Shame, scripture and sex in heaven
Homosexuality and new creation By: Andrew (54 replies) 4 April, 2005 - 12:40
- Re: Homosexuality and new creation By: drew27 (10/08/2009 - 08:13)
- Re: Homosexuality and new creation By: Andrew (10/08/2009 - 10:18)
- Re: Homosexuality and new creation By: Jacob (17/05/2007 - 16:01)
- What's the deal? By: sbryan (07/05/2005 - 03:51)
- what grounds a sexual ethic? By: (10/07/2005 - 09:12)
- By way of an apology By: Ivan Latham (05/05/2005 - 02:33)
- Another apology By: paulhartigan (05/05/2005 - 03:01)
- But isn't the message of the Gospel that we CAN change? By: grifgraf (06/05/2005 - 10:15)
- Where there's smoke there's fire By: erlenmeyer71 (06/05/2005 - 16:39)
- Smoking was just an example By: grifgraf (06/05/2005 - 19:21)
- The gospel and gay people By: peter wilkinson (06/05/2005 - 12:42)
- Breaking the bonds of sin is hard By: grifgraf (06/05/2005 - 19:12)
- On breaking the bonds of sin By: paulhartigan (06/05/2005 - 21:59)
- Breaking the bonds of sin is hard By: grifgraf (06/05/2005 - 19:12)
- Where there's smoke there's fire By: erlenmeyer71 (06/05/2005 - 16:39)
- But isn't the message of the Gospel that we CAN change? By: grifgraf (06/05/2005 - 10:15)
- Another apology By: paulhartigan (05/05/2005 - 03:01)
- A Corruption of real love By: Ivan Latham (19/04/2005 - 02:27)
- Unnatural sexual fulfillment By: erlenmeyer71 (19/04/2005 - 16:33)
- Problematic By: sbryan (19/04/2005 - 19:37)
- Yes, and to be blunt By: erlenmeyer71 (19/04/2005 - 20:08)
- Problematic By: sbryan (19/04/2005 - 19:37)
- Love By: sbryan (19/04/2005 - 03:35)
- Born that way = Original Sin By: Ivan Latham (19/04/2005 - 07:08)
- Ivan Latham's statements about homosexuals By: (20/04/2005 - 21:04)
- Regarding Ivan. By: Alario (27/04/2005 - 00:30)
- Regarding Ivan By: paulhartigan (27/04/2005 - 03:05)
- Has anyone seen . . . ? By: peter wilkinson (27/04/2005 - 12:02)
- Regarding Ivan By: paulhartigan (27/04/2005 - 03:05)
- Let's tolerate the intolerant, too By: Chris (21/04/2005 - 14:00)
- You bring up a point I mentioned earlier to Ivan By: (20/04/2005 - 22:26)
- Treating other human beings with respect. By: paulhartigan (21/04/2005 - 04:00)
- Reason, Scripture, and Church Tradition By: sbryan (21/04/2005 - 00:49)
- Hence my suggestion By: erlenmeyer71 (21/04/2005 - 02:53)
- Regarding Ivan. By: Alario (27/04/2005 - 00:30)
- Ivan Latham's statements about homosexuals By: (20/04/2005 - 21:04)
- Born that way = Original Sin By: Ivan Latham (19/04/2005 - 07:08)
- Unnatural sexual fulfillment By: erlenmeyer71 (19/04/2005 - 16:33)
- Keep up the good work, Rob By: Ivan Latham (18/04/2005 - 20:31)
- Two Things By: 1beggar (11/04/2005 - 14:48)
- When you get right down to By: (15/04/2005 - 04:15)
- 1 Cor.10:13 By: (15/04/2005 - 10:54)
- not so much a question of degree By: Rob J. Caskey (16/04/2005 - 05:13)
- God-substitutes By: erlenmeyer71 (18/04/2005 - 18:45)
- Addressing the questions By: paulhartigan (16/04/2005 - 09:40)
-
1-1. I believe scripture i By: Rob J. Caskey (19/04/2005 - 00:35)
- Marriage as service By: erlenmeyer71 (19/04/2005 - 16:29)
- Still not sure what you're getting at here By: andrew (19/04/2005 - 01:05)
-
1-1. I believe scripture i By: Rob J. Caskey (19/04/2005 - 00:35)
- not so much a question of degree By: Rob J. Caskey (16/04/2005 - 05:13)
- 1 Cor.10:13 By: (15/04/2005 - 10:54)
- Humility on Both Sides By: sbryan (11/04/2005 - 16:57)
- overstatement By: 1beggar (11/04/2005 - 17:45)
- When you get right down to By: (15/04/2005 - 04:15)
- Inneresting tid-bit ... possible implications... By: Whitewave (08/04/2005 - 20:17)
- Homosexuality and the authority of the bible By: paulhartigan (05/04/2005 - 02:16)
- Shame, scripture and sex in heaven By: andrew (05/04/2005 - 15:32)
- Revisonist insights By: peter wilkinson (04/04/2005 - 19:46)
- Sin and semantics By: andrew (05/04/2005 - 15:21)
- Why always men? By: sbryan (06/04/2005 - 14:39)
- Why men? By: andrew (06/04/2005 - 15:46)
- Why men (continued)? By: peter wilkinson (06/04/2005 - 16:46)
- What were the women up to? By: (06/04/2005 - 18:27)
- This is exactly what I mean By: sbryan (07/04/2005 - 01:12)
- Immoderate indulgence? By: andrew (07/04/2005 - 10:34)
- Act and Attitude By: sbryan (07/04/2005 - 19:04)
- Genesis 38:9 By: erlenmeyer71 (07/04/2005 - 04:14)
- Thanks for the reminder. I wa By: sbryan (07/04/2005 - 04:53)
- Immoderate indulgence? By: andrew (07/04/2005 - 10:34)
- This is exactly what I mean By: sbryan (07/04/2005 - 01:12)
- What were the women up to? By: (06/04/2005 - 18:27)
- Why men (continued)? By: peter wilkinson (06/04/2005 - 16:46)
- Why men? By: andrew (06/04/2005 - 15:46)
- Why always men? By: sbryan (06/04/2005 - 14:39)
- Sin and semantics By: andrew (05/04/2005 - 15:21)
Shame, scripture and sex in heaven
I do not regard homosexuality as ‘wicked’ behaviour. Romans 1:24-27 puts homosexual activity in the ‘impure’ category: it has to do with the dishonouring of their own bodies whereas the term ‘wickedness’ appears to be reserved essentially for offences against others (1:29-30). Since honour and shame are in many respects social constructs, the argument could perhaps be made that homosexual behaviour is dishonourable or shameless relative to prevailing social mores - I think something like this applies in respect of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor.11:2-11 that a woman is the ‘glory’ of the man. Would this mean that where there is no strong public sense of shame, the situation is different? This needs more thought.
I don’t have a problem with evolution and I think the homosexuality issue is different. My view (influenced no doubt by my evangelical background) is that the problems often arise simply because we don’t think hard enough about what scripture is saying. Our interpretation of the Bible has been too much under the sway of dogmatic interests - on both sides of the liberal / conservative faultline. Before we decide whether to accept a text as authoritative or not, we need to make sure we have understood it properly. Of course, that’s a rather open-ended task, and I guess these are just tensions that we will have to live with.
That may be the case, but I’m not sure. It may be necessary to allow for a distinction here between ‘heaven’ and ‘new creation’ - they are not the same thing. God is in heaven with his angels, etc. Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven. In my view the NT also speaks of a group, the ‘saints of the Most High’, who have been raised and vindicated and now reign with Christ in heaven, and because they are like angels, there is no marriage. But if the new creation consists of both a new heaven and a new earth, and if it is anything like the old creation, it will be populated by men and women in relationships. But that could be reading too much into John’s vision.