The wages of sin is death

I’m not sure I understand the relevance of that point to the current discussion.

So how would you describe this category?

And is it a Biblical category? Is everything that you’d include in it put together in the Bible somewhere? Are the punishments for doing things in this category consistent?

If you wish to single out a Biblical category then I’d go for the word ‘porneia’ (translated ‘sexual immorality in the NIV and I think ‘fornication’ in others). It envisages all sins of a sexual nature.

In the OT, for reasons too complex to get into, the punishment is different for differet types of offences. But suffice to say, in the NT, there’s one ‘punishment’ for porneia (as for all sins including selfish ambition and fits of rage) - exclusion from the kingdom of God (c.f. Gal 5.19). This is not to say that all sins are unequal seriousness, but to say that all sins are equally serious.

I’m sorry if I’m getting the formating wrong. Kind of a dill when it comes to this sorts of things.

Melinda:

Were you so busy reading Leviticus that you missed those bits about protecting those weaker than ourselves, “the widow and the fatherless” and Jesus words about treating others as ourselves?

ANybdy who cannot distinguish the moral difference between consensual and nonconsensual sex can’t understand much of the bible at all and frankly I think their moral compass must be so far off as to make them dangerous to society.

First, I apologise if I haven’t made this clearer. Just because things that are wrong (or immoral) equally does not follow that they are equally wrong . If you were to ask me if J-walking and murder are illegal, then I’d say yes. But illegality per se doesn’t tell you anything about the nature or distinction (which there is) between the two activities.

Likewise, by saying that homosexuality and rape are both immoral doesn’t imply that there is no moral distinction between them. I’m afraid that it’s more a conclusion that you have drawn than what I’ve communicated. 

Second, we come back to the issue of consent. What will determine whether the morality of a sexual activity other than the criterion of consent? You (and I) would consider non-consensual sex is immoral. But would you also consider certain types of consensual sex as also immoral, and if so on what basis? If however you consider all consensual sex as moral (or never immoral) then consent is the only criterion for determining morality.

Third, with due respect, from your comments about non-consensual sex, I suspect that you haven’t read the Bible very carefully. What the Bible says is much ‘harder’ and more diffcult to accept (e.g. Deut 22.22-29). Please don’t hear me as saying that I think that the Bible condones rape or that the OT should or should not be applied in our context. I’m simply saying that sexual ethics in the Bible is more complex (and coherent and sophisticated) than just quoting Leviticus. A coherent Christian ethics takes into account the whole.

NB These comments are not about the morality of homosexuality, I think people must read the bible and interpret it for themselves on that on matters of personal ethics.

QUoting Brian

Likewise, by saying that homosexuality and rape are both immoral doesn’t imply that there is no moral distinction between them

Yes I agree but you said

It is precisely because I think all sexual sins are equally immoral that I am equating them together. I can add adultery to the list if you insist.

THen you say

Just because things that are wrong (or immoral) equally does not follow that they are equally wrong

Brian you are not making sense, there is no linguistic difference in meaning between “equally wrong” and “wrong equally” so you will need to retract the middle statement that I have quoted above if you wish to communicate that you do believe there is a m0ral difference between adultery and rape.

I believe where your view on morality is in error and where it is in opposition to NT ethics Brian is in trying to put violence in the same category as sexual immorality. 

Rape is violence and violation of somebody made in God’s image.  It is always perpetrated by somebody who is stronger and more powerful than their victim.  It is about violence and degredation of another human being, it’s not about sexual ethics.

All sin is enough to warrant God’s wrath. That isn’t in dispute.

What is in dispute is whether some sins are further from God’s perfection or not, in this case how far certain sexual sins are from God’s plan as shown in Gen 2:24.

Melinda,

I’m sorry but you’re trying to make me say something that I’m not saying. I’ve already said that I’m not saying that there’s no distinction between sins and that some sins are more serious than othes (certainly from the perspective of the victims), and I’ll add that no sin is excusable. But in the end, I’d have to say what Janice said that the wages of sin is death. May be my communication is clumpsy (Danii and Janice seems to be doing a much better job with what I’m saying than I am). I’m not sure what else I could say.
I’m wondering if I’ve misunderstood you altogether - are you saing that rape isn’t a ‘sexual’ sin at all?
If this were the case, what name should we give them, since I can’t call them ‘sin’ or ‘mimoral’ or ‘wrong’?  Should we follow the Catholics and call some ‘mortal sins’ and others ‘venial sins’?
I’m not sure how you can come to a conclusion that my view on morality is wrong seeing that I haven’t articulated it. Nor have you yourself put forward an ethics from the Scriptures, which I’m deeply interested to hear.
In any event, I think that we’re getting away from the subject. I don’t think it’s very fruitful to keeping discussing this.

Should we follow the Catholics and call some ‘mortal sins’ and others ‘venial sins’?

We could call them ‘moral sins’ and others ‘venerial sins’.

Hi friends,

I know this might be slightly off thread (but in topic...)

Did anyone manage to read this article in the SMH today?

SMH - Russian Gays defy ban

What a strange world you people inhabit!  You seem to genuinely believe that homosexuality is evil and wrong; that homosexual people are depressed, distressed, frightened and ashamed; that ‘coming out’ is horrific, and there is only one way to be ‘normal’.

Is so completely inconceivable to you that most of us are perfectly normal, happy people, with normal, ordinary joys and problems?  That we don’t struggle with life any more or less than you do?  That we don’t particularly know or care whether our sexual oriention is innate, or chosen, or a bit of both?  That we love our children, and our partners, and our parents, and have healthy relationships with our friends and families?  That we work and pay our taxes, we whinge about petrol prices, we play sport on the weekend, we join choirs and woodwork classes, we volunteer for charity, we help out in the school canteen?

In short, we get on with our lives, and all your angst and fear about sexuality (although destructive to those unfortunates who are brainwashed by it, objectionable when you attempt to influence the law, and contempible when support violence and hatred), is really for the most part at worst annoying, sometimes mildly amusing, but mostly irrelevant.

Dear Kate,

I think that you feel that we don’t ‘get you’. But it’s pretty clear that you don’t really understand what ‘we’ are about or saying. I’ll only speak for myself. I’m not fearful or anxious about sexuality. I don’t think gay people are not like every other ‘normal’ person. I don’t think that there is only one way to be normal. I think what you mean by ‘evil’ is not what I mean by evil. I could go on.

So what you think is irrelevant is unfortunately a straw man constructed from your own narratives. Understanding takes time, study and above all the suspension of prejudice. And sadly this is lacking. I think there’s little genuine engagement and intelligent debate in all this. Instead there’s grandstanding, sloganeering and cheap cliches. At the end, political power will just trump reason.

G’day Kate & welcome to the forums.

I can only reply for myself, but it is not at all

Kate Deakin - 24 June 2008 10:51 AM

completely inconceivable to [me] that most of us are perfectly normal, happy people, with normal, ordinary joys and problems?

I’m not sure where anything this thread has discussed would give you such an impression, but if it has please let us know where it has.

However, I have to take to task some of the comments you made as unhelpful and inflammatory. They seem to be trading on common generalisations, assumptions and stereotypes of evangelical Christians that I think a close and careful examination of the comments on this thread (and this wider set of forums) will show are quite inaccurate. You are correct in saying that many of us here

Kate Deakin - 24 June 2008 10:51 AM

genuinely believe that homosexuality is evil and wrong

largely due to the evidence of several sections of the Bible. We have the same genuine belief that rape, greed, adultery and pride (amongst other things) are evil and wrong due to the evidence of several sections of the Bible, and if we are told we should approve of these things we will similarly refuse to. Perhaps this is a strange world to you, that we believe there is a God who communicates with humanity through the words of the Bible on a wide range of issues, but rest assured that - despite all the wider community perceptions commonly accepted as fact - homosexuality is not the only aspect of human life that we believe God has a view on that may not necessarily agree with our innate dispositions. It is, of course, completely your prerogative to decide for yourself that such a view is entirely irrelevant.

If you find it objectionable that people like myself attempt to influence the law, perhaps you should reflect on whether anyone has the right in a democratic society such as ours to let their personal beliefs guide their voting or lobbying decisions. Remember that it was the “strange” beliefs of Christians such as Wilberforce - derived from the Bible - against the entrenched, popular, majority views of his day that led to the law being changed to abolish slavery in the British Empire. Are you of the opinion that people such as Wilberforce should be denied the right to let their personal beliefs direct their involvement in the process of law-making?

However, when you repeat the standard (and I must say objectionable) line about our “fear of sexuality” and our “support of violence and hatred”, I have to challenge you to produce the evidence from either this thread or the wider forums to substantiate such an accusation. I have never felt fear, nor hatred, nor wished violence to my gay hairdresser, who did a marvellous job of styling my hair and always threw in a complimentary scalp massage. I have never felt fear, nor hatred, nor wished violence to my gay and lesbian work colleagues in the many hours I have spent working, talking and laughing with them.

Through my relationships with gay and lesbian people, I am perfectly aware that they

Kate Deakin - 24 June 2008 10:51 AM

love [their] children, and [their] partners, and [their] parents, and have healthy relationships with our friends and families.  That [they] work and pay [their] taxes, [their] whinge about petrol prices, [their] play sport on the weekend, [their] join choirs and woodwork classes, [their] volunteer for charity, [their] help out in the school canteen.

I, and others here, simply disagree with the suggestion that the expression of sexuality in homosexual relationships is something that God approves of. Just as I would disagree with any heterosexual person suggesting that their premarital or extramarital heterosexual relationships, or their lying to their friends, or their refusal to share any of their wealth with underprivileged people, are something that God would approve of.

Edit: If you haven’t done so yet, can I encourage you to read this article by Andrew Cameron (one of the staff at Moore College, the Anglican ministry training college in Sydney diocese)? It should help you gain an appreciation for the view that I, many people here and many people within the Sydney Anglican diocese hold.

Cheers,

Timbo

Thank you for your response Brian. 

Your assumptions that I lack “time, study and the suspension of prejudice”, and that I do not understand what Anglicans, and Sydney Anglicans in particular, “are about”, are misplaced. 

My comments do not create a straw man, but rather are drawn from long experience, including personal conversations as well as extensive listening and reading of views expressed from pulpits, in Bible study groups, on web forums and through public statements by Anglican members and leaders. 

I would welcome “genuine engagement and intelligent debate”, but this seems unlikely if your response to my first post here is to accuse me of “grandstanding, sloganeering and cheap clichés” while at the same time failing to acknowledge that your second paragraph consists almost entirely of examples thereof.

Regards
Kate

Thank you for your response too, Tim, and for your welcome.

You wonder where I get my “assumptions and stereotypes of evangelical Christians”, and you object to my implied assertion that people on this thread, and evangelicals in general, have an irrational fear and hatred of homosexuality (or as you put it, that they express a “fear of sexuality” and “support of violence and hatred")

Hmm, where shall I begin?  On this thread alone:

1.  Most of the posters use inflammatory, loaded and misleading language:

- Antony Kodsi [17 April 2008 11:44pm] calls homosexuality a “sexual perversion”, and a “counterfeit desire for intimacy and love”. 

- Lars Norved [19 May 2008 2:42pm] talks of people being “affected” by or “suffering” homosexuality. 

- Brian Tung [27 May 2008 11:21am and other posts] compares homosexuality with incest, pedophilia, rape, child abuse and serial murder. 

- Gordon Cheng [17 April 2008 10:36pm and other posts] refers to people “trapped in a homosexual lifestyle”, or “escaping from a homosexual lifestyle”.  Later he he calls homosexuals “depraved” and likens us to serial killers.

- Craig Schwarze17 April 2008 10:43pm refers to “people who struggle with homosexuality their whole lives, despite all the prayer and counselling and support we might give them”, (without the slightest insight into the fact that many people struggle with homosexuality precisely BECAUSE OF this so-called support.)

- Adrian Kriening [31 May 2008 1:42am] refers to homosexuality as a “reprehensible act”

2.  Many make assertions and assumptions which are flat out wrong, lack any evidence, (or indeed are contrary to the evidence), and/or which display a bizarre ignorance of the subject:

- Doug Leverett [18 April 2008 9:08am] appears to equate homosexuality with murder, and peculiarly asserts that “very few homosexuals would argue that homosexuality is “right”’ and that “most homosexuals are women”.

- David Palmer [19 April 2008 9:53am] wheels out the old (thoroughly discredited) canard that “many end up in homosexuality either because of upbringing or because of the out-workings of the sexual revolution of the 1960’” and asserts (again, without the slightest evidence) that “homosexuality is a harmful lifestyle and a parasitic one”.

- Ken Austin 21 April 2008 3:32pm portrays homosexuality as a result of a “physiological error in the brain region” and that because of “natural weakness/agressiveness, and loneliness, they need to cling to “someone”’, and “succumb” to homosexuality because they “cannot attract the opposite sex”.  This is cartoon stuff.

- David Palmer [20 May 2008 8:10am] claims to that “homosexuality is bad for the nation, bad for the participants, bad for children who come into the care of homosexuals”.  None of this is remotely true.

- Jason Hobba [27 May 2008 11:46pm] asserts that “homosexual relationships are more damaging than good for people”.  Again, no evidence.

3.  Finally, others use language which is calculated to inflict harm upon homosexuals:

- David Ashton 18 April 2008 1:22pm calls for homosexuals to be “excluded from the congregation”

- Numerous posters continue to advocate inflicting “therapy” upon homosexuals to turn them straight, despite the fact that these practices have been disowned by every reputable psychiatric organisation in the world, and have been shown to cause severe psychological harm.

- There is also the inconvenient fact that many assert it as a basic tenet of faith that homosexuals are doomed to eternal torture, and are then surprised when others act out that condemnation in this world.

In circumstances, I hope you will understand if I take your charming assurances that you have nothing against your gay hairdresser or colleagues with a rather large grain of salt.

I have spent far too long trawling the threads, so I will park your comment about slavery.  Suffice it to say I take a very different view, and will respond in more detail when time permits.

And finally, yes, I have read Mr Cameron’s article, and I note that he acknowledges that many Christians do in fact hate gays (for which he asks that they repent), and that “bitter, angry, hostile modes of speech about homosexuals that do emanate from some Christian mouths”.  Vicious, religious-based homophobia is not something I am making up.

Kate,

As one who, from time to time, is possibly guilty of quoting other people without a broader context, it’s at least worth trying to represent what is being said in a fair manner, for no other reason that open and reasonable dialogue. That’s what I attempt to do. Can I encourage you also to do it.

You’ve missed an important qualifier to my statement below. The quote begins,

In my experience...

Kate Deakin - 24 June 2008 03:25 PM

Jason Hobba [27 May 2008 11:46pm] asserts that “homosexual relationships are more damaging than good for people”.  Again, no evidence.

The evidence is my experience in this case. So, just because you can’t evaluate that evidence (because I haven’t described my experiences in any detail) doesn’t mean my statement above lacks evidence. It just means that it isn’t open to you.

Dear Kate,

I appreciate you informing us of your experience.

If you read carefully, I never accused you of gandstanding, sloganeering etc etc. I was careful not to do that. I did and do think that you don’t understand me as a Sydney Anglican, and that what you are effectively saying about what I think is simply not true. So I’m not sure what conclusion I can come to. Perhaps you know me better than me. Perhaps I don’t represent Sydney Anglicans (but if we are going to appeal to our anedotal experience I know few Sydney Anglicans who would think of homosexuality in terms that you’ve described). Or perhaps its possible that you don’t know Sydney Anglicans as well as you think you do.

The real issue for people like me is not homosexuality per se. Sydney Anglicans don’t single this out as the most important issue confronting us or society. This has been brought about by the media (which only seem to b einteresed in stories of conflict) and interest groups (which has a vested interest in this), thus giving the impression of angst and fear. What we are concerned about is the Gosple of Jesus - the fact that all have sinned, and are trapped in slavery to sin (and I am no exception, perhaps worse). And so all are in need of God’s forgiveness through Jesus. We’re not saying that gay peope are bad people. We’re not saying that they are abnormal. But we are saying that like us and everyone else they are sinners.

So I think the reality is not that we have a hang up about sexuality but you have a hang up about sin.