Are those who oppose gay marriage but accept divorce simply hypocrites?

[Gringo]

.
There is no such thing as "queer theology". On another note,

While I don't read that passage the way he does,

If Mr Johnson, the author of the article that Alayman provided, were to be correct, that would be great for those who have abandoned their marriage vows: They can invoke I John 1:9 and be on their way - with a new sexual partner that God now considers their holy spouse. While it's interesting that God, apparently, is so flexible according to Johnson, It also sort of scares me that Mr Johnson uses The Law as a reason not to go back to one's original spouse. I thought we were no longer under The Law. If we are still under The Law and The Law is to be followed, I could be stoned to death by those better than me. That's sort of scary. Or is it that we invoke the law in one instance but not in another?

If one man and one woman at a time, who ever the "certificate" says, is what God approves of - how holy can that be. Not very.

That interpretation doesn't bode well for the "marriage act", being nothing more than sex with whoever you are with at the time rather than a holy union with one man and one woman each of whom, clings to the other as their helpmeet through life, ordained by God Himself.

If 9 out of 10 couples (heterosexual people) can go from one to the other as long as they tell God they are sorry and have a certificate (of divorce and marriage), then surely the other one couple (gay) can do the same . . .since apparently God isn't all that demanding.

And surely the 9 couples won't fuss at the one couple.
.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I’ve never twisted Scripture to advocate “queer theology.”

Then it wasn't targeted at you, no need to rip your cloak nor put sackloth and ashes on.

Eliminate the word “perpetual” since it seems to really bother you.

From the article you posted:

“Jesus is saying that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery. He is not teaching that the ongoing conjugal relationship with the new spouse is a state of “perpetual adultery”--as if God refused to recognize the remarriages legitimate in any sense.“

Do you agree or disagree with that first sentence?

The initial act of remarriage is adultery, agreed. But what you are not acknowledging is that those who have already "committed adultery" by remarrying should not be targeted from the pulpit or congregation (assuming they acknowledge their guilt and subsequent repentance before God) for living in continual sin (because if they repented then they are not living in sin by virtue of their illegitimately conceived re-marriage), whereas the "gay marriage" folk should understand that they are indeed living in perpetual sin so long as they actively engage in a lifestyle that the Bible calls sin. And on that basis the OP article is comparing apples to footballs.

 

[ALAYMAN]

.
There is no such thing as "queer theology".

With all due respect, and not to chide you or sound condescending, but this is one of those cases I alluded to regarding your knowledge of theology in general, but lacking in particulars. Queer Theology is indeed a thing, and Smellin' knew that when he referenced it.

On another note,

While I don't read that passage the way he does,

If Mr Johnson, the author of the article that Alayman provided, were to be correct, that would be great for those who have abandoned their marriage vows: They can invoke I John 1:9 and be on their way - with a new sexual partner that God now considers their holy spouse. While it's interesting that God, apparently, is so flexible according to Johnson,

Your entire argument is largely contingent upon this (red highlight above) flawed contingency. People can mis-use and abuse theological intentions of God's principles/commands/laws and often have. Examples in Scripture are many, including Corban and idolatrous molten calf worship as rationalizations of true worship.

It also sort of scares me that Mr Johnson uses The Law as a reason not to go back to one's original spouse. I thought we were no longer under The Law. If we are still under The Law and The Law is to be followed, I could be stoned to death by those better than me. That's sort of scary. Or is it that we invoke the law in one instance but not in another?

Again, I disagree with what I perceive as your mishandling of theological arguments. Johnson isn't making a case for us using "The Mosaic Law" rigidly in force today. He is using the principles of theo-logic that can be gleaned from the reason that Moses penned those words to support New Testament teachings. There's a big difference in appealing to the Mosaic Law (theonomy) being extracted and enforced today and merely citing the Biblical rationale employed in the OT text as supporting arguments for New Testament commands/principles/teachings.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Then it wasn't targeted at you, no need to rip your cloak nor put sackloth and ashes on.

Then perhaps you should probably use a little more caution when typing stuff like that on someone’s post. I’m not a mind reader….

The initial act of remarriage is adultery, agreed.

That’s really the bottom line then. Everything else is a big, juicy nothing burger.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Then perhaps you should probably use a little more caution when typing stuff like that on someone’s post. I’m not a mind reader….

This is the original post you are throwing a tizzy over...

"Hey, not sure why the author is limiting the scope of their focus to just gay marriage. Since Christians are (ostensibly) hypocrites on this subject maybe they should just stop saying anything at all about right and wrong

(Is that you I hear Smellin’?)"

Do you see that bolded portion? It gives the context for who I was addressing. Maybe rather than wearing your emotions on your sleeve so much you should read what was read and respond appropriately with a lot less snark, especially since I explained afterward that you weren't the target of the derision.

That’s really the bottom line then. Everything else is a big, juicy nothing burger.

You don't make any sense. The fact that people commit adultery by remarriage illegitimately, but then may be forgiven, is a whole different theological consideration than gay marriage. If you can't see that simple truth then either you are too obtuse or stubborn to face simple facts, or you would rather just like to argue.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Maybe rather than wearing your emotions on your sleeve so much you should read what was read and respond appropriately with a lot less snark, especially since I explained afterward that you weren't the target of the derision.

“Sorry for the confusion” would suffice instead of your constant accusations of wearing sack cloth and ashes, wearing emotions on my sleeves, and just belittling me in general. For the record, I didn’t even call you out by name.

If you can't see that simple truth then either you are too obtuse or stubborn to face simple facts, or you would rather just like to argue.

Or…maybe my pastor and I (and others) have a different interpretation of Scripture. Or…is your interpretation the final answer?

 

[ALAYMAN]

“Sorry for the confusion” would suffice instead of your constant accusations of wearing sack cloth and ashes, wearing emotions on my sleeves, and just belittling me in general. For the record, I didn’t even call you out by name.

In post# 28, shortly after I made the comment about the author (referencing them by "the author" and "their"), as opposed to saying "Huk" or "you", you said Don’t be surprised: I’ve already been referred to as “Smellin” in a recent post. If that isn't clearly referencing ME then what in the world did it mean and WHO were you referencing?

Or…maybe my pastor and I (and others) have a different interpretation of Scripture. Or…is your interpretation the final answer?

I am more than fine with you having a different interpretation, as with many passages there is dispute. Some people believe in eternal security, some don't. Some believe in baptism only by immersion and some are okay with sprinkling. This isn't as much about in-house disagreements within evangelicalism as it is the OP using shoddy or disputable exegesis to throw shade at evangelicals by way of an improper Biblical comparison of situations. It does not follow logically that just because there is differences of agreement over how to view divorce that we should shut our mouths about things that are explicitly forbidden in Scriptures, which only stands to reason unless you are arguing homosexuality is not a sin.

 

[Bob Jones V]

It is a false dichotomy to imply that we should look at the issue as a “beam and mote” problem. Are both issues worthy of critical analysis? Absolutely. Should we shut up about the onslaught of normalization of the LGBTQ agenda because there’s a problem with acceptance of divorce amongst evangelicals? Absolutely not.

Exactly.

It's like saying, 'you're either an atheist or a fundamentalist' and leaving out the reformed charismatics.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

If that isn't clearly referencing ME then what in the world did it mean and WHO were you referencing?

No, it’s actually happened a few times. I believe that’s what brought Smellin back onto the forum in the first place because people were name dropping him saying they thought I was him.

It does not follow logically that just because there is differences of agreement over how to view divorce that we should shut our mouths about things that are explicitly forbidden in Scriptures

The only way to avoid adultery in a divorce is to remain single. That’s the point you’re avoiding, in my opinion.

which only stands to reason unless you are arguing homosexuality is not a sin.

For I believe the third time, I’m not advocating homosexuality. I’ve been very clear about this and won’t repeat again. I’ve also been very clear why I used gay marriage as an example. I believe I even said “two wrong don’t make a right.”

 

[ALAYMAN]

No, it’s actually happened a few times. I believe that’s what brought Smellin back onto the forum in the first place because people were name dropping him saying they thought I was him.

Could you point me to where somebody on the forum mixed you up with Smellin'? Regardless, if you are saying that you were not referencing me, my apologies.

The only way to avoid adultery in a divorce is to remain single. That’s the point you’re avoiding, in my opinion.

ummm, no, that's taking the article out of context. The context of the article I linked opened with the question "What is the status of a Christian who divorces without biblical grounds and remarries?" So the statement that "The initial act of remarriage is adultery" must be understood specifically relating to those that are divorced by Biblically unjustifiable or illegitimate reasons. The person who who has been granted divorce for the 2 reasons of fornication or abandonment (read Bob's linked article from Murray) has the legitimate right to Biblically remarry and not be considered to have done so in an adulterous act nor an adulterous state.

Here is a standard (brief) view of the issue from where most people on this forum probably find common ground.

For I believe the third time, I’m not advocating homosexuality. I’ve been very clear about this and won’t repeat again. I’ve also been very clear why I used gay marriage as an example. I believe I even said “two wrong don’t make a right.”

Ok, but how does your argument coalesce or agree with the article of the OP?

 

[Ransom]

There is no such thing as "queer theology".

There are, it seems, a whole lot of queer theologians who disagree.

"Queer theology" is queer theory applied to theology. It's been around in some form for over 50 years, though it became more visible during the 1990s--and as you can see from the dates in that bibliography, it's a rather young discipline.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Could you point me to where somebody on the forum mixed you up with Smellin'? Regardless, if you are saying that you were not referencing me, my

Could you point me to where somebody on the forum mixed you up with Smellin'? Regardless, if you are saying that you were not referencing me, my apologies.


ummm, no, that's taking the article out of context. The context of the article I linked opened with the question "What is the status of a Christian who divorces without biblical grounds and remarries?" So the statement that "The initial act of remarriage is adultery" must be understood specifically relating to those that are divorced by Biblically unjustifiable or illegitimate reasons. The person who who has been granted divorce for the 2 reasons of fornication or abandonment (read Bob's linked article from Murray) has the legitimate right to Biblically remarry and not be considered to have done so in an adulterous act nor an adulterous state.

Here is a standard (brief) view of the issue from where most people on this forum probably find common ground.


Ok, but how does your argument coalesce or agree with the article of the OP?

I don’t deny I was referring to you, I was just saying it wasn’t just you. I don’t have hours to comb through old posts, and I can hardly figure out how to do the search here, so feel free to not believe me. I found one on here:

Post in thread 'FOX News Donating to the Satanic Temple'
https://www.fundamentalforums.org/threads/fox-news-donating-to-the-satanic-temple.12618/post-255521

ummm, no, that's taking the article out of context. The context of the article I linked opened with the question "What is the status of a Christian who divorces without biblical grounds and remarries?"

I used my original article as an example, not as the final say on the matter. Why don’t we just eliminate what various authors are saying and focus on what the Bible says?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I used my original article as an example, not as the final say on the matter. Why don’t we just eliminate what various authors are saying and focus on what the Bible says?

Ok, what do you think the Bible is saying about divorce, and how does that view comport with the OP you posted?

 

[Gringo]

There are, it seems, a whole lot of queer theologians who disagree.

"Queer theology" is queer theory applied to theology. It's been around in some form for over 50 years, though it became more visible during the 1990s--and as you can see from the dates in that bibliography, it's a rather young discipline.

.
When I said there is no such thing as "queer theology", I meant that homosexuality is not approved by the Bible. I am familiar with gay clergy that slant the scriptures and say that nothing means what it says and that everything is taken out of context. I even have a book by one of them.

I just don't agree.

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Ok, what do you think the Bible is saying about divorce, and how does that view comport with the OP you posted?

I’ll get back to this…right now I’m more focused on prepping for potentially a category 4 hurricane.

 

[Gringo]

With all due respect, and not to chide you or sound condescending, but this is one of those cases I alluded to regarding your knowledge of theology in general, but lacking in particulars. Queer Theology is indeed a thing, and Smellin' knew that when he referenced it.



Your entire argument is largely contingent upon this (red highlight above) flawed contingency. People can mis-use and abuse theological intentions of God's principles/commands/laws and often have. Examples in Scripture are many, including Corban and idolatrous molten calf worship as rationalizations of true worship.


Again, I disagree with what I perceive as your mishandling of theological arguments. Johnson isn't making a case for us using "The Mosaic Law" rigidly in force today. He is using the principles of theo-logic that can be gleaned from the reason that Moses penned those words to support New Testament teachings. There's a big difference in appealing to the Mosaic Law (theonomy) being extracted and enforced today and merely citing the Biblical rationale employed in the OT text as supporting arguments for New Testament commands/principles/teachings.

.

It doesn't bother me if you feel that I don't understand theology. Indeed, I'm without a "teacher" like the rest of you have and the only conclusions that I can come to are from my own feeble mind. I'm not a theologian, indeed. However, to help me understand,

Could you give me an example of what you mean by my "knowledge of theology" 'in general but lacking in particulars'?Please give me an example of how I "mishandle" theological arguments. Also, what is "flawed contingency".

When you say "mishandle" do you mean come to a different conclusion? What do you mean "mishandle". And please come down a notch or two in your language because, indeed, you are not dealing with a theologian.

Thanks.

 

[Ekklesian]

But the Bible is not behind you, as it is not behind gay marriage. You can't change what Jesus said. You can't rationalize it as in your next to the last statement.

What Jesus said, then, is the question, isn't it?

 

[ALAYMAN]

.

It doesn't bother me if you feel that I don't understand theology. Indeed, I'm without a "teacher" like the rest of you have and the only conclusions that I can come to are from my own feeble mind. I'm not a theologian, indeed. However, to help me understand,

Could you give me an example of what you mean by my "knowledge of theology" 'in general but lacking in particulars'?Please give me an example of how I "mishandle" theological arguments. Also, what is "flawed contingency".

When you say "mishandle" do you mean come to a different conclusion? What do you mean "mishandle". And please come down a notch or two in your language because, indeed, you are not dealing with a theologian.

Thanks.

Sorry Gringo, I misunderstood your statement about “queer theology” and as a result underestimated your awareness of a category of theology, my mistake.

As to your other questions I will try to get some response tomorrow.

 

[Gringo]

Sorry Gringo, I misunderstood your statement about “queer theology” and as a result underestimated your awareness of a category of theology, my mistake.

As to your other questions I will try to get some response tomorrow.

.

.

 

[ALAYMAN]

.

.

Here’s maybe an example that sorta typifies what I mean. It seems you mix up categories, namely works(“law” to the unsaved understanding ) and grace. God’s grace will inevitably lead to works of righteousness (Eph 2:8-10) and fruit (Gal 5) but not understanding the full scope and impact of grace, and that it is at the heart of all phases of the Christian experience (salvation/regeneration/“born again”, sanctification=growing into practical holiness by grace, glorification=complete absence from the penalty/power/presence of sin) will lead to all sorts of confusing doctrine/theology like those that believe one can lose their salvation (Hebrews 6:4-6). Or it may lead to the Roman Catholic error of believing some form of our works contributes to our salvation (Titus 3:5-7). Misunderstanding grace might lead a person to depend on their own righteousness to get them to God (the Rich Young Ruler Mk 10:17).

All of that to say that IMNSHO you aren’t alone in what I perceive to be a fundamentally flawed view of the grace of God by people. It is human nature to want to work to please God (think of one of the first stories you learned in the Bible about humankind when Cain tried to please God by offering God the fruit of his labor rather than a faithful offer per God’s requirements), but it is God’s grace that saves, enables us to do good works, and to preserve unto the end.

Does that help answer some of what you asked?