Re: Gay ministers et al.

[Stephen Webb]

So has the discussion/will always the discussion degenerate to:

A: Look, you just have to understand and accept that I think you are an ignorant sinner.

B: No, you just have to understand and accept that I think you are an ignorant sinner.

A: No, you just have to understand and accept that I think you are an ignorant sinner.

B: No, you just have to understand and accept that I think you are an ignorant sinner.

A: No, you just have to understand and accept that I think you are an ignorant sinner.

B: No, you just have to understand and accept that I think you are an ignorant sinner.

A: No, you just have to understand and accept that I think you are an ignorant sinner.

B: Okay, you mightn't be ignorant but you are a sinner.

A: Huh, we're all sinners bucko, but you are really ignorant.

B: Am not.

A: Are too.

Yawn.

Like Tom says, where's the love in that?

If you've reached this far, try this on for size ...

If this debate is all about how people read and understand the Bible, as opposed to the specific problem of what people of the same sex do with their reproductive bits, and whether they're then sutiable to preach at us, then why aren't people demanding change or threatening to walk out because of that understanding of the Bible? Yes, well, they sort of are now, but still not directly.

Like, if we can tolerate worshipping in the same denomination or building or with an ordained minister who looks upon the Bible a bit differently, or fundamentally differently, then wouldn't we have to accept the corollary of that, even if it included, say, their certain restrictions or permissiveness about what people did with their reproductive bits in private? Is it about the Bible or is it about sex? If it's about the Bible, shouldn't we stop picking on homosexual folk; because, really, those few passages aren't even the tip of the iceberg of interpretation we differ over.

And if it's not about the Bible ...

but you probably haven't read this far.

Stephen