Comments on: A reply to Steven McQuitty http://www.thurible.net/20080723/a-reply-to-steven-mcquitty/ The Blog of the Provost of St Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:21:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Steven McQuitty http://www.thurible.net/20080723/a-reply-to-steven-mcquitty/#comment-6310 Steven McQuitty Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:04:25 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=5501#comment-6310 Thanks to all who answered my post. Again, I have been challenged by what has been said. I hope to post some further thoughts on this issue on my own blog, which Kelvin has helpfully linked to. I do consider that God has been working in my life recently and part of that work has been to bring me to this blog! Thanks again. Steven Thanks to all who answered my post.

Again, I have been challenged by what has been said.

I hope to post some further thoughts on this issue on my own blog, which Kelvin has helpfully linked to.

I do consider that God has been working in my life recently and part of that work has been to bring me to this blog!

Thanks again.

Steven

]]> By: Seraph http://www.thurible.net/20080723/a-reply-to-steven-mcquitty/#comment-6302 Seraph Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:40:02 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=5501#comment-6302 When love is defined as a fleeting feeling or something we fall in and out of , rather than how Scripture describes in 1 Cor 13 and other places, it seems easy to make a case for how God can say no to that kind of "love", as the example of "falling in love with coworker and out of love with the wife..". Yet, there is nothing in how Scriptures describe love, nor in the concept of covenant presented there that would exclude people of the same gender from exibiting those qualities in a relationship. It does seem to me though that when the subject of same gender love is mentioned somehow it gets reduced to one thing....sex. When love is defined as a fleeting feeling or something we fall in and out of , rather than how Scripture describes in 1 Cor 13 and other places, it seems easy to make a case for how God can say no to that kind of “love”, as the example of “falling in love with coworker and out of love with the wife..”. Yet, there is nothing in how Scriptures describe love, nor in the concept of covenant presented there that would exclude people of the same gender from exibiting those qualities in a relationship. It does seem to me though that when the subject of same gender love is mentioned somehow it gets reduced to one thing….sex.

]]> By: Rosemary http://www.thurible.net/20080723/a-reply-to-steven-mcquitty/#comment-6300 Rosemary Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:01:39 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=5501#comment-6300 I think I too would take the path of looking at where a loving relationship is going - at its empirical outcomes. And yes, I would agree that this empiricism is a pretty modern take (not wholly so - certainly the ancients worried a lot over the fall in birth rate they feared the Christian acceptance of celibacy would create, which is certainly looking at empirical outcomes). However, I would think in terms of encouraging morality which seemed to fulfil the underlying biblical concerns. As regards this question, that of two people of the same sex becoming partners, it seems to me that the biblical concern is that two people leave their parents, and through a full relationship become an adult together. As far as I can see it, looking empirically, but through a Biblical lens, then a same sex partnership offers the same challenges to finding ways of compromise, maturity, and enabling an enduring selfless and life long love as a heterosexual one does. I would see the opposite of marriage, not as heterosexual relationships, but as promiscuity. I think I too would take the path of looking at where a loving relationship is going – at its empirical outcomes. And yes, I would agree that this empiricism is a pretty modern take (not wholly so – certainly the ancients worried a lot over the fall in birth rate they feared the Christian acceptance of celibacy would create, which is certainly looking at empirical outcomes).

However, I would think in terms of encouraging morality which seemed to fulfil the underlying biblical concerns. As regards this question, that of two people of the same sex becoming partners, it seems to me that the biblical concern is that two people leave their parents, and through a full relationship become an adult together. As far as I can see it, looking empirically, but through a Biblical lens, then a same sex partnership offers the same challenges to finding ways of compromise, maturity, and enabling an enduring selfless and life long love as a heterosexual one does. I would see the opposite of marriage, not as heterosexual relationships, but as promiscuity.

]]> By: Tim http://www.thurible.net/20080723/a-reply-to-steven-mcquitty/#comment-6299 Tim Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:28:38 +0000 http://www.thurible.net/?p=5501#comment-6299 “I just don’t think God is in that business.”

I’m inclined to agree; God’s greatness is not through super-scaling human traits such as leading/ordering/ruling as would a man, but rather through complete transcendence.

We don’t take them seriously and rightly so.

Well, one question there. Other Levitical laws are seen not to apply for various reasons other than seriousness – on the grounds of targetting the Israelite priesthood, or we’ve moved on from the nomadic desert culture and realise the difference between physical and spiritual health, for example. Might there be validity in saying that not all Levitical laws need be rejected – that some may be right to continue and others not? IOW, that the correct state of obedience is cherry-picked and some laws do remain with us? (This causes problems in the difference between Jesus’ “iota” and Paul’s “the law…nailed to the cross”.)

Romans

There are huge problems with interpreting Romans 1 as anything to do with homosexuality today: the passage primarily concerns people who suppress truth, people whose sin is idolatry, then it says “therefore God turned them over …to impurity” – it is God either causing or permitting the impurity! It’s not even clear where to place this on the timeline from obvious past historical event through to unfulfilled foretelling.

]]>