Dr. Bock, respect for basic truths may be exacting, but it is surely the cause of Christ and the God of truth, regardless of your ultimate conviction on the issue. What some people do in their own personal lives, including as you mentioned regarding people's original intentions not being carried out, which is true for gay and straight people, does not represent the entire issue.

I do thank you for allowing me a few more words in your discussion, and in no way do I expect you to rehash our entire in-depth dialog on the subject of monogamous homosexual relationships and the Bible. I've been very clear that I respect your right to your belief and your understanding of the issue, and that it does have a foundation in the Bible. I feel that the previous discussion became bogged down with various things, and I would ask that you please allow me the opportunity to, as briefly as possible, sum up my biblical perspective here for the sake of the discussion.

It is basically this: The Bible that God gave to humanity is both a simple and a complex book. The way I feel that it is used on this particular subject is that it is, or it contains, a simple set of laws, end of story, which it clearly is not. I don't think you would disagree with that perspective on Scripture itself. There are many laws that have no place in the Christian faith today. In fact, the Christian faith is not a religion of many laws at all, relative to the number of laws found in the Bible. The royal law of God is love, and all that defines love. (James 2; Romans 13:8) Many passages of Scripture establish this truth.

You find that there is an emphasis in this particular area. I see a strength in other areas of instruction that the church applies a "discernment" on, and we do not embrace as a law of the faith today. I also see biblical substantiation for this reason, liberty, and discernment--principles which do not get talked about in depth, but the church functions based on agreement amongst the majority, which would not serve this issue well for obvious reasons.

I want to make myself clear that my understanding of the heart of God on the issue is not about the "time" in which Paul lived so much, as Michael characterized the belief of those who embrace acceptance on this issue. Godless living is just as rampant today. It was about the particular "people" that Paul was explicitly and very descriptively referring to, and context is everything in understanding Scripture. God established His Word with an explicit context related to this issue, and this context is what Paul was speaking from in his view of the issue. You say that we should defer to Paul's understanding on the issue, as the words of Christ and impossible that he spoke without full knowledge of the complete issue, but on other areas of Paul's instruction a different understanding is applied. I realize you have explained your interpretation on this, but I don't think this is untrue in principle.

Your case is that the laws of Scripture remain the law of the faith, unless there is what you refer to as a "counter-tone" on a particular area. I feel that this point should be made, and I'll be very brief, I see no counter-tone on tattoos, hair-cuts, materials of a garment, head coverings, and most importantly of all...remarriage after divorce. I believe it is clear that God established a "precedent" in regards to law and the essence of righteousness, and an explicit counter-tone does not need to be present for reason to be applied. (This change from the old to the new covenant, including regarding things that had the word "abomination" and the "death penalty" attached to them, which Sabbath laws did, has nothing whatsoever to do with God changing. God does not change, but the establishment of laws did change. Romans 14 among others.) This principle applies to anything that is "appearance-based" and has no bad fruits associated with it, which does not speak to the divorce issue, but this issue is an important point to raise in regards to our use of Scripture.

I ask again that you will please allow me a few more words in this discussion, and I'll leave you to the rest of your presentation. The discussion here is all about Scripture, marriage, and morality, and this area was never answered in the previous discussion.

It is very striking to me that "divorce" is the focus of many people in discussing this issue. We are fallible people and two wrongs do not make a right, as you have rightly said. The issue that I see as most compelling here, is that "remarriage" is not condemned as "adultery" in the church, as Jesus Christ spoke about the subject, with the exception of cases of infidelity. It is not part of the movement of conservative Christians to uphold His explicit words on the subject of "the definition of marriage," while they claim that "our laws are based on the Bible." The movement has no problem with the indiscriminate sanctioning of remarriage after divorce. They are only interested in upholding something that He did not even speak on, which of course doesn't make my entire case on the subject, but what a thing that conservative Christians are claiming here.

I'll let the discussion here go now, but I felt that this point should be made. It is not an impossible situation that has no answer. I think the teachings of Jesus are clear that "law" can be rigid and unreasonable in some situations. He explains this in Mathew 12, and in another sense in Mark 7, that laws do not necessarily represent inherent righteousness. This is reiterated in several ways in the epistles. Jesus' very words on remarriage seem to be condemning the innocent party in the divorce, if remarriage takes place, and it is a fundamental truth that God will not be condemning "the innocent" in any given area. He will be the Judge regarding those who remarry, but He is a kind and merciful God as I personally understand the issue of remarriage. He has set high standards regarding commitment, but we can only speculate on how He will judge this. He called it adultery, it is not a situation that involves repentance because it is an ongoing situation, and adulterers are on the list of people who will not enter heaven.

The point is that the church readily gives understanding to the divorced Christian regarding remarriage, it does not call this an adulterous relationship, and believes that God would want people to be fulfilled in love and to not be alone. Some would disagree, but this is the norm in the church. When it comes to the issue of the gay person, who loves God and seeks only to have a committed life-partnership with a person they can love intimately, a different standard is applied in resounding agreement. It seems that the definition of the Christian faith is on the line on this issue, while we don't see any defense or outrage at all on the divorce and remarriage issue.

One of the ironies is that I don't believe the gay individual's situation involves failure--unless they believe it is wrong in their heart and conscience and engage in a relationship anyway--but the divorce and remarriage situation does involve failure and a need for forgiveness. If a believer who was born with a homosexual orientation views this as a wicked desire, as many gay believers do, that is between this individual and their God. I can only speculate and I don't want to disrespect anyone, but it seems to me that their desire is for sexual activity in a lustful manner, and everyone has to follow what they believe in their heart is right. But it is not this way for all gay believers, and what many people see is that the Bible is clearly not a simple book, where an explicitly stated context, consistency in our understanding and use of Scripture, and the themes of liberty, reason, and discernment do not need to be considered.

You've said that the position of those who are accepting of same-sex relationships does not come from Christian values, but the values of love, humility, understanding, and consideration for all, are what should be the core values of the Christian faith. Dr. Bock, I was never looking for a way out of the truth of God, in any way, shape or form. These truths are compelling to me and I feel cannot be denied, as a faithful believer who loves God more than anything else in life.