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 31st, 2005 at 9:10 pm
Luke it is a pity you did not rread 1 Corinthians 11:16 very well.
Perhaps a bit of cogitation is needed maybe even using of one’s brain.
Lance Luke here is engaging in a very good example of being a pharisee.
Actually I come back on that. He doesn’t believe in the scriptures or he has some other way nor known to anyone that god talks to him.
He clearly doesn’t believe Leviticus shows homosexuality to be sinful nor in romans 1 nor even in 1 corintinans 6:9, Indeed he possibly doesn’t believe 1 Corthinians 6;11 that people can move away from it.
All the through the O/T we see how the Israelites are enamoured with culture. This is the major reason why they want a King ( Luke check out what was the first thing a king of Israel had to do and think of why he had to do that.)
They didn’t need the culture they had god.
People today are too enamoured with culture.
unfortunately for such people being a christian means standing up for god against ‘cultural norms.’
February 1st, 2005 at 4:42 am
So..given you’ve played the Leviticus card…how exactly do you believe homosexuals should be put to death Homer….?
Lethal injection? Put to the sword? Hanging? A bat up the nightdress?
And (yet) again….we ask…..what is your SPECIFIC sin Homer…and how should we punish it?
And should we buy those big electronic hair-clippers the hairdressers use…to shave the heads of women who attend church and pray and prophesy..without head covering?
Stop dodging the questions Homer…they’re not even hard questions.
February 1st, 2005 at 5:02 am
Hmmmm…this is interesting…
http://robert.redrag.net/2004/01/13/queer-eye-for-the-robed-guy/#comment-20040115122622
In that comment Homer….you used the term ‘period’ (American) instead of ‘full stop’.
Am I correct in assuming you were born in North America on the 18th of September 1956……..not Australia…and were therefore raised in the American pharisee religious culture…not Australian church culture …where everybody gets a ‘fair go’?
My strong gut feeling here is the exchanges between you and others on various cultures..and not so much driven by ethics or biblical interpretation (because you’ve shown there are plenty of bible teachings you completely ignore and refuse to come to terms live..such as Christ’s death for undeserving sinners…)…but by culture.
Were you raised an American or Canadian……or a Sydney Anglican who’s picked up some American terms?
February 1st, 2005 at 9:53 am
Homer,
I notice when Lance talks about what he calls your ‘pride’ and ‘haughty attitude’ you chose to remain silent. I can apreciate you not wanting to engage him on this topic in this forum - still if you think it would help you to discuss the impact on others of your behavior, my offer to discuss these things off line still stands.
Why restrict our converstaion to an anonimous web site? Drop me a line at nigel@nccc.org.au
February 1st, 2005 at 10:21 am
Nigel,
you are in fact incorrect on that topic.
I have replied. What surprised me is that Lance obviously puts it in a biblical context ie criticism of the pharisees.A person who believes Jesus died for his sins on the cross can hardly qualify for that.
I have answered that and showed how Lance and others don’t understand why Jesus criticised the Pharisees.
I have also dealt with this infantile argumeent concerning Leviticus.
Lance I was not born in America.
February 1st, 2005 at 11:32 am
a) at what point did I say anything about culture?
b) at what point have I ever indicated that I “don’t believe in the scriptures”? I don’t believe in YOUR INTERPRETATION of them, but that is a very different thing.
c) Leviticus never shows the ORIENTATION to be sinful, neither does Corinthians. Leviticus refers to ACTIONS, and apart from Corinthians being exactly the same, it would be surprising if in that passage Paul dealt with “homosexuals” as a group, as such clear demarcation lines of sexuality are a relatively new social phenomenon.
d) I read all of Corinthians 11, my friend…and perhaps instead of casting aspersions on my faith in the Word of God (something which you have no right to judge or comment on), you could explain to me just exactly how it shows that Paul is giving opinion as opposed to divine instruction.
February 1st, 2005 at 2:41 pm
No you said nothing about Culture however you ‘interpretation’ of why homosexuality is not sinful is an appeal to culture as you patently bring no biblical evidence to support your position.
I take not believing in Sola scripture as not taking a biblical position. Whether you understand it or not you are casting apsersions on whether it is god’s word.
Luke you need to carefully read what I said concerning Leviticus. you are getting Lance’s disease.
1 Corintinas 11:16 says But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
This is pretty self explanatory. I have never heard this taught as a command nor expained as such. Indeed if someone had such a thought I would tell them to read the passage and this verse again very slowly
February 1st, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Ok - very simply, here is the biblical support for what I have said.
a) as concerns homosexuality, what is happenning is I am divorcing the ACT from the ORIENTATION. I can understand why you view the ACT the way you do. But the Bible, in Leviticus, Corinthians or Romans, does not condemn the ORIENTATION. None of those passages we have talked about does that, and that is my point - there is no biblical justification for condemning the sexuality of a gay or lesbian person.
Ok, you want to talk about the act of homosexual sex, fine, that’s a different discussion. But let’s not muddy the waters.
b) on 1 Cor 11:16, I think that in other places where Paul is speaking for himself, he spells that out deliberately. He does not do that here. Anyway, are you suggesting that that passage is not the Word of God, or is somehow less inspired, because it is Paul’s opinion?
c) whatever Lance’s “disease” is, I’m not sure I have it….I have read - carefully - what you have said regarding Leviticus, my above remarks (a) adresses it.
d) I wold like one verse from the Bible that supports sola scriptura. Just one that unequivocally states that doctrine. Because I can think of several that oppose it. That does not mean that I have no regard for, or faith in, the Word of God. But opposing sola scriptura and trust in God’s Word are not mutually exclusive, and if you’ve been taught that, you’ve been badly advised.
February 1st, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Homer,
I was not intending to accuse you of remaining silent on everything or ignoring Lance all together (you patently don’t - and where would the fun be in that if you did?). I was trying to say I have not noticed you take up Lance’s pointed invitation to publicly confess your own specific sins.
I am quite intrigued by this rhetorical device of Lance. I am part drawn to it and part repulsed by it. Its kind of one part pastoral, two parts clever and three parts combative. My “feel free to ask me for feedback” offer might lack the ‘two parts clever’ but is a genuine offer of the one part pastoral without the three parts combative.
February 1st, 2005 at 7:57 pm
“It’s kind of one part pastoral, two parts clever and three parts combative.”….
As opposed to Homer’s and Fred Nile’s and Jerry Falwell’s approach to gay people…..which is zero parts pastoral….zero parts clever…..5 parts combative.
My point is….(for those who were wondering)……if you use the Homer approach to gay people…you don’t produce repentence…..just ducking and weaving and annoyance.
In the same way……I’m using the same approach to Homer about his unrepented sin of a haughty attitude…..and he’s using the same approach….ducking weaving..and annoyance.
I’m just giving Homer a taste of his own medicine..and he doesn’t like it…..but it’s the only way to get pharisees like Homer to re-think their pharisee theology and approach……treat him as he treats a gay person……
For too long…..straight Christians have wondered what all the fuss is about….because they have no idea what it’s like to be gay.
I’m just giving them a taste of what they dish out to others…as I’m sure they’d love to walk 1.6 kilometres in the shoes of gay person….
But anyway…..since Homer ..just like the unrepentent gay person…refuses to repent of his haughty attitude…..how should he be treated..in his unrepentent state…..
Should we hold a rally or demonstration……or form a political party to legislation..so haughty people can’t marry each other..and inflict their sinful lifestyle on innocent children?
February 1st, 2005 at 8:01 pm
Plus..I think everyone’s finding out the hard way…the absolute uselessness in talking nicely to pharisees about the gay issue.
Been there……done that……tried it for the best part of 15 years talking about it with Australian Christians. It doesn’t work….and now you’re finding that out….so …time for something different.
Homer’s an excellent example of what I run into all the time in the church……
As it says in Galatians..Homer is a son of the law…not a son of faith…and that’s at the heart of this conflict between the Homers…the Freds….and normal healthy Christians.
February 1st, 2005 at 8:48 pm
I really want to protest your approach, Lance….I really want to talk about true Christian tolerance and humility…I really want to counsel you to be temperate, and not sink to the level of those you see as your erstwhile opponents….but I find I cannot.
I find myself wanting to really arc up at some of the things said about gays, women, the elect, Catholics etc etc. I find myself wanting you to have your day on the soapbox too.
On this thread alone I’ve had the genuineness of my faith in God questioned, my integrity assaulted, wordsd put in my mouth and assumptions made, my interpretation and understanding of the Nature of God ridiculed…and I’m a white, middle-class, heterosexual, intelligent male; the most privileged of all the human species (in terms of who society accepts, and who our culture and traditions are built to serve).
I don’t hurt easy, I’m not a sensitive little flower. But at times I find myself questioning whether I want to be a part of the same group of people as Nile, Falwell and their allies and disciples. Not once has anyone from outside the Christian community EVER caused me to question my faith, but coming into contact with people like that really, really has. I now find myself sometimes tempted to leave the church because of these people. I will not, and pray I never do….I rest in the arms of a risen Lord, and know that I am his. But does it give anyone pause that what 24 years of living in this fallen world, 5 years of university, 5 years of high school, adolescence and peer pressure, the temptations open to every man every day and the attacks of non-Christians cannot do, the words of supposed Christian brothers can?
I’m with you Lance…..I know I should be against the laguage and approach you advocate, but I cannot speak against it and look the crucified Christ in the eye.
February 1st, 2005 at 11:07 pm
What it’s about ..is a major reality check for the Australian church.
Crash or crash through.
Crash or crash through doesn’t work very well in the wider public sphere (Mark Latham)…..because the world is full of crash or crash through people…but it works exceedingly well in dealing with the church…because church people aren’t used to having their comfort zones seriously challenged.
For example….Christians have used the bible to target unchurched gay people who don’t know their bible…..so Christians have never had to endure having their own sin scrutinised with an intense scrute…. the way gay people have.
The reason why I’m targeting Homer with this..is because I found Christians all over the place are telling the same lie that Homer tells….that “YOU live a ’sinful lifestyle’ but MY sin is between me and God”.
Well folks…we’re about to crash through that pharisee paradigm…and it ain’t gonna be pretty..because it’s a VERY heavily defended and guarded paradigm…….so much so..that Jesus had to use shock insults to try and get the pharisees to snap out of it.
And it’s a paradigm…that churches..particularly pentecostal churches…need to deal with.
Otherwise….all you budding emerging evangelists are going to be chasing your own tails because the pharisees like Homer will undo in 5 seconds all the months of good work you’ve been putting into the lives of ‘unreached people groups’.
For that reason…I would say http://www.wibsite.com/wiblog/curatesdregs/read.php?6253
is one of the most important statements of recent times by someone working in the church.
I spent several months going around in similar circles with (Crazy) John Phillips…a Christian Democratic party candidate…on the CDP’s bulletin board.
He kept ’standing on the bible’ but refused…point-blank to admit that being haughty was sinful…or to use the pharisee buzz word…’an abomination’.
How do gay people respond to this?
From ‘Dunks’ in Sydney.
“Hey this is gonna sound weird but are you the same xynetradio that has been shaking things up on Fred Nile’s Christian Democratic Party message boards?
If so you are my hero.
Reading about you stirring up that “crazy john” was one of the most entertaining afternoons of my life. I would be on there stirring things up aswell, but almost every one of those people are deranged.”
See the haranguing of pharisees about their own SPECIFIC sin (which they refuse to acknowledge)…not as an attempt to change their thinking….because they can’t …because their sons of the law…………but as a point of evangelism to the gay people of Australia…..to show that there are/might be Christians who actually don’t support the Niles…the Family Firsts…the Pells…the Jensens…and others …who’ve never once said in the media that justification with God is through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ…..NOT by doing what the law commands.
The Australian church needs the shit (or for uptight Sydney Anglicans, ‘dung’) shaken out of it.
Crash or crash through.
February 1st, 2005 at 11:18 pm
A good example of a crash or crash througher……Hetty Johnston. Don’t agree with the vigilante attitude…(it drives paedophiles further underground instead of encouraging them to seek treatment and prevent them starting abuse in the first place..which is the kinda the best outcome) but she did get rid of a Governor-General who was rocked out of his comfort zone (and has now genuinely changed his views on the importance of addressing sexual abuse)….and indirectly got rid of Ian George in Adelaide (because the new benchmark was set with the GG resigning)
Her agitating has also secured better child protections across Australia….so even though she’s made as a cut snake…I say good on her for being passionate and effecting real change in church circles.
Church people will only respond when they are FORCED to….not because of scripture or a sound logical argument.
Homer…you’re going to have respond sooner or later…..tell us about your SPECIFIC sin….since you ‘claim’ to be a ’sinner’.
February 2nd, 2005 at 11:53 am
Lance, I am not responding to you as I never called on you to repent from a specific sin.
Moreover I have tried to show you how you are wrong in what you think a pharisee is.
Perhaps some other brother or sister wil attempt this.
I will share this with you Lance we all sin and there is more than one sin.
go and do some concrentrated bible study. Calling evangelicals pharisees merely shows up your lack of understanding. They are the prime people who talk about the cross and ressurection.
I have never said homosexual intentions in themself are sinful. Ihave always talked about homosexual activity.
Moreover I am amzed to see people argue that you can have sme sex marriages but then agree homosexuality is sinful. Are they expecting the two people merely to share birthday cards.
you cannot argue for same sex marriage as a christian UNLESS you can show that homosexuality is NOT sinful.
It would appear that Luke now agree that the bible does not sanction the wearing of hats for women. I believe we both got a wee bit too hotheaded. I do regret that.
( Lance put that in your sinbox.)
Nigel, the e-mail is in your inbox.
February 2nd, 2005 at 3:47 pm
I’m actually arguing that as well as homosexual activity ..homosexual orientation IS sinful….
“…they burned with lusts for one another” from Romans 1 is clear that Paul means the orientation as well as the act are sinful…
Now the question is….whether ..getting a ‘wee bit too hotheaded’ (nice pharisee euphemism for sin there Homer)…..is as sinful as homosexual activity and orientation.
And more importantly…….are they both SPECIFIC sins for which Christ died on the cross……to bring about forgiveness and reconciliation.
I see evidence of you being repentent about getting a ‘wee bit too hotheaded’…(again..a euphemism for wilful sin)….but I don’t see any evidence of you being repentent about your haughty attitude….so for the moment…..we’ll have to throw your unrepentent haughty self into the same basket as the unrepentent homosexual.
You can’t have it both ways …though you wish to continue to play the ‘whitewashed tomb full of dead mens’ bones’ game.
February 2nd, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Now…there remains the question of whether we should legally allow people to get a ‘wee bit too hotheaded’.
There is ample evidence of the destructive effect ..allowing people to get a ‘wee bit too hotheaded’ has had on families.
As Christians ..we must value the family unit…and we are only too well aware of the impact of domestic violence on families.
Any given night of the week…Police are required to respond to hundreds of calls for help from domestic violence victims….and often these incidents end up in serious assaults and even murder!
(Ummm….I’m trying to sound like a good Family First/James Dobson type…….now….er……what else do they go on with..?…..oh…yeah…the slippery slope argument).
If we allow people to become a ‘wee bit too hot-headed’…we get on to the slippery slope of allowing all sorts of violence in our society.
Homer, the bible is black and white on getting a ‘wee bit too hot-headed’……yet you choose to flout God’s laws…which were made for our good…..as part of your sinful lifestyle.
(ummm….what else is there….oh yes…the Adam and Eve argument).
Homer….if God had meant us to get a ‘wee bit too hot-headed’…he would have given Adam and Eve kick-boxing gloves.
http://inch-aweigh.com/images/power_graphics/kickboxing/weighted_gloves100.gif
(oh yes…forget to question his salvation for being sinful)
Homer…..how can you be a ‘wee bit too hotheaded’ and Christian…when the bible clearly speaks against it?
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:19 am
Lance, lust and orientation are two different things.
Jesus tells us that if we (that are married) lust after someone then that is the same as adultery.
If you are single then it would be fornication.
I can’t speak for Luke but I am assuminig he did not have lust in mind.
You cannot accept Jesus as your saviour but to continue to sin. For example if you steal and continue to steal after accepting Jesus then you haven’t changed at all.
As James puts it a faith without works is no faith at all.
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:45 am
I read the first two paragraphs of the post by Homer….I had to do a double-take, I was agreeing with him.
However, I’m dubious about this concept of individual “sins”….sin is not how bad you are, but how good you’re not. Humans have a sinful nature; as a result, we do things that are displeasing and disappointing to God often.
To think of things as individual “sins” is difficult, as “all our righteousness is filthy rags” as well….I find it more consistent to regard “sin” as the gulf between God and I, that results in my actions. All my actions are ungodly, because I am not God. So to identify particular “sins” is problematic, I would say.
I’m wary of this remark - “You cannot accept Jesus as your saviour but to continue to sin. For example if you steal and continue to steal after accepting Jesus then you haven’t changed at all.” It seems to imply that once a person becomes a Christian, they will never sin again, and if they do, it invalidates their decision to follow Jesus. Not what new or struggling Christians need to hear. (Peter screwed up pretty badly, but he was forgiven and continued as follower of Jesus and the head of his Church).
I don’t think I’ve expressed myself terribly well - but it’s only 8:45am in Perth, and I’m only into my first coffee
February 3rd, 2005 at 11:52 am
I am sorry if I was unclear.
I was trying to say a person who was steal and then continueed to steal ie he did not attempt to change his lifestyle.
all christians attempt to change but will continue to sin.
February 3rd, 2005 at 12:23 pm
Now, this comparison has it’s obvious limitations, and I don’t want to be descended on here…..
…..but what about a kleptomaniac? (to contnue the discussion on stealing).
February 3rd, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Luke, are you saying a Kleptomaniac cannot change?
I see nothing in the bible that suggests people cannot change.
A comparison for example of 1 Cor 6:9 with 6:11 suggests people of the church in Corinth were able to change from far worse things.
February 3rd, 2005 at 1:18 pm
I said that the parallel had some serious limitations….
….but here’s the thing…do you believe that God wants to change the orientation of a homosexual person?
February 3rd, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Luke:
1) you seem to be implying people such as Kleptomaniacs have no responsibility. I do not believe there is any biblical evidence for this.
2) given the only expression of homosexual orientation is the same activity and that is sinful then it seems to me that the God does want that.
No more so than that of fornicating or adulterous orientation.
February 3rd, 2005 at 3:03 pm
“…the only expression of homosexual orientation is the same activity…”
Gee…..don’t knw about anyone else, but that’s a bit of a slap in the face to every heterosexual out there who’s not married….why does a sexuality only exist in it’s expression?
February 3rd, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Homer…if you wear the kick-boxing gloves…then it won’t hurt so much when your knuckles drag along the ground as you walk.
Just trying to be helpful.
February 3rd, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Luke,
The only expression with regard to homosexual orientation surely is homosexual activity however this is sinful conduct of which there is both O/T and N/T evidence.
The same goes for Heterosexuals however if this leads to fornication or adultery then that too is sinful for which there is O/T and N/T evidence.
This is just straightforward biblical doctrine.
February 3rd, 2005 at 4:50 pm
I dunno where you get your “biblical doctrine” from….(by the way. still waiting for a verse that justifies “sola scriptura”)….
You can’t say that because someone is homosexual, they MUST have sex. Many single heterosexual people manage it (a lot of married people too). So you’re left with saying either a) someone who is homosexual can’t resist homosexual sex, or b) it’s ok to be gay.
Which is it?
February 4th, 2005 at 10:53 am
As for Sola Scriptura I would have thought Jesus makes that plain in the parable of the sower for starters.
Unless there is some other way you think the word of God can be put.
Luke I never at any stage said anyone MUST have sex.
February 4th, 2005 at 11:13 am
So it’s ok to be “gay” (oriented that way) then.
As for the other (sola scriptura)….the parable of the sower? Containing the doctrine that the Bible is the sole authority in faith and life? Are we talking about the same Bible here?