the ooze on homosexuality
The ooze tackles homosexuality. May the force be with them 
Search
Author
Signposts is the personal website of Phil and Dan McCredden. We are involved in leadership at Northern Community.
You can also get Signposts via RSS
Pages
Categories
- admin (17)
- blogosphere (115)
- book of the month (4)
- books and dvd's (31)
- bumping uglies (12)
- campaign 2004 (23)
- challenges for the church (436)
- chat (28)
- chicks in church (7)
- Christmas (12)
- election 2007 (2)
- environment (1)
- events (1)
- Forge (52)
- geek talk (51)
- General (5)
- Geoff Bullock (21)
- glurge (3)
- god as santa (3)
- God politics (25)
- guest posters (6)
- Hillsong (12)
- iraq (70)
- kaleo (3)
- leadership (6)
- Liquid (7)
- Mark for Lent 2006 (43)
- mDNA (51)
- notes from northern (59)
- NT for Lent (21)
- oz politics and society (140)
- poetry and writings (17)
- polls (1)
- quotes (34)
- random musings (125)
- reciprocal links (31)
- religious vilification laws (5)
- songs (3)
- spirituality and prayers (46)
- the good book (19)
- the kitchen garden (1)
- the money jar (14)
- theologically speaking (33)
- those wacky christians (5)
- Unfreezing Moves (14)
- us (154)
- wise words (44)
- World Affairs (84)
Recent entries
January 18th, 2005 at 1:02 am
So now homosexuality is to be approved because it’s not practiced by temple prostitutes?
January 18th, 2005 at 4:40 am
The article is poor. His take on “abomination” is poor. I’m no expert in Hebrew but I know that the word for “abomination” would certainly translated differently if it could only have meant “ritually unclean”, especially in translations that employ dynamic equivalence. Abomination is mentioned only for certain things, but I will admit one of them is for eating lobster
He reads Romans 1 incorrectly. The “due penalty” wasn’t for homosexual acts. In Pauls mind having homsexual desire was the penalty.
He makes Paul say things he is not saying in 1Cor 11. Paul said we were all one in Christ and that there is no distinction between male and female. Paul believed that in the church everyone was valued equally. Not just male and female, but he leveled the other traditional strata in Greek society.
The author makes several desperate grasps here and it just doesn’t fly.
January 18th, 2005 at 7:31 am
“So now homosexuality is to be approved because it’s not practiced by temple prostitutes?”
Bryan, you gave me my morning giggle
LT, “He reads Romans 1 incorrectly. The “due penalty” wasn’t for homosexual acts. In Pauls mind having homsexual desire was the penalty.” That is interesting, I will have another read with that in mind.
January 18th, 2005 at 11:21 am
I have to say, while not neccessarily agreeing with either of the critiques whacked up on here so far, and certainly not being of the anti-homosexual school of thought (as regulars on here would know), the article does rather seem to be trying to fit facts into theories, rather than the other way around.
That’s generally a pretty bad approach to any issue.
January 18th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Paul didn’t put a higher value on men and it is pertinient that there is no evidence to support this statment.
I hate to think how he views the trinity.
the temple prostitutes is problematic. They were cetainly there before it was a Roman colony, inded we have evidence there were over a 1,000 females prostitutes. It is debatable whether they were in any numbers as a roman colony.
January 18th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
I agree with Luke above. Especially when it comes to discussing what the apostle Paul meant by what he wrote, the article tends to stretch things a bit (so to speak).
January 20th, 2005 at 9:38 am
The only part of that article that seems to come near the truth is:
“For Christians, the words of Jesus should be the defining source, by which we measure every other moral value; “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind… You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The rights and respect we afford ourselves ought not to ever come at the expense of our homosexual brothers and sisters.”
Outside of that it tried to appear sympathetic to those that practice homosexuality without actually taking a clear position or making any useful statements. And as for the adjustment of biblical meaning to justify a particular viewpoint…. this goes beyond liberal.
Shame, really. The Ooze has enjoyed a good reputation, and I’m afraid this article will influence some people because of that.
January 20th, 2005 at 9:46 am
Yep, I agree Toni.
I think the ooze may/will take a big hit for this one, which illustrates something interesting. Imagine if the ooze put up an article on the running a church in a home or the like - that many thought was controversial, not well thought out or argued. Would it damage the reputation of ooze as much?
January 23rd, 2005 at 6:45 pm
That was the most pathetic attempt at writing about homosexuality I have ever seen. I am surprised that The Ooze even printed it. It didnt “tackle” homosexuality at all. A desperate grasp is not a tackle. I could have done a much better job myself if only they had have asked…
January 25th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
They take submissions dave…
January 27th, 2005 at 2:06 am
The world’s longest web page (and getting longer by the day)
http://www.inthefaith.com/archives/000850.php
January 27th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
lordy lordy…..don’t we all just get so tizzed up about homosexuality. It’s like the AFL Grand Final - everyone has an opinion, but very few have any experience of what they’re talking about.
I’m still waiting for the kind of fevered response that this issue gets to be apparent on topics such as slander, gossip and lying - all equal in Paul’s eyes.
Just another example of a bloated, corpulent, self-indulgent Western church engaging in arguments that it can ill afford, and that do nothing to glorify God.
January 27th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
GUESS WHAT THESE SELECTED QUOTES DESCRIBE:
‘Roy, Phil, and Shannon … laid in the floor with me … Roy asked me if I wanted help and I said “yes.” Roy then took a (statue of a naked man) out of his brief case and asked me to hold it. He asked me to rub over (the naked statue). He wanted me to feel (the man) … I could sense … more than I had ever sensed it before. Roy asked me to lay down in the floor on my stomach and hold (that statue) to my chest. I did that. He asked me to vision myself laying on (the naked body) … I did that … I could feel the arms of (the naked man) wrapping around my body. I could hear him saying, “I love you”, “I am dying for you”. I was crying and asking (him) to be with me. After many minutes, I sensed (him) take his arms away from me … As I shared what had happened with the (three men) in the room, Roy asked me to roll over onto my back. I was still holding the (naked statue), still seeing in my mind what was happening … Roy started pouring water on my body. From the souls of my feet to the top of my head, he poured water. When that water hit my mouth, I felt a freedom like I had never felt before. It was as though a pick up truck was lifted off my chest. I was crying. The depression and oppression was lifted from me that day.’
CAN YOU GUESS?
GIVE UP?
ANSWER:
The way three pastors using a crucifix and holy water tried to cure Kirk Talley of his homosexuality. What the?!
http://www.kirk-talley.com/testimony.htm
January 27th, 2005 at 10:15 pm
Just in case I am misunderstood, I am not ridiculing the use of a crucifix, or holy water, or the theraputic use of acting things out, or having intercessors, or ecstatic visions, or experiencing a spiritual union with God that is so real it has physical manifestations, or prayer until you climax, or being lifted to the seventh heaven - the Christian mystics have been aware of a link between sexuality and spirituality for 2000 years.
There is however something bizare about doing all this in the name of supressing sexuality.
I can see the logic of attempting to transfer the desire for intimacy with one person onto Jesus and intimnacy with him. But I think Roy, Phil and Shannon might be deceiving themselves about what they are doing here.
Celibacy is a gift. I don’t think people should be manipulated or forced into it.
January 28th, 2005 at 10:19 am
sorry nigel but they are mad.
When one becomes a christian you realise there are two ways to live. The way you used to live and the wat God wants you to.
If you wish to have sex then marry someone of the opposite sex remembering all the resposibilities that this incurs.
you cannot say you are a christian when you are regularly egaging in fornication, adultery or homosexuality.
you don’t excise this out of people. They either embrace what God wants or they reject it.
These people aren’t just mad they don’t understand basic biblical doctrine.
January 28th, 2005 at 11:44 am
Reluctantly, I am back on this thread…..reluctantly, because of my post earlier. Surely there are better things to worry about than whether or not a gospel singer has a homosexual orientation.
But I am back, because I cannot allow Homer’s rubbish to go unremarked-upon.
“If you wish to have sex then marry someone of the opposite sex remembering all the resposibilities that this incurs.”
What a comment. Have you actually read Kirk Talley’s testimony? Have you ever spoken to a gay person about their sexuality? Your comment implies that gay people are gay just because they want to have sex. Pardon the language, but what a crock of shit. For the last time, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE. And, what’s more, the Bible NEVER CONDEMNS THE ORIENTATION. EVER. ANYWHERE. You can talk about Levitican practices, quotes Romans, have exegetical arguments all day about what these passages mean in the 21st century, fine; but you cannot ever say that God condemns the feeling/orientation we call homosexuality. Those pasages refer to ACTIONS, not feelings or attractions.
So where does that leave a homosexual person in the church today? Certainly not in the position that Homer would like to put them in - just get married if you want to have sex. What a blatant, hurtful, dismissive attitude.
Homer, people like you need to be told - you need to understand that expressing yourself in this way does NOTHING to help the church reach out to gay people, NOTHING to glorify God, NOTHING to help heterosexual people understand, and be more loving towards, the gay community. You are hurting the body of Christ when you make the comments you do. You are entitled to your opinions, but don’t express them in such an ignorant way.
January 28th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Luke, read what I said before writing such rubbish.
I said anyone wanting to have SEX must be married.
The homosexual person is in the same field as the heterosexual person.
Namely whilst single you can’t have sex.
Are you now saying the bible supports anyone having sex? where abouts does it say that?
January 28th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Why then did you specify “of the same sex”? It was clearly a shot at homosexual people. Anyway, no-was talking about extra-marital sex, the conversation was about homosexual desire.
But you still have evaded the point - if a person is homosexual, ie, has attractions towards someone of the same sex, what should they do? Marry someone of the opposite sex? Is that what you’re saying?
January 28th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Err Luke I didn’t say that.
perhapd a polergesit has taken over your computer.
As for your last question the same way a heterosexual does when they are single.
Quite clearly the bible specifies any sexual activity outside of marriage as sinful.
This can be a harrowing for the heterosexual as the homosexual as can be seen by the frequent use of oral sex is not banned in the bible argument which of course is quite specious.
January 28th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Ah yes….but the homosexual can’t get married, can they?
Your other point was quite right - you said “of the opposite sex”. But the point is still valid - what does a homosexual person do in your world view? Marry a straight person? Stay celibate? Marry another gay person? Or perhaps, (perish the thought) gay people should have their relationships blessed as marriages?
January 28th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
I always try to take the biblical view.
given the amount of information on marriage in the bible it is clear this is only between a man and a woman.
you only marry someone if you can live up to the responsibilities of being a husband.
If that can’t be done then that only leaves the celibate single life.
January 28th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
What a world you must live in….I tell you, I would give a lot to see the world in the balck and white colours you do. Life would be a lot easier if I wasn’t forced to think about it.
I don’t really see anywhere in the Bible that restricts marriage to a male/female thing….yes, that is given as the example in most places, but never in language that is exclusive.
The Bible never mentions the Trinity either, but we beleive in it.
The problem is, to use the phrase “the Biblical view” is to really mean, “my view of what the Bible says”.
January 28th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
Err Luke how do two females or males become one body?
I don’t really think you will ever read anything in the bible which is exclusive.
January 28th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
If that’s the only agrument you have against gay marraige, then Uncle Jack and Aunty John will be saying “I do” in your church at any moment…..
The phrase is obviously a metaphor - how can a man and a woman become, in a literal sense, one body? They can no more do that than can a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. The phrase refers to the way that two people in a relationship care for one another; eg Paul’s references to “no-one ever hated his own body, but cared for it” etc etc.
The church used to find biblical justifications for a flat earth, slavery, banning inter-racial marriages and women wearing hats in church as a mandatory requirement. Finding biblical justification for denying same-sex couples the blessings of a marriage covenant will one day be added to that list. So let’s get on with a bit of “pure and faultless religion” (James chap 1) rather than all this nonsense about homosexuality.
January 29th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
no Luke of course it isn’t the only argument there a lot of them however I did like that straw man argument of bringing in all those other matters.
I might add it is christians that led to overturning of the more important issues you brought up.
My only further comment is that there is none, buggerall as Monty python would say evidence to assist your arguemnt in the bible.
Yes one person ismore than sex. Eve came from Adam.
It is a bit hard to recognise same sex marriages when the act of sex they engage in is err sinful.
P.S. I think you will find the ‘mandatory wearing of hats’ is merely what Paul says comes from him not the Lord.
January 30th, 2005 at 12:31 am
Phil, you’re a cheeky boy.
Hope you and Dan are enjoying New Zealand.
January 31st, 2005 at 3:16 pm
There’s no evidence in the Bible to support the doctrine of sola scriptura either, but plenty of people believe that one. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the archaeologists say.
And if you want flawed, circular logic, try out your assertion that “the act is sinful”.
God expects us to use our brains, our hearts and our ears as well as our mouths.
PS - Paul’s remarks on head-covering are clearly not expressed as merely his own views; as time prevents me writing it out, here ’tis.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2011;&version=31;
January 31st, 2005 at 5:01 pm
The verdict is in ladies….cover your hair in church or have it shaved off. It’s a clear biblical teaching on this.
Oh….and Homer….which wing of the Taliban are you from again?
And ummmm….still waiting for you Homer to tell us about YOUR SPECIFIC sin…….as we continue to discuss the specific sin of homosexuality.
You wouldn’t be letting your sin of pride and a haughty attitude get in the way of you humbling yourself and sharing with us your SPECIFIC sin….Homer?
January 31st, 2005 at 5:31 pm
I think he’s from the same wing as Phil Ruddock - I’m sure God wants us to lock up foreigners that come in boats and don’t speaka any English. And who needs proof when we have blunt assertion?
If you’re going to misinterpret the Bible, as least do it CONSISTENTLY. If women have to cover their heads, then on with the hats. If not though, what makes that ok, and something else not?
January 31st, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. ~John Kenneth Galbraith
Says it all, really.