicking - he seems to have this wonderful ability to only read what he wants to read or hear what he wants to hear and if he doesn’t like it he seems to shut it out.
I sometimes think that no amount of reasoning or measured argument will ever have any effect on him.
I think the word I am looking for is intransigence - perhaps Kim can help me as he knows lots of interesting words!

Tim & Tony,

Thanks to you both for excellent points well made.

Another scriptural example is pacifism. Jesus says far more about violence and peaceful responses than he does about sexuality. Jesus has very clear challenges to violence (love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you, …).

Yet Christians are far less likely to take Jesus seriously on violence than they are to condemn homosexuality which he did not condemn (or directly address at all).

Tony, love your “straw-men” regarding homosexuality and divorce statements.

In what way are they straw men? As far as I can see, there is a valid question there, which you’re sidestepping:
- you want to stick to what the Bible says about homosexuality;
- you ignore what the Bible says about divorce and remarriage.
Is there inconsistency there, or not?

“a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”

How is divorce similar to homosexuality? What does divorce have to do with homoszexuality? the fact is they don’t have anything to do with each other. Hense the strawman.

Tim, here is the reason:

A. Written by an apostle vs. non-apostles:

Tertullian, the “Father of Latin Theology” (ca. 160-225), witnesses to the authority of writings in the Western church. He stressed the criterion of apostolicity. For example, in his writing Against Marcion he clearly distinguishes gospels of apostolic origin and gospels written by disciples of apostles. He writes: “Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.”" Tertullian did not produce a list of what was in his Old Testament and New Testament, but it is significant that he refers to the two parts of the Christian Bible in a collective way as totttm instrumentum utriusque testamenti. It seems that what we may call his “New Testament canon” included the four gospels, thirteen Pauline letters, Acts, 1 John, 1 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. He referred to these writings in an authoritative manner, and called them an “entire volume.”" He names the main parts of the New Testament “Gospels” and “the Apostles,” the latter phrase probably denoting the apostolic letters .41 Once again, we note that the boundaries of the apostolic letters are not defined with certainty, but this should not prevent us from seeing that for Tertullian the Bible was a “fixed entity.” (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Peter Balla, Evidence for an Early Christian Canon: Second and Third Century, p 382, 2002)
B. What was read aloud in weekly assemblies:

What was read in the congregation was probably a key factor in most cases, but even this phenomenon needs differentiation. We have seen that books not in our canon today were widely read by early Christians. However, this does not necessarily mean that they too were regarded as authoritative. The Muratorian Fragment shows that the Shepherd of Hermas was suggested as reading-matter, yet it was accorded a lesser authority and was not to be read “publicly in the church,” because it had been written more recently (lines 77-78). Even the Festal Letter of Athanasius (from 367 C.E., containing a clear acknowledgement of the New Testament canon of twenty-seven books) permits the reading of other literature, including the Shepherd of Hermas. The early church possessed literature edifying as reading matter as well as writings with a higher authority. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Peter Balla, Evidence for an Early Christian Canon: Second and Third Century, p 385, 2002)
Use: The regular use of writings in the ancient churches was also an important factor in their selection for the New Testament canon. This is what Eusebius had in mind when he mentioned that certain writings were “recognized” (homolegoumena) among the churches and became “encovenanted” (endiathekoi = “testamented” or “canonical”). 64 The wide-spread use of the New Testament writings in the churches may have been the most determinative factor in the canonical process. The fact that the authorship of Hebrews was strongly questioned, yet it made it into the New Testament canon, suggests that churches were reluctant to dismiss a useful and cherished document. An important factor was who was favorable toward the acceptance of a document and who was not. Athanasius and Epiphanius, for instance, would have had a greater influence on the church than many lesser known figures. Also, larger churches in the metropolitan centers such as Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Ephesus, and the New Rome, Constantinople, were more likely to have a greater influence on which books were included than were the smaller churches in rural areas. While most New Testament writings were known and used by most of the churches in Eusebius’s day, doubt lingered over others. These “disputed” (antilegomena) writings included James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, probably Revelation, and possibly Hebrews. Notice for example, how Eusebius acknowledges wide acceptance of 1 John, but is reluctant to accept 2 and 3 John and Revelation. For him, the Gospel of John and 1 John have been “accepted without controversy by ancients and moderns alike but the other two are disputed, and as to the Revelation there have been many advocates of either opinion up to the present. This, too, shall be similarly illustrated by quotations from the ancients at the proper time .” [Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.25.1-7] This shows his considerable interest in what the majority of churches concluded about the matter of canon. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Lee Martin McDonald, Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question, p 432, 2002)
C. What was consistent and contradiction free:

Third, Barton maintains that if a writing was believed to be scripture, it was also was believed to be internally self-consistent and not self-contradictory. For example, in Justin’s famous Dialogue with Trypho, he admonishes that if Trypho had spoken ill of the scriptures in error or without ill intent, he would be forgiven, but, ‘if you have done so because you imagined that you could throw doubt on the passage, in order that I might say the scriptures contradicted one another, you have erred. But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing, and if a scripture that appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext for saying that it is contrary to some other, since I am entirely convinced that no scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the scriptures are contradictory to be rather of the same opinion as myself.’ (Adapted from Trypho 65.2, ANF) (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Lee Martin McDonald, Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question, p 421, 2002)
D. What reinforced the consensus of belief:

Orthodoxy: This theological concern led the early church to employ the “rule of faith” as the criterion of “orthodoxy” to determine which writings could be used in the church. Bishop Serapion (ca. 200) rejected the reading of the Gospel of Peter in church because of this criterion of truth. When asked by the church at Rhossus … whether the Gospel of Peter could be read in their services, he at first agreed because it had an apostle’s name attached. But later he reversed his decision saying, “since I have now learnt, from what has been told me, that their [the authors'] mind was lurking in some hole of heresy, I shall give diligence to come again to you; wherefore, brethren expect me quickly.” His rejection was based upon the book’s divergence from what was generally accepted as true in the churches. It was not because of its questionable authorship, though that may have played a small role, but because the theology was considered out of step with the “rule of faith” operating in the church. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Lee Martin McDonald, Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question, p 428, 2002)
E. What was written during the apostolic age:

Antiquity: The traditional understanding of canon formation is that the church at first recognized only the Old Testament writings as scripture. Later, as the Gospels and Epistles (at first only Paul’s) began to circulate among the churches they too were accorded scriptural status. Barton, however, challenges the traditional view, noting that in the first two centuries Christians generally referred to their own writings more than to the Old Testament. They did not cite the Old Testament equally until it was becoming finalized for the church. He also notes that during the second century, “all but a very few Old Testament books (such as Isaiah or the Psalms) already play second fiddle to the Christians’ own writings.”" Nevertheless, he acknowledges that antiquity played a significant role in society in the ancient world; a religion’s antiquity enhanced its credibility. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Lee Martin McDonald, Identifying Scripture and Canon in the Early Church: The Criteria Question, p 430, 2002)
F. Augustine indicates a balance between “scale of use” between smaller vs. larger, more prominent churches:

“Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.” (Augustine, Book 2, Chapter 8, The Canonical Books)

http://www.letusreason.org/RC15.htm

Tim, I didn’t prove your point. The fact is the standard that set about the 27 NT books was God-breathed and as such are God-breathed canon.

This url explains this:

http://www.letusreason.org/RC15.htm

Kim, you are way too punny. At least I didn’t say nor I would ever accuse you or anyone else here as being puny.

…and for that reason the God-breathed canon that set in place the 27 books make the 27 books God-breathed. When I state “standards for the canon” I’m refering to the “criteria” you mentioned. There were other criteria as well that were included totalling a total of 7 criteria(4 addtional) but for length I’ll save listing them.

The criteria for canon of the 27 books was set up by God and given to the authority of the church. So there is no “denying the authority of the church” by myself. You cannot deny that it is God who establishes the authority of the church and in reference to the canon of His Word what criteria, authority, etc. of God’s Word and the church was God-breathed at the time of the canon of the 27 books.

BTW, just because you have tried the arguments and found them wanting and have discarded them doesn’t mean that you were correct to do that.

“However, that might just be the crusty old curmudgeon in me!” (in reference to grammer of the url post) Well that is you saying that about yourself not me.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/NicoleRogerCanonNT.htm

DH: “How is divorce similar to homosexuality? What does divorce have to do with homoszexuality? the fact is they don’t have anything to do with each other. Hense the strawman.”

They are similar - indeed directly analogous - in that they are both forbidden by scripture (on your reading of the text). So in fact (as I argued in the first place) they are very closely related. Now please answer the question: you refuse to recognise homosexuality on the grounds that it is forbidden by scripture - do you also reject divorce and remarriage on the same grounds?

dh you have just proved that you do not read what other people have written - in the story I wrote above I did not say St Peter looked surprised I said that the other people in heaven looked surprised and the man asked St Peter why they were.
I have to say that I am well aware of the ability of any sinner to repent and of the fact that God loves us so much that he sent his Son to die for us, enabling us to be freed from the tyranny of sin.
I was tempted to say much more but will refrain from doing so at this point given that my story was misread anything else I say may also be.

OK, let’s try again, and see if you actually get it this time. I didn’t ask you about divorce. I asked you about divorce and remarriage. As you say, divorce is permitted under certain circumstances, but remarriage is categorically not permitted (Mt.5:32). The question I asked what seems so many months ago was about the issue of remarriage of divorcees, which is accepted by many evangelicals. I repeat what I wrote VERY carefully above:
- you want to stick to what the Bible says about homosexuality;
- you ignore what the Bible says about divorce AND REMARRIAGE.
Is there inconsistency there, or not?

“Perhaps there will be a lot of people in heaven who we would write off as being unsuitable because of their lifestyle etc. we would do well to remember that all have sin and and come short of the glory of God.” Of course all men are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God. Scripture makes this very clear. At issue is those who profess faith in Christ yet persist in a reprobate lifestyle condemned in Scripture. They are without excuse. This applies to any and all without respect to the particular lifestyle which they seek to justify and privilege over Scripture.

“If I was a a person who commit some other related sin I would say I was left with a life of pleasure for not being able to commit that sin.”

typo rephrase:

If I was a a person who commited some other related sin I would NOT say I was NOT left with a life of pleasure for not being able to commit that sin.

sorry it is humpday

At issue is those who profess faith in Christ yet persist in a reprobate lifestyle condemned in Scripture. They are without excuse. This applies to any and all without respect to the particular lifestyle which they seek to justify and privilege over Scripture.

Well, that gives me lots of leeway, doesn’t it? According to the Scriptures, if God tells me to commit genocide against a whole race of people, including their tiny babies, it’s okay for me to do that. It’s okay for me to have multiple wives. It’s okay for me to sell my daughter into slavery, but I need to be careful about asking the women I work with to let me know when they’re having their periods, because I’m not allowed to touch them at that time of the month. I’m allowed to possess male and female slaves so long as they don’t come from my own nation; I can take the folks from neighbouring nations, though.

Mind you, if I want to avoid being a reprobate there are some things I need to be more careful about. If I do any work on Saturdays (the Sabbath) I’m supposed to be put to death. If I hear someone blaspheming the name of the Lord I’m supposed to gather the whole community together and stone him to death. I’m not supposed to trim the hair around my temples or the edges of my beard, nor am I supposed to mix two kinds of material in the same article of clothing (polyester-cotton shirts, anyone?). I’m supposed to live to every single person who asks me, and if my enemy attacks me I’m not allowed to fight back - I have to love him instead. If I’m a woman I’m supposed to cover my head in church; if I’m a man I’m not allowed to have long hair because it is a disgrace for a man. If my marriage is falling apart I’m not allowed to divorce and remarry, with the one and only exception of adultery. If I employ people I’m supposed to pay them on a daily basis - none of this monthly pay cheque business. And let’s not forget that old chestnut: I’m not allowed to lend money at interest to one of my own people.

So tell me, Earl, how do you pick and choose which bits of the Bible you have to obey and which ones you’re free to ignore without being called a reprobate? Inquiring minds want to know.

DH: “I refuse to answer peoples questions that are catch-22. I never do that to people and I think I deserve the respect of the same.”

Actually, with such an ignorant and obscurantist position, not only do you deserve no respect, you deserve utter scorn. How dare you address me in such ignorant terms! “Straw man” “red herring” - I have seldom read such rot.

I will state my case just once more, as simply as possible. If you cannot see it, then I will leave you to your ignorant blindness, and regretfully concede that you are an irredeemable pharisee.

I have offered you two analogous issues. In each case, the issue appears to be clearly condemned by scripture. In the one case, most allegedly Bible-believing Christians follow what they see to be the biblical position, in the other they do the opposite. This is neither a red herring nor a straw man, but a very clear case of an approach to the Bible which is at best divergent and at worst inconsistent and hypocritical. All this utter guff about straw man or red herring arguments is nothing more than a defensive smokescreen to cover your ignominious retreat from a question you cannot answer.

Now, there is a gauntlet thrown down, and I challenge you to pick it up. If you can give me a good and clear explanation for the different approaches to these issues, then I will apologise fulsomely for my harsh words and accept that you do speak in good faith. If you refuse to attempt it, then you will be seen by the world-wide readership of this blog for the pharisee and coward that you will have shown yourself to be. It’s up to you, your choice, and yours alone.

Tim, I never said that having the temptation to act upon homosexual desires are not difficult.

You mentioned “it’s about who you’re wired to love.” Thats where I disagree with you. One might be tempted but that seems a whole lot different than “wired”.

Did you read this previously?” “All temptations to sin, however strong, is very difficult and my responses are never meant to diminish them like so many Evangelicals do. The promises of God’s Word are clear “No temptation has taken you but such as one can bear: but God is Faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that you areable; but will with that temptation make also the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” 1 Cor 10:13
That goes for any temptation to sin whether it be sexual or not, big or small in mans eyes.”

Tony, I can choose to answer or not answer questions as I see fit. Richard and Kim do the same to me all of the time aka Methodist report on Israeli/Palestinian relations. They said they “answered the question” but they didn’t. I at the time was taken back as are you to myself but over time I realize and I hope you do to that no one can force people to answer questions they don’t want to answer. At the same time one should not react that the person is “hostile, Pharisee, ignorant, in denial, etc., etc.” I know I originally thought that way on the non-answer to Kim and Richard but I have sense changed and it is not an issue with me and no big deal. I hope that you would feel the same toward me. If there is a question from myself to you that you don’t want to answer fine, its no big deal. On this “ease up broskie”. (figure of speach )

dh said: You mentioned “it’s about who you’re wired to love.” Thats where I disagree with you. One might be tempted but that seems a whole lot different than “wired”.

dh, I think that when it comes to deciding on the physical and psychological makeup of gay and lesbian people, I’ll listen to their account of what it’s like, rather than listening to your account of what you think it’s like. You obviously have absolutely no understanding of what it feels like to be gay or lesbian. I suggest you go back to those gay and lesbian friends of yours and ask them to tell you what it’s like. A good way to start would be to ask them why they think the rate of attempted suicide among gay and lesbian teens is generally considered to be four times higher than average.

I am very near to sinning again and using some not very nice words to at least two of the contributors to this string of comments (No Tim not you).
I have however decided not to be drawn into responding on the basis that whatever anyone seems to say on this topic is either misread or misinterpreted by those reading.
I just hope that if I ever make it to heaven I will be able to ask God what he thinks in respect of this topic.
btw thanks Kim for your last comment!

Fat Prophet, well what is great is that God has already answered and has told us what He thinks aregarding those questions on this side of heaven. I’m glad I haven’t misread or misunderstood what you have said. Whoever the surprise in heaven is in reference to the surprise wouldn’t be there if people truly knew, in reference to where the surprise was directed to, if they had repented or not. I personally wouldn’t be surprised to see homosexual who repented in heaven. I might be surprised if I didn’t know they had repented and turned away. Once that is know determines if I would be surprised or not.

aaaaaaarrrrrrgh!!!!!!!!!!!

..and no one can say that I single out one particular sin. My response in reference to temptation works Scripturally to whatever sin. You name the sin and the response is the same. Thank God that He loves us and made a way for us to repent and be clean from that sin. Otherwise, like Paul states, “we, above all, would be most miserable.”

You can’t say I single out homosexuality as a sin when there are thousands of sins in the Bible in the NT outside of the Mosaic Law that are just as bad as homosexuality that I equally do not condone.

“Either way, the rest of us will draw our own conclusions.” There you go, pointing out your “catch-22″ questions which no one should ever have to be forced to answer. Man, I’m so glad I’m “putting you off” you just proved my point with regard to “catch-22″ and I refuse to have anyone put me in a box.

…not unlike Kim and Richard to me regarding Israeli/Palestinian relations on the Methodist report. The only difference is they attempted to answer although it wasn’t an answer.

“I am so reassured to know that the Starsky and Hutch of the Lord’s sex police are in the neighbourhood.” Hum… taking your thought to its logical conclusion, in equating some with the police are you equating others as criminals?

Kim, as you already know, account in my usage is defined as “give an account” as opposed to a bank account. However, I totally appreciate good puns from a punny guy as yourself.

Even though Tony, Kim and Richard we strongly disagree, I know that if we were face to face that we all could enjoy a drink together (myself a cola due to being a teetodler) with no problem.

With that may all have a wonderful New Year and may we all strive to be more like Christ and what God says in His Word everyday.

God Bless all in 2011

Hum… I’d probably take a R.C. Cola … and a moonpie!

Tim, I’m sorry, I never meant to leave you out in this figurative “get together” (although it would be nice if we were able to physically do this in real life). You should know that I would make sure to invite you too.

Earl, RC Cola and a moonpie sounds great. For you Brits who may not know what a “moonpie” is, it is not poop that was made by US astronauts on the moon 31 years ago but an actual pie. It is a sandwich of two round soft graham crackers that have been fully dipped in chocolate with marshmellow fluff in the center and then chocolate covering that covering the sandwich. Very tasty.

Earl, did I explain it well?

Tim, are you any relation to one of my favorite theologians G.K Chesterton? This has been on my mind for awhile but for some strange reason I have never asked it.

Well, I’m sipping a whisky right now - nothing flash, just a nice blend (saving the single malt for later), so I’ll say “L’chaim!” even to DH, who’s just called me a swine. And bottled out of answering the question again.

You assure me you CAN answer. I don’t believe you. I don’t see any answer to the question I pose which will be adequate. Go on, prove me wrong!

Also a Moonpie in South Korea (for all you Koreans out there) goes by ChocoPie. (My wife is a gorgeous Korean-American so that is how I happen to know)

DH: “However, I am NOT lying and I kind of take issue with indirectly being accused of being a liar. However, I’m willing to let bygones be bygones. Again Tony, I just don’t feel like answering the question and I don’t feel like I need to “prove anything” to you.”

So, it’s OK for you to call me a swine, but not OK for me to say I don’t believe you. And you challenge anyone who disagrees with your stance on scripture, so that by implication we have to prove ourselves to you, but you feel no need to prove your case to others.

As you wish. Whatever you feel you may or may not need to say, others reading your excuses will draw their own conclusions. I’m a nice guy, and very, very patient. But I’ve had more intelligent exchanges with brick walls.