Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?

That's a bit of a stretch! For me to judge that it does means I am saying I draw other linguistic meaning than does the rabid literalist.When allied with my belief that the Bible is the word of God you can extrapolate to me saying that I believe I know more about what God thinks than does the rabid literalist. Which I do believe.- Not judging on the basis of rabid literalism perhaps. There are other ways to skin a cat.- Once my entitlement to judge linguistic meaning at all is established then this conversation of ours is over. There would be no objection left to my saying a persons action is sinful (according to the combination of a) linguistic meaning arrived at by me + b) my belief that the Bible is God's word). The qualifier given in brackets above dispenses with any requirement that I get into this, that or the other linguistic meaning with you.I can understand the attempt to re-direct. Your objection seems to centre on a demand that rabid literalism be applied to Bible reading. That's not much of an objection Rrhain.- The judgement involved in the statement "I believe that God thinks homosex is sinful" isn't the kind of judgement Matthew is talking about. At least, I don't derive that meaning from Matthew (or the other verses you quote). That you clearly do (at least for the sake of your argument) is irrelevant however. As you say yourself: ..and not you.Quite..Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Sorry. When you said this... ...I thought you meant it was a question of literalism. Are you now saying that the text does not say what I think it says in any of the ways a text can convey a message? I sure hope not!!- Who's pretending to be neutral? I believe homosex is sinful and cannot see how anyone could take that up as being a neutral position.If you manage to connect linguistic judgement with mote/plank judgement then I might well agree that my believing homosex is sinful means I must judge others around me (in mote/plank fashion). Given this from you..

quote:

---

"Judgement" as in "comprehension of language to determine a linguistic meaning" is not the same as "judgement" as in "determination of good and evil."

---

...I don't expect that connection to be made anytime soon.

I'm not talking about individual words. I'm talking about a message. Not there...in any of the ways a text can convey a message?- There is my belief that homosex is sinful (arrived at in three steps). Then there is my belief that the gospel of God is to be proclaimed and that doing so involves naming sin as sin at times. This second belief is arrived at by those same three steps.If you ever manage to connect mote/plank judgement with the judgement involved in the 1st belief then you'll have automatically included the 2nd belief. But you yourself have already denied that connection existing when you said:

quote:

---

"Judgement" as in "comprehension of language to determine a linguistic meaning" is not the same as "judgement" as in "determination of good and evil."

---

- I'm not telling others that they shouldn't do it. I'm telling them it is sinful. Telling someone that they are breaking the law is a simple proclamation. It's not telling them they shouldn't break the law. There would be something unseemly about one lawbreaker (me) telling another lawbreaker that they shouldn't break the law. That would indeed be mote/plank.Given that a persons own sinfulness is utilised by God in his attempt to save them, it wouldn't be a sensible thing for me to be telling them they shouldn't sin. God forbid, they might actually attempt not to sin in the hope that that would save them!!Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That my linguistic judgement arrives at a different conclusion than your linguistic judgement doesn't alter the fact that linguistic judgement is the category of judgement operating in both cases.Given:a) the basis for my considering and proclaiming homosex sinful is one of linguistic judgment + belief onlyb) that you yourself erected a wall between linguistic judgement and mote/plank judgement..we can justifiably park any rhetoric of yours that is fuelled by the (apparently rendered undemonstrable by you) assumption that I am engaged in mote/plank judgement.Given that and the fact that we are not debating the relative merit of this, that and the other linguistic judgement there is nothing left to respond to in the rest of your post that I can see.

Perhaps you could explain this then... Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It's just a bit of cat 'n mouse fun T4C. Don't take it too seriously. You must be kidding! The fun is trying to prevent Rrhain from misdirecting away from the dodgy basis of his objection. What you're suggesting would be flinging the doors wide open!

Nope. My point was actually this..You say one cannot arrive at linguistic determinations over words that do not exist in a text and gave an example. ...yet you appear to indeed be able to arrive at linguistic determinations over words that do not exist in the text. And gave an example. I was asking whether you could explain the apparent contradiction to me. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The activity under consideration is homosex and no other. I'll assume you accept that the activity (and a concept of what constituted that activity) existed.Which means the activity is open to potential metaphorical description. In deciding if and how it is might be metaphorically decribed we are returned to the application of linguistic judgement. Are we not?- Is there any conclusion above that isn't arrived at by your application of linguistic judgement? For if not I can only return you to an earlier point...

quote:

---

That my linguistic judgement arrives at a different conclusion than your linguistic judgement doesn't alter the fact that linguistic judgement is the category of judgement operating in both cases

​

quote:

---

Irrelevant. You cannot arrive at a linguistic determination over words that do not exist.

---

---

You have explained in this post that your use of "words" above is meant to convey the idea of "basic concepts". Unless you are posing an extra-biblical argument that there was no concept of what constituted the activity of homosex then, then we are back to the relevancy of the above point.