"Greg Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jonathan wrote:
>> * for the purposes of any assessment referred to above, "marriage" (the >> voluntary, lifelong union of a male and a female to the exclusion of all >> others) is equivalent to a voluntary, lifelong union of two people >> of the same gender to the exclusion of all others (regardless of >> whether the latter is called a "marriage" or not). > > In the context of the debate I believe you have assumed what you have > to prove. Because those opposed to the ordination of candidates who > engage in homosexual behaviour believe that homosexual behaviour is > morally wrong in and of itself. This comes back to my main point. To use your phrase above, having worked to discern the will of God on this issue, I understand that homosexual behaviour is NOT morally wrong in and of itself. Furthermore, I find this to be consistent with the bible. Similarly, others have done the same work and determined that it IS morally wrong in and of itself and think this view is consistent with the bible. I think the source of the difference is in the way we understand the role of the bible in determining the will of God. It is this question I think the church needs to address. Jonathan __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
