I'm an evangelical Christian - ask me anything

[Insieme]

I'm happy to answer questions, though I'm not interested if people just come on to be insulting.

I can only give my views and talk about what I believe - evangelicalism covers a broad spectrum of beliefs and I can only speak for myself.

Ask away!

Doing my best to ignore the assertion that I'm not using a moral compass but just having an opinion! I have an opinion that is based on what God tells us about himself and about the way he made us. What God wants and intends is my moral compass, as far as I can manage it.

Right. Here goes. Why are men and women to have different roles? Why doesn't God want people to have homosexual sex? Both questions involve looking at how God intended men and women to be.

God made men and women differently, with different roles. I could just say 'he made them different because he wanted to' but actually there's a deeper reason. I think the story of Adam and Eve is an analogy, but it shows us that God made men and women to complement each other. They have a relationship of differences that together makes a whole. Sex makes them 'one flesh' , not as two identical parts fitting together but two complementary parts.

That would be why God would not approve of homosexual sex - that complementarity is missing. In marriage men and women 'fill in each other's gaps', working together to be more effective than two separate people.

There's also the issue of children - while children are not necessary to a marriage, it is via heterosexual sex that children are conceived (naturally). One of God's instructions to his people was to multiply - something that involves a man and a woman, not two men or two women. Of course it's possible for people to have children via artificial means, but it's still something that involves eggs and sperm, women and men.

Another aspect to this is that God explicitly compares the relationship of Christ and the church (or God and his people, if you prefer) to a marriage. Christ is the bridegroom, the church is his bride. They are not the same - they have a particular relationship where their roles are different. Christ is head of the church and gave himself for it. Similarly, husbands are supposed to love their wives sacrificially!

So if, say, two men were to marry, how can their marriage be a picture of Christ and the church? Two men would each have the same role, and that isn't the picture that God has chosen for marriage.

So that explains why God says men and women are different and marriage is for one woman and one man. Whether you agree is of course another matter.

That would be why God would not approve of homosexual sex - that complementarity is missing. In marriage men and women 'fill in each other's gaps', working together to be more effective than two separate people.

I could almost begin to see what you mean if reality reflected what you say. As it is many gay couples are complimenting each other. Similarly many hetero couples are making each other thoroughly miserable.

I maintain you're not using your own morality. You feel it's wrong because god says so even though the evidence doesn't back up why you think god feels that way. That's just obedience, as someone else once pointed out it's like a dog not sitting on a sofa because it's been told not to. There's no reasoning involved.

I'm fairly confident you use your moral compass a lot, but not on this issue or the issue of women preaching.

Feel free to maintain whatever stance you like about my morality or lack of it, headinhands. I don't need or seek your approval. I've answered your questions in some depth and repeatedly, and I've said all I intend to on this matter.

It's not a stance. It's a straightforward appraisal of how you've arrived at your opinion that gay sex is wrong: You think it's wrong because god does.

If you think about another issue, say, piercing babies ears, you'd look at the harm/good to the people involved. You should do the same about gay marriage.

There's also the issue of children - while children are not necessary to a marriage, it is via heterosexual sex that children are conceived (naturally). One of God's instructions to his people was to multiply - something that involves a man and a woman, not two men or two women. Of course it's possible for people to have children via artificial means, but it's still something that involves eggs and sperm, women and men.

Does that mean that you don't believe infertile people should have sex?

Valanice I think my answer made it clear that children are not necessary to marriage.

It's not a stance. It's a straightforward appraisal of how you've arrived at your opinion

Right, but it's not really up to you to appraise how she's arrived at your opinion. We have freedom of thought. I know Christians who think that the earth is 6,000 years old and the Jesus walked with the dinosaurs. It's no skin off my apple if that's what they think.

And I'm a Christian who belongs to a denomination that thinks that women should preach and that gay people should marry and have sex. Why are you not interrogating me as to the thought process behind those views?

Then why did you mention eggs and sperm in your reply? Do you believe women who don't produce eggs should be allowed to get married?

Also, while I'm asking - what are your thoughts on domestic violence? The Bible says that women should submit to their husbands (which I'm guessing is what you're talking about with your "different roles" comments). There's no mention of any exception for abuse. If a man forbids his wife to go to the police if he hits her, should she obey him? Before you say, "God tells husbands to love their wives, so he shouldn't hit her" - bear in mind I'm talking about what the wife should do, not the husband. Do you believe women should be allowed a divorce in cases of domestic violence?

it's not really up to you to appraise how she's arrived

Op told me how they arrived. Because of what god says. Op hasn't made any of their own arguments for why gay marriage would be wrong.(obviously they couldn't)

Why are you not interrogating me as to the thought process behind those views?

I don't think you know what interrogation means?

I haven't asked you as was asking op in light of her thread.

How come you accept gay sex when the bible forbids it?

I know Christians who think that the earth is 6,000 years old and the Jesus walked with the dinosaurs. It's no skin off my apple if that's what they think

As bizarre as it is for people in 2018 to think the earth is 6000 years old it's not a negative judgment on millions of people and their relationships.

Valanice I mentioned eggs and sperm because both of those are necessary to make a child!

Of course there are men and women who are infertile. That's because the world is 'fallen' and so our lives and bodies are not perfect. That doesn't mean that the principle behind marriage and sex is wrong, and it doesn't mean that people who are infertile are to be denied sex.

How come you accept gay sex when the bible forbids it?

Because as I mentioned somewhere way back towards the beginning of this thread, I think that there are different levels of teaching in the Bible. Some are eternal, like "love one another as I have loved you". Others were appropriate to a specific cultural context.

No, I don't believe wives have to obey a violent, abusive husband. If he's not treating her well (as Christ treats and cares for the church) then she certainly is not obliged to stay with a violent husband just because he says so.

We are told to submit to each other anyway, so it never should be a case of a husband ordering his wife about and demanding her obedience. Submitting to someone is just putting them first, out of love. If we each put each other first, it works. It's not a case of cowering before a harsh sort of rule.

Very interested in your answer to Thebookthief

"But I can only tell you what God says about himself."

Do you really believe that you can speak for your God?

I mentioned eggs and sperm because both of those are necessary to make a child!

Right. So why did you bring this up when answering a question about same-sex marriage? You wrote:

One of God's instructions to his people was to multiply - something that involves a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

It involves a fertile man and a fertile woman. If one your reasons for believing gay sex is wrong is that it can't result in the conception of a child, surely the same applies to infertile men and women?

On your second point: if submitting to your husband doesn't mean "obeying", what does it actually mean? If you don't believe that the husband is in charge, what exactly are the different roles that "God created" for men and women? You wrote:

God made men and women differently, with different roles. I could just say 'he made them different because he wanted to' but actually there's a deeper reason. I think the story of Adam and Eve is an analogy, but it shows us that God made men and women to complement each other. They have a relationship of differences that together makes a whole. Sex makes them 'one flesh' , not as two identical parts fitting together but two complementary parts.

That would be why God would not approve of homosexual sex - that complementarity is missing. In marriage men and women 'fill in each other's gaps', working together to be more effective than two separate people.

In what way do a heterosexual couple complement each other that a homosexual couple can't?

Back to the dinosaurs, why do you think there was no mention of them in the creation story? Is it not possible that it's because when they wrote the bible they had no idea that they had existed. The creation story is at the heart of the whole thing and if it was more factually correct when written at a time before they had further answers in science about the earth and universe, well that would be more impressive. But as it is, they wrote only about what they could see.

Some are eternal, like "love one another as I have loved you". Others were appropriate to a specific cultural context

How do you know which is which? How come another Christian claiming to be in squalor communication with the very same god has the opposite opinion about certain teachings? Does it worry you that it's so easy to be so wrong and yet feel sincerely that you've got the right interpretation?

You can't both be right. One if you holds a belief that upsets god.

ADish the only way in which I can say what God thinks is via what he has said in the Bible. When I say I can only tell you what God says about himself, I'm not speaking for him, I'm using the information he has given us in the Bible, apologies if that was confusing.

Does it worry you that it's so easy to be so wrong and yet feel sincerely that you've got the right interpretation?

Yes, it's easy to be wrong. I'm sure that one day I'll find out I was wrong in my interpretation of some things. I'm sure the other Christians on here would say the same. We are all doing our best to interpret the Bible as we are convinced is right, but we also accept we are human and will be wrong about some matters.

But the reason we don't tend to fall out about these differences is that we hold the basic truths in common. We know the parts of our faith that are really vital, and which are less important. If I turn out to be wrong about women preaching, God isn't going to be angry about that. If it turns out that God is a Baptist and I'm not, I'm sure he'll show me the errors I've made. But I probably won't know about all those mistakes till I'm dead.

We're all just trying to do the best we can. God knows that, and that we are striving to get it right.

Does it worry you that it's so easy to be so wrong and yet feel sincerely that you've got the right interpretation?

Not at all because to me the core teachings of the NT are completely unambiguous. The three sources of authority in my denomination are scripture, tradition and reason and they uphold and critique each other in a dynamic way. What the OT says about homosexuality is mildly interesting to me in a historical sense, but reason tells me that it's not relevant today.

But the reason we don't tend to fall out about these differences is that we hold the basic truths in common. We know the parts of our faith that are really vital

Hear hear. Insieme and I are from somewhat different denominations but what we agree on is massively more significant than the points we see differently. I have dear friends who are evangelicals and it's not the slightest problem.

What the OT says about homosexuality is mildly interesting to me in a historical sense, but reason tells me that it's not relevant today.

Would you have said this just 30/40 years ago? Or could it be that what you refer to as reason is actually having the relevance decided for you because of advancements in humanity?

Lookmore, there are also no mentions of tigers, zebras or mosquitos in the creation story. So why does it matter that dinosaurs are not mentioned?

There are mentions of all the animals that walk on the earth, swim in the sea and fly in the air. Not named specifically, except the serpent.

It's a bit bizarre to expect a mention of one particular animal just so someone could say "ah, that proves it! This must be real because the dinosaurs were extinct when this was written".