You mean I disagree with you on this issue? Yes, I disagree with you on this issue.
You know I was not talking about homosexual tendencies, Faz, but homosexual activity.
Seriously John, this is a written medium. I responded to what you wrote. The distinction is critical and I make no apology for picking you up on it. You are the champion of a non 'spineless' Christianity.
Campbell stated that he was in a same-sex relationship. You can pretend that that means they hold hands and whisper sweet nothings to each other and no more if you want to, but that is not what being in a same-sex relationship is normally construed to be.
So, your judgement of Campbell -- and it is a judgement -- is based on what it is 'normally construed to be'?
I don't know in detail how Campbell conducts his life an neither do you. The difference is you make assumptions that he's a sinner.
To construe is 'to deduce by inference'; not by fact, by inference.
It is a clear logical fallacy to assert that an individual is doing something because it is 'normally construed to be'. 'Normally construed to be' cannot be measured or proven (or disproven) and, even if it could, it is no better than a prejudice or an assumed set of opinions.
It is also a moral problem for a 'true Christian'. The NT makes it abundantly clear that judging others is a precarious business.
'Normally construed to be' is about as precarious as it gets.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »