A few more comments for John, out of the necessity for clarity and the pursuit of truth.

It may be an informal dialog, but it is an important discussion, so every effort should be made for not only accuracy in what you are disputing, but an actual address of the issues raised here. On several counts, the way you represent my position is contrary to what I have specifically said. What an involved science it would be, to lay out all of the ways various components of my belief can be misrepresented, which is why I ended the comments section of my blog...but I am willing to carry out the discussion here until some clarity has been reached. I consider misrepresentations of my statements and my beliefs sufficiently addressed.

I will be looking for specific answers from both yourself and Sean, in order to bring some clarity to my actual position, which you have both avoided. Maybe you don't have a position on the complexities of Scripture. I'll get to Sean's comments in a minute, and address John a little further first.

It seems to me that Jesus spoke beyond the parameters of traditional Jewish thinking. This a significant truth about His teachings, which is seen in several ways. I won't elaborate on this, other than to say that He raised eyebrows on several occasions in speaking the pure truth of God. The law that Jesus promoted was limited to the Ten Commandments, and the Two Commandments concerning loving God first and loving your neighbor as yourself, not the entire body of Mosaic laws. I see Jesus as being compassionate and loving people, also as speaking things that people would not expect. He did say that not a stroke or letter of the Law will be removed, until a particular event had been accomplished, and this event has now been accomplished. The law of God is now explicitly stated to be love, in its entirety. Here are a few biblical truths and reinforcements for my belief:

(1) We are not under the Law; (2) The law forbidding same-sex relations is not part of the T.C. and it could easily have been; (3) Jesus did not speak against same-sex relations, which He could've done, in light of the realities of the issue and the future controversy; (4) There is no importance stated in the Book of Revelation, regarding the concept of "the order of the genders." None of this matters to the ecumenical, traditional Christian belief, but it speaks a great deal to this complex issue in the family of God.

You are saying that there is no line to be drawn between Paul and Jesus? My question to you--aside from mentioning the fact that Jesus is the Lord, and Paul is a mere man--where do you find this substantiated in Scripture, as borne witness to by God? I see God bearing witness to His Son in many ways. I see a witness upon Paul, but not in the manner that you are speaking of. So I don't see a biblical basis for taking Paul's words as the words of Jesus Christ, with no reason or discernment needed, nor do I see this supposed belief of ecumenical Christianity carried out in the church. Based on this truth, his culturally-based teachings are subject to these principles that I mentioned, which we also do see in the practice of the Christian faith, but not talked about much or established as being based on principles of liberty.

In answer to your question about incest: There is no compelling reason for the acceptance of relations between family members. The issue of homosexuality does have compelling truths, that have evolved in humanity and emerged at some point in history. That is why there is disagreement amongst good-hearted believers in the Lord about the issue. That is why it is considered unreasonable by many, to require gay people to be straight or to be celibate, and to believe that these truths of the issue mean nothing to a kind, compassionate, and reasonable God.

I guess we'll have to disagree on this next point...there is much wicked behavior that I could never engage in. I'm quite capable of failing, but not in all ways. I live in Christ, have love and empathy for other people, and I fear God. Jesus was tempted in all ways, as we are, and the ways that we are tempted are not in all things. He was not and could not be tempted in all things, only the things that He could be tempted in was He tempted in, having to do with weakness of the flesh. This is how I personally understand our good Lord.

Next point: "Truth in Christianity has always been based on ecumenical agreement guided by God’s Spirit." It's easy to state a simplistic version of what we believe in. The core of our beliefs is the same, regarding who Jesus Christ is, and our need for Him. When it comes down to specific laws of the Bible and the practice of the faith...we don't practice what we claim to be true, if we are stating Paul's words to be the words of Christ. What is God's Spirit on these things? It's probably best that we don't talk about it, thus "agreement" in the church does not necessarily establish "truth." And agreement is not going to grant an individual a place of honor in God's kingdom.

I agree that our hearts can deceive us in many ways. This has been brought before God well, and examined thoroughly in light of the whole picture of God's Word. So, no, it is not about a "confirming feeling." It is all well-reasoned, and based on many truths. You don't have to believe this. You are entitled to believe that God despises all intimate, same-sex relationships. The point is that our accountability is to God, and to do no harm to our neighbor. Beyond this...I believe we are to mind our own households and our own relationships with God. People are entitled to voice their beliefs, but there is much that they have ignored, and their position does not have nearly the strength that they believe it has in my view.

The Mosaic Law established an "image" of holiness, largely speaking, in my understanding, and I do follow the spirit of the Law. "The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)

As far as your statement about "Biblical trajectories for women"...I'm not following your point. Paul was very clear about the limitations to be placed on women, and how he expected them to conduct themselves in regards to the things that I've mentioned.

"However, for me the overwhelming weight of biblical evidence and Christian tradition (which has interpreted the Biblical evidence as you are trying to do) is against your position. Almost 2000 years of Spirit filled interpreters of the Bible have come down against you and the majority still do today." And it has been very easy for them to do this on the subject of same-sex relationships. It doesn't prove that they represent the heart of God on the matter. The way He established His Word provides for this understanding of the issue. He is a God of the heart, meaning that it is the heart that He looks upon, which man cannot see.

Sean: I'll be giving my final comments at some point in this discussion, and this will address your statements: "The Bible is not true?" and my supposed "dishonest approach" of how it seems to me that God will be addressing this issue, which I am also addressing in this letter.

In the mean time, I'll address your comparison between the Bible and how we must view the laws of the land, and then I'll ask you a question about your understanding of the Bible.

Simply put...the laws of the Bible, and the law of the land, are two very different concepts. Is this an opinion that I have derived for my own purposes, or is this abundantly, undeniably provable in Scripture? It is provable, and it is the Bible that God has given to humanity. This will be a time-consuming task, but I will have to in time, for the sake of this study, count how many laws in the Bible we do not find in the function of the Christian faith. The law of the land functions in a much different way.

In claiming that this is very clear and not subject to discussion, on the basis that God would not allow something to be, in truth, not as it appears in the Bible (which He did even within the context of the Bible itself, regarding foods and days of the week)...I believe you are working to maintain what is a patently false belief, that the Bible is or contains a simple set of laws, which represent inherent truth, and will remain authoritative until the end of time. In doing so, you believe that it is you who is speaking the truth about the Bible. You also believe it is you who is speaking the truth, while putting yourself in the place of God, though judging my heart falsely, and speaking falsely about me in other ways. So, because it is you who speaks truthfully, and not me, you will not simply state where you claim that I have been shown to have spoken falsely.

Questions for both John and Sean: (1) Why is it no longer a "disgrace" for women to attend church, and pray without their heads covered? Is this not the command of Christ, being spoken by Paul? (2) Why is it not a compromise of her glory and her covering to wear her hair short? Does not nature teach that it is? (3) Why is it not a teaching of Christianity today, that women are not to speak in church? I've never seen this carried out in a church, or taught as the truth of God. (4) Why is it not taught that a man may keep his virgin daughter unmarried if he so chooses? (5) Why is it not a teaching of Christianity that a woman may not wear gold, pearls, braids in her hair, or expensive dresses? Is this not what the ungodly women do? (6) Why is it not a teaching of Christianity that tattoos are forbidden? (7) Why is it not taught that a farmer is to leave his entire crop for the poor every seventh year? (8) And lastly, the fact that God set up laws in the Old Testament that had the "death penalty" and the word "abomination" attached to them, and in the New Testament, these things are explicitly stated to be not a law of God, and required of His believers...does this make God a liar? He is the same God, but laws have changed, and do not necessarily represent inherent truth. John 1:17.

As to the idea that "it is all very clear," and God did not intend for one person to understand things one way, while another person understands things another way...what is the meaning of all that is spoken of in Romans 14? It may not be a thing of grace, but we are having a fact-based debate about the Bible...I believe I've proven you wrong here again. Differences of interpretation are clearly part of the plan of God, based on the realities of how He established some complexities in His Word. It does not subject everything to interpretation by any means. It does subject some things to interpretation, and there is much to be said about the context of the passages that address this issue, the question of the blanket authority of laws, and the truth that some laws did not represent inherent truth, but were stated within a particular context, and for a particular purpose to be fulfilled.

Sean, your own words: "I study to understand what I am and am not supposed to be doing, not by what I want to believe, but by what the Bible actually says. Part of that include studying and understanding the context of the time and the culture." I'll leave that alone, but I just wanted to repeat your words here.

This understanding did not come about from what I wanted to believe, and it is based on many verifiable truths. These truths are the focus of this discussion. It is somewhat intense, but it is important to scrutinize the truths of the Bible and the issue, because of the judgment of people who see and use the Bible in a very selective manner. Many people see these truths, and will have no part of condemning the innocent, because some people were born gay and this is evident in God's creation of humanity. "Rebellion of heart," which is clear in the context of the biblical statements, is not the same as an individual's "biological and psychological makeup." How a person lives is what constitutes their "lifestyle." The gender of one's partner does not speak to lifestyle, but is simply a component of their relationship.

I will be very interested in your answers to my questions. If you can make a judgment on a person or their beliefs, you should be willing to explain why their beliefs do not hold water in your view, in response to the basis for their beliefs. I'm open to being shown where I have misstated anything about the Bible or the issue, as I have said.