I realize that most folk who frequent this blog do not live near my Louisville home. But some of you do.
It is for you I post this announcement.
My church, Jeff Street Baptist, is doing a Bible study on Homosexuality and Christianity, led by our own prophet, genius and all around good guy, Dr. Rick Axtell.
Rick is a professor of ethics at a Kentucky university and is an excellent teacher and the study is open to all who are interested in the topic - even if you disagree with my church's position (we are open and affirming of our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters).
A good time shall be had by all, with thanks to Rick and Lisa for preparing for and presenting this study.
202 comments:
1 – 200 of 202 Newer› Newest»Doing our part to promote the Gay Agenda and brainwash the Youth of America...
Figure I'd beat anyone to the punch.
Sounds like a great series!
I haven't seen "For the Bible Tells Me So," but it was recently screened at our church and everyone who saw it said it was quite powerful, even for old hands like us (our church has been on the front lines of these debates since 70's.)
Alan, Dan & I go to the same church. This is our first screening of this film, but our third time through this Bible study on "the gay agenda." :-)
Rick holds it every time it has been long enough that we have a number of members/attenders who haven't been through it and wonder, "on what basis are we so inclusive?"
Romans 1
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
1 Corinthians 6
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6
19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
1 Timothy 5:20
20Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
There's your Bible Study on Homosexuality.
Tug, if you're generally interested, I'd be glad to have a conversation with you. But given your overt hostility towards your brothers and sisters in Christ, if you're merely doing a drive by sniping, keep driving.
I'll pray that all of our hearts remain open to hearing God's will. Yours and mine, brother.
There's your Bible Study on Homosexuality.
While I do appreciate you sharing some random verses, they don't really talk about homosexuality, do they?
And let's not forget Matthew 19:4-5
"And [JESUS] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh."
Marriage, according to Jesus is a "one man for one woman" union. Curious isn't it? That God established the norm in Genesis, and Jesus confirmed the norm in Matthew? Moreover, since God does not change, if Leviticus 20:13 describes homosexuality as an abomination... it still is.
Looks like ya'll are going to have a nice little game of "Theological Twister" at Jeff Street. Have fun, kids. I genuinely hope a good time is had by all.
And as I have pointed out over at your place, Eric, God also established the norm for slavery in Genesis - it's acceptable, EVEN selling off your daughter into slavery is all acceptable in the OT - and is confirmed in the New Testament when Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters.
And yet, that is not the final Word on slavery. Why? Because we know now - even in spite of what the Bible has to say in some parts of it - that slavery is wrong.
Similarly, Jesus was entirely silent on gay marriage because there was no such thing, no one was trying to have a gay marriage back in the day. So, yes, when Jesus talked about marriage, he mentioned man/woman. BUT in zero places in the Bible is that suggested that it is the be all and end all of marriage.
Any more than accepting slavery is the be all and end all of what our position on slavery should be.
I don't believe you ever really answered that over at your place, did you, Eric? You DO agree that we should be opposed to slavery even though the Bible does not condone us being opposed to slavery?
If the verses that I posted don't have anything to do with Homosexuality, then nothing written in the Bible has anything to do with Homosexuality, or Marriage either for that matter...
Maybe if you had a Bible with pictures....
Jesus was entirely silent on gay marriage because there was no such thing...
There still isn't.
Tug, do you know how many times the word "homosexual" is mentioned in the Bible?
Zero.
Do you know what Jesus had to say about homosexuality?
Nothing.
Did you know that there are only about three verses in the WHOLE Bible that seem to deal with homosexuality?
Did you know that none of those three talk specifically about ALL homosexual behavior? Loving homosexual relationships simply are not discussed in the Bible.
Have you ever prayerfully studied the Bible on the topic with a heart open to God's leading?
If the verses that I posted don't have anything to do with Homosexuality, then nothing written in the Bible has anything to do with Homosexuality
Correct. Very little to do directly with homosexuality in general.
There still isn't. [such a thing as gay marriage]
This is demonstrably false, Tug. I have many dear friends who are married - gay and straight - and they have lovely, God-blessed unions and homes, living beautiful Christian lives.
You didn't know this? Well, now you do. Glad to assist.
Well the Bible does clearly define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The Bible also defines adultery to include the physical intercourse with someone who is not your husband/wife. Is it possible to have a gay relationship without committing adultery?
What next for your church, swingers night? How about a Bible study for singles having sex?
I have never belonged to a church that did not welcome sinners of any kind but as Jesus said he was here to save mankind from their sins, Not "affirm" them. The church should do likewise.
The flyer you posted could also read:
Join us for a open and honest dialogue about the debate over adultery in the Christian faith.
It would not change the meaning one bit.
Is it possible to have a gay relationship without committing adultery?
Yes. The thing is, Edwin, we don't accept Edwin's interpretation of the Bible, but rather we have prayerfully studied the subject ourselves and came to a conclusion different than what Edwin thinks the Bible says on homosexuality.
So, while YOUR hunch is that the Bible "clearly defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman" we do not believe that to be the Biblical position at all.
You are welcome to your opinion and to hang on to that hunch, but for honesty's sake, I would hope that you would prayerfully study what the Bible actually has to say about it rather than merely hanging on to human traditions.
What next for your church, swingers night? How about a Bible study for singles having sex?
Edwin, if you want to prayerfully and respectfully discuss this topic, then fine. But just because I disagree with you on a topic (Christianity and war, for instance) does not give me license to say, "So, I suppose your church will support killing Muslims at your altar for God's glory."
Keep your comments respectful and don't make foolish statements.
Dan asserts that he and his church "have prayerfully studied the subject ourselves and came to a conclusion different than what Edwin thinks the Bible says on homosexuality."
But Edwin's position is just a "hunch."
You are welcome to your opinion and to hang on to that hunch, but for honesty's sake, I would hope that you would prayerfully study what the Bible actually has to say about it rather than merely hanging on to human traditions.
Writing this, Dan implies that Edwin's position isn't the result of his own prayerful studies: he's "merely hanging on to human traditions."
How respctful.
It implies that in your mind perhaps, Bubba, but it is not what I stated.
I'm sure that Edwin and you all may have studied the topic some - as I did in the first 30 years of my life - and came to the homosexuality=bad conclusion. I have not stated anywhere anything to the contrary.
My apologies if something I wrote made you jump to that conclusion, it was not my point at all.
Rather, I am just stating that this is my church's (and my) conclusion now.
We are each responsible for studying God's Word and striving to rightly interpret it, aren't we? And all one can do is the best they can by God's grace, correct?
And this is why, for me, the greater consideration is not the actual topic of homosexuality (or war, or torture, or bicycling...), but how we deal with our disagreements when we have them.
Dan, you twice referred to Edwin's position as a "hunch." Your hope that he "would" study the Bible to see what it actually says "rather than merely hanging on to human traditions" does imply a belief that this hasn't yet happened. Whether that's what you meant doesn't change the plain meaning of what you wrote, and it's insulting to say that the plain meaning may perhaps be only in my mind.
Words mean things.
Or do you want to argue that we're just dealing with different paradigms again?
On that subject, I wonder what sort of paradigm your church office uses.
"Join us for open and honest dialogue about the debate over homosexuality in the Christian faith."
Hm. "Dialogue."
I didn't see any other congregations co-sponsoring this event. Tell me, Dan, how many of these sessions will be led by a Christian who believes homosexuality is Biblically impermissible and therefore immoral? Or will that position be presented or summarized by someone who doesn't hold (or no longer holds) that position?
Is the point of the study series merely to compare and contrast different positions, or did Michael correctly imply that the point is to explain Jeff Street's position to new members and visitors?
Does the documentary attempt to be objective, or does it take sides? Is that prophet and genius, Dr. Axtell, an impartial moderator or will be arguing for one position over another?
If this study series is what I suspect it is, I have to ask: just what sort of dialogue involves only one side?
Or is "dialogue" another word whose meaning is infinitely elastic to you?
Bubba, many folk who have attended these sorts of meetings in the past were like me: WELL-aware of the traditional view and able to bring up questions and comments.
We specifically strive to invite folk who, like me, disagree with our church's position. That is, in part, why I posted the information to my blog. EVEN THOUGH doing so gives an opportunity for "the crazies" to crash our party.
(And by, "the crazies," I'm talking about the Westboro Baptist/Fred Phelps types - not just folk who disagree with us, just so that you are clear on my meaning.)
So, no, we do not have it co-sponsored along with folk who disagree with our position. It IS led by someone who is providing our position on the topic (although all questions that I or anyone else has had that were potentially "hostile" towards the topic were handled politely and kindly and with allowance that some people will disagree).
Does that answer your questions?
Dan, a guest lecture at the local university hardly qualifies as a dialogue simply because there's a question-and-answer session that doesn't exclude people with opposing views.
In this case, even a deliberate attempt to invite people with opposing views to join as audience members isn't remotely equivalent to allowing a theologically conservative scholar to stand on the platform alongside Dr. Axtell with an equal-time opportunity to provide his position and the reasoning behind it.
I just find it amusing that your church would hold a one-sided dialogue to discuss gay marriage.
Is it followed by refreshments, and, if so, will you be serving kosher ham and offering a complimentary cash bar?
You will never find an example of marriage in the Bible that is not between a man and woman. You will never find an example in the Bible where sex between unmarried people is not a sin.
Therefore you will never find an example in the Bible that justifies gay marriage or just being gay.
I just find it amusing that your church would hold a one-sided dialogue to discuss gay marriage.
And just how often have you had Christian pacifists teach classes at your church? How often have you had pro-gay marriage Christians teach (or even co-teach) classes at your church?
Let me guess? None?
Assuming that to be true, what's your point, then?
Edwin, I believe the standard response is that, like what the Bible says on slavery, we must move beyond what the Bible says on marriage.
It's not as if the Bible clearly teaches -- or Jesus Christ Himself clearly affirms -- that we were made male and female for a relationship that's explicitly between a man (male) and his wife (female). If the Bible rooted the institution of marriage to our very existence as male and female, that would be something, particularly because our existence as male and female hasn't changed since our creation and is independent of any feelings of attraction toward one sex or the other.
Oh, wait. It does just that, in Genesis 2 and Matthew 19.
In both passages, the composition of marriage is clearly male-female and is explicitly tied to our creation as male and femeal.
Those who insist that the composition of the divine insitution of marriage is malleable will deny the clear meaning of Matthew 19 in the most implausible ways. In doing so they make clear that the driving force of their belief system is their androgynous agenda, not fidelity to the plain text of Scripture.
Edwin said:
Therefore you will never find an example in the Bible that justifies gay marriage or just being gay.
Absolutely true. Nor will one ever find a passage that condemns being gay or gay marriage.
The Bible also holds no opinion on speeding in your automobile or directly about genocide.
What's your point?
Dan:
And just how often have you had Christian pacifists teach classes at your church? How often have you had pro-gay marriage Christians teach (or even co-teach) classes at your church?
You miss the point. I'm not advocating that churches teach every view under the sun, I'm criticizing the improper use of the term "dialogue."
Truth be told, I think the church's job is to preach the Bible.
If you're not going to do that, the least you could do is not pretend that your church's own one-sided lecture series qualifies as a dialogue.
Dan said:
Edwin said:
Therefore you will never find an example in the Bible that justifies gay marriage or just being gay.
Absolutely true. Nor will one ever find a passage that condemns being gay or gay marriage.
The Bible also holds no opinion on speeding in your automobile or directly about genocide.
What's your point?
You just proved my point. Your church is preaching doctrine that is not in the Bible. Glad to see we could agree on that.
In doing so they make clear that the driving force of their belief system is their androgynous agenda, not fidelity to the plain text of Scripture.
Bubba, I fully understand that YOUR OPINION is that Matt 19 is the full and wholly-encompassing definition of marriage. That is your opinion. Your hunch.
I have a different opinion. A different hunch.
Unless you have something further to add to your opinion, there's no great need to keep repeating it and asserting it as fact. There is a difference between objective fact and personal opinion. This is your opinion, just as an inclusion of gay marriage is my opinion. God has not spoken to you nor have you measured and discovered that this is the one and only objective truth on this point.
Did you ever answer my questions over at Eric's place?
How do you interpret the "plain text of scripture" when Jesus says "sell your belongings and give alms" or when Jesus says "How difficult it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven!" or when Jesus says, "Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your reward!"? Those are pretty straightforward and plainly obvious passages backed up by other similar passages throughout the Bible (as opposed to any of the very few verses that MIGHT possibly be dealing with some homosexual behavior, about which Jesus says nothing in the Gospels and which strikes at least some of us as extremely vague), what do you do with them?
Did Jesus really not mean to say that we should sell our belongings and give alms? Did Jesus not literally mean that it was difficult for the rich to get into the Kingdom of God? Did Jesus not MEAN for us to assume that he meant "woe to the rich" as applying to, well, the rich?
How about the passages on slavery? Since there are no passages that say we should oppose slavery, are those who are opposed to slavery wrong? Or would we be correct to make some assumptions BEYOND what the Bible says?
If you would like to discuss the topic here further, I'd like you to answer those questions, please.
I haven't answered those questions, Dan, and because you provided your answers and explained the reason for asking those questions, all in a bit of role-playing, I don't see why my answers are all that germane.
Your stated point was that we must look at all of Scripture to interpret a single passage. I agree, but this point doesn't prove that your position on Matthew 19 is the result of such a holistic study.
You provided your own answer to your question, and I explicitly agreed with the point you were trying to make, though I believe the point doesn't prove a whole lot.
Truth be told, I think the church's job is to preach the Bible.
Oh, Lord! Would that it were so!
Man, what I wouldn't give to see most churches to give up preaching their human traditions and begin embracing the Bible. That would be a great starting point, indeed. Shall your church begin doing so, or has it already started?
This is exactly one of the reasons why I love Jeff Street, because we preach the word of God. We sometimes even use sermons to do so!
Will your church start doing so soon, too, or are they already?
You just proved my point. Your church is preaching doctrine that is not in the Bible. Glad to see we could agree on that.
As is your church, assuming your church preaches that gay marriage is wrong, since gay marriage is not mentioned in the Bible.
So, what's your point?
Some topics are not covered in the Bible - is your point that we should hold no positions on topics that aren't covered in the Bible?
Dan, my church preaches the Bible. From my limited online encounters with you and your fellow Jeff Street congregants, I'm frankly skeptical of the claim that your church preaches the Bible.
But since we've come to that -- since we've gone from a specific question about whether the Bible prohibits homosexual relationships, to your questions about slavery and alms-giving, to the broad claim that your church actually does preach the Bible -- let me ask point-blank a question that's been on my mind for some time.
Do you believe that Christ died for our sins?
I know you affirm the historicity of the Crucifixion, but do we agree about its meaning? I know you believe Christ died, but do you believe He died for our sins?
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Rick holds it every time it has been long enough that we have a number of members/attenders who haven't been through it and wonder, "on what basis are we so inclusive?""
Michael, that's a great idea. We do something very similar by including all that in our new members classes. But this is a good way to reach the new non-members/visitors, etc.
I see the sharks are circling here, Dan. I find it amazing that they're so good at criticizing a session they've never attended. It's true, I suppose, they truly do know everything, even the future apparently. LOL
I'll go you one further: I believe Jesus LIVED and died for our sins.
Of course, "died for our sins" is one of those religious phrases that don't have a whole lot of solid meaning in the real world.
To be more exact, I believe that Jesus came "to seek and to save the lost" because God "is not willing that any should perish" and because "God is love."
I believe that Jesus came to "give life, and that more abundant."
I believe that we can know God and follow in Jesus' way - not perfectly, mortals that we are, but we can - and that is obvious we are doing so when we love each other and God, because "everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God."
Does that answer your question?
It's not entirely clear, Dan.
Of course, "died for our sins" is one of those religious phrases that don't have a whole lot of solid meaning in the real world.
And yet we find it in the Bible, which your church ostensibly preaches.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures... - I Corinthians 15:3-4
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
For all your talk about the radical message of the Gospel, you focus on simple living and alms-giving, practices that you can find in Stoicism and Islam; your focus isn't on the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. And for your talk about preaching the Bible, you have never seemed entirely comfortable with the Bible's emphatic doctrine of the Atonement, writing at one point that you thought it "meant something" only to the ancient Jews.
Here, you "go one better" than what I asked, but then you say that the phrase doesn't have "a whole lot of solid meaning in the real world."
There's not a clear answer there, whether you believe Christ died for our sins, or not.
Thanks, Alan, for the support.
Bubba said earlier:
Your stated point was that we must look at all of Scripture to interpret a single passage. I agree, but this point doesn't prove that your position on Matthew 19 is the result of such a holistic study.
1. So you and I both agree that on topics that are less clear, we ought to look at the whole of the Bible, at historical context, at language and at Jesus' teachings? Great.
2. This IS exactly what we have done in the past on this topic (and others) and it IS what we'll do this time.
3. You state that my assertion does that this is what we do does not "prove that your position on Matthew 19 is the result of such a holistic study," and I suppose that is true as far as it goes. My assertion that we sincerely and prayerfully consider the Word of God in this study is not proof that we do so.
Similarly, any assertion you may make that you have ever opened the Bible or prayerfully considered the possibility that you are mistaken on this or any other topic does not "prove" that you have done so. I'm taking you at your word when you say you have done so (HAVE you done so, by the way? Just to be clear). I have no real reason to doubt that you have done so (beyond the fact that you disagree with me, but your disagreeing with me is not proof that you have not studied, it's just proof that you disagree).
Similarly, you have no real reason to not take me at my word when I tell you this is plainly the truth.
4. On some topics in interpersonal communication, we have to take people at their word, unless we have some reason to doubt that word. And merely that they disagree with us is not sufficient reason to doubt their word.
5. IT SEEMS LIKE to me, though, that this is exactly the problem that some on the Religious Right have when it comes to topics like this. It seems like some are saying, "WHAAA?? He disagrees with what I think is an obvious interpretation?! Well, the only possible answer is that he is lying or deliberately trying to be disruptive!"
6. In truth, sometimes we will earnestly seek God's will and one or both "sides" will be more wrong and one or both "sides" will be more right and we will have sincerely honest disagreement.
It happens.
I'm telling you the truth, Bubba, I have been in your position, I have considered prayerfully God's Word and I no longer believe your position is the correct way to view God's Word. That is the truth.
Could I be wrong in my interpretation? Of course. Just as you could be.
Bubba said:
There's not a clear answer there, whether you believe Christ died for our sins, or not.
I don't know how much more clear I can be. I believe ALL of the claims that Jesus made.
I believe:
Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day
I believe:
It is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God
I believe:
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven
I believe:
this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
I believe we should:
Sell our belongings and give alms
I believe Jesus when he said:
THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. GOD HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.
I believe we are to pray AND live:
Thy kingdom come, Thy Will be done ON EARTH, as it is in heaven
I believe that Jesus expect us to:
Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Overcome evil with good.
I believe in Jesus' teachings. All of them, as best I can by God's Grace.
You and your church, Bubba? You "ostensibly" preach God's Word, do you believe it all? How about the part where it says we aren't to slander our brothers in Christ? That we ought not twist words or bear false witness? That we ought to act in love towards one another? Do you believe all that, too?
I'm sure you do. I have no reason to think otherwise.
"Thanks, Alan, for the support."
No problem. :) Better you than me. ;)
BTW, I wonder if you've seen Jack Rogers' book, "Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality"? Dr. Rogers is a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary (hardly a bastion of liberal thought) and writes from a decidedly evangelical perspective as someone who has been led by the Spirit to change his understanding of Scripture over time.
Also, "What God Has Joined Together: A Christian Case for Gay Marriage" is an excellent resource by David Myers, a psychology professor at Hope College (again, hardly a bastion of liberal thought.) Again, talking about these issues from the perspective of one whose mind God has changed over time.
Both are excellent books and could serve as useful resources for your church dialogs.
Dan, what is your actual argument?
You suggest that a consideration of the entire Bible caused you to believe that Matthew 19 doesn't actually teach that we were made male and female so that a man will become one flesh with his wife. Okay: what specific passages convinced you? And what's logical connection between those passages and your current position?
Even supposing I completely trusted your assertion that you did study the Bible on this issue as best as you could, that doesn't mean that the conclusion you reached is persuasive, reasonable, or even remotely plausible.
In truth, sometimes we will earnestly seek God's will and one or both "sides" will be more wrong and one or both "sides" will be more right and we will have sincerely honest disagreement.
How can we honestly evaluate our different positions without seeing the arguments for those positions?
WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT?
I've justified my position on Matthew 19 at length, most recently here. You have done very little to explain your position, much less justify it. Instead, you dance-dance-dance around the issue until everyone else is dizzy from it.
To answer your question, I have studied the Bible carefully to find what it says about marriage and sexuality. For a long time I thought Romans contained the most important NT passage condemning homosexuality, but I have since become thoroughly convinced that Matthew 19 is the far more fundamental passage: it outlines God's will for man regarding sexuality, and by outlining what's permissible -- marriage or chastity, and nothing else; and here marriage is clearly lifelong heterosexual monogamy -- Matthew 19 excludes whatever Romans 1 condemns and every other deviation: whether modern day homosexuality qualifies as part of what Romans 1 condemns (and, still, I think the case is stronger that it is than it isn't) it is still excluded from what Matthew 19 commends.
But I'm not asking for proof that you studied the Bible: I'm simply asking for the argument from the Bible that makes you think Matthew 19 includes only an example of what marriage might be rather than description of what marriage must be to conform to God's will.
Bubba said:
For all your talk about the radical message of the Gospel, you focus on simple living and alms-giving, practices that you can find in Stoicism and Islam; your focus isn't on the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection.
It is written:
We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness.
And again:
Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?
Jesus taught us His moral guidelines, showed us HOW to live and spent probably most of His preaching time doing so. Is this "proof" that Jesus didn't focus on His death and resurrection enough?
Or rather, is it because we are saved by God's Grace, as Jesus teaches, through faith in Jesus who died and rose again, and that this is the beginning point of our salvation. BUT, we are eventually to move on past those beginning points on to the deeper, more meaty teachings that deal with HOW we live, HOW we follow Jesus' steps.
There comes a time when we are to put the childish things behind us and move on to a deeper life in Christ, a life beyond, "Yeay! I'm saved by God's grace! Good for me!"
There's more out there than just "saved by God's Grace" and Jesus' own teachings demonstrate this, as do the teachings of the whole Bible.
Finally, as I'm heading out on vacation and only intended to comment here briefly:
You and your church, Bubba? You "ostensibly" preach God's Word, do you believe it all? How about the part where it says we aren't to slander our brothers in Christ? That we ought not twist words or bear false witness? That we ought to act in love towards one another? Do you believe all that, too?
I'm sure you do. I have no reason to think otherwise.
I do.
Dan, I'm glad to see you believe that Christ died for our sins.
It's nevertheless true that I'm concerned that you put a far greater emphasis on a subset of Christ's ethical teachings -- specifically, those that can be seen as consistent with socialism and pacifism and other aspects of your political philosophy -- to the detriment of the truly central claims of Christianity: the Incarnation of Christ, and His death and resurrection through which we are provided the forgiveness of sin and the gift of eternal life.
Compared to those claims about what God in Christ has already done for us, the teachings about how we are to live for God, important as they are, really are secondary.
As I said here, what you referenced as the radical truths of the Bible -- "a concern for the poor, living simply, living peaceably" -- aren't really unique to Christianity. For Muslims, alms-giving is one of the central pillars of their faith; Stoics lived very, very simply; and plenty of Hindus are pacifists who seek to live peaceably.
My concern is that I don't think any consistent Christian can long hold firm to the beliefs about what Christ has done for us unless he also recognizes the absolute primacy of those claims.
Your most recent comment demonstrates that I'm not completely off-base regarding your priorities. If I'm right about the inherent instability of your priorities, then you may be in very treacherous waters spiritually.
...we are saved by God's Grace, as Jesus teaches, through faith in Jesus who died and rose again, and that this is the beginning point of our salvation. BUT, we are eventually to move on past those beginning points on to the deeper, more meaty teachings that deal with HOW we live, HOW we follow Jesus' steps.
There are no "deeper, more meaty teachings" than that Christ died for us.
As we mature, we certainly should learn to live more consistently with our faith, but the cross and the empty tomb remain the core of that faith: indeed, His death and resurrection are why we are even capable of growing in faith.
There comes a time when we are to put the childish things behind us and move on to a deeper life in Christ, a life beyond, "Yeay! I'm saved by God's grace! Good for me!"
To even suggest rhetorically that the cross and the empty tomb are comparable to the childish things Paul taught that we should put away -- or worse, to go beyond a mere comparison -- isn't merely spiritually dangerous. It's positively lethal.
After I read Bubba's reply "It's not entirely clear, Dan" all I could do was sit here, stare at my computer screen, and shake my head.
I could not even bring myself to read the remaining comments.
Bubba, you're a real piece of work. You know that?
You are now bordering on ridiculous.
Lord have mercy.
Thank you, Miss Marty.
Bubba said:
There are no "deeper, more meaty teachings" than that Christ died for us.
Jesus said:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others."
~Matt. 23:23
Seems to me that Jesus thought these ethical teachings were pretty central to His Way.
"Did you know that there are only about three verses in the WHOLE Bible that seem to deal with homosexuality?"
Dan, since there are only "about" three (and apparently, they aren't the ones that I quoted), would you be so kind as to quote them for me, so that I can engage in prayerful study with an open mind and heart?
I mean, if "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind", and "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burning in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly..." does not refer to homosexuality, then I would really like to see the verses which do.
Thanks!
Which is not to say that I don't think Jesus' life and death and resurrection are at all unimportant. Just that Jesus thought ethical teachings were pretty central to what he came to teach.
And while you're at it, would you please explain what those phrases actually DO refer to, if it isn't homosexuality?
Apparently, I have misunderstood the interperetation of those words, in that order, ever since I read them the first time.
Thanks!
We all need to be very sure that we are bending our politics to our Religion, and not the other way around.
That is the source of much of our trouble dealing with each other.
Thank you, Dan, for the honest comments.
-Ben
You're welcome, Ben.
Tug said:
We all need to be very sure that we are bending our politics to our Religion, and not the other way around.
Well, as I think you've seen before, it is demonstrably not the case in my situation that I have bent my faith to match my politics. My political view on gay marriage was very much opposed to gay marriage UNTIL I prayerfully studied the Bible seeking God's Will.
So, it is demonstrably not true for at least me, Tug, that I have done as you have rightly suggested we ought not do.
How about you? Have you bent your religion to match human traditions or have you prayerfully studied the Bible, seeking God's Will on this topic?
Dan wrote:
Doing our part to promote the Gay Agenda and brainwash the Youth of America...
The Onion beat you to it.
Of course, they have. They always do.
Great to hear from you, John.
I say this without animosity, malice, or hostility. If any is percieved, then I appologize.
Dan, I have spent much of the afternoon in honest, prayerful study, trying to determine whether or not I have been misled, or have been mistaken about this subject.
I am a human being, and am as capable of being wrong as the next guy.
But I want to be right.
You are apparently convinced that classical Christianity has been wrong about homosexuality for about a thousand years now, give or take, and that the truth has been revealed to you and the others at your church.
The belief that homosexuality is "Sin" seems to be, in your opinion, rooted in human tradition, bigotry, and ignorance.
But the more I study, the more Bible Commentary on the subject that I find, the more scripture that I read, the more I feel that it is being revealed to me ever more clearly that the modern phenomenon of "Gay Friendly and Liberal christian churches" are an assault against the Church.
The more sure I become that they are an attempt by Satan to seduce and defile the Bride of Christ.
Once again, without animosity or hostility, this is the conclusion that prayerful study of God's Word has brought me to.
The Bible says what it says, no matter how I read it.
And I asked you specifically for verses supporting a christian homosexual lifestyle, and you posted none.
I can find plenty of passages to condemn it, both directly and indirectly, in both Testaments of the Bible.
I have no choice then, but to conclude that there is no scriptural basis for someone becoming a Christian, and then continuing in a homosexual lifestyle.
Even if homosexuality itself were not sinful, anything that is so important to someone that they cannot lay it down in order to follow Jesus becomes an Idol, including one's own sexuality. (I myself put away fornication and promiscuity when I finally came to Christ).
I am sorry that we cannot seem to come to an agreement about this, but I cannot agree that compromising the purity of God's Church is acceptable.
I will continue to search God's Word and to pray for the wisdom to find the truth in case I have missed it.
But it seems pretty clear to me so far.
And I asked you specifically for verses supporting a christian homosexual lifestyle, and you posted none.
I can find plenty of passages to condemn it, both directly and indirectly, in both Testaments of the Bible.
I don't believe there are. I think there are verses that YOU, Tug, believe to condemn homosexuality in general.
I've never said that there were any verses that specifically support gay marriage. I've said that it's a silent topic in the Bible, wholly unaddressed by the Bible.
If you can find a single verse that is directly and obviously opposed to gay marriage, all you have to do is provide it. But it doesn't exist, as you know.
What does exist, are two verses in the OT - in Leviticus that say, "man shall not lay with man..." and one of them goes on to say that if it happens, those men should be killed.
And then, the other passage that might sound like it's talking about gay behavior is in Romans 1.
There are 2-3 verses like Tug's "effeminate" passage where the translators are not entirely clear what was meant. There was a word for "homosexual" in Greek. The writers in these 2-3 passages did not use that to identify the "sinner" in the list of sins.
The Romans passage was, for me back when I agreed with Tug, a sure thing. Even though it does not mention gay marriage or homosexuality specifically, it describes behavior that sounds homosexual (abandoning natural relations for unnatural ones).
But the more I looked at the passage in context, the more it seemed to me to be talking about some specific sort of homosexual behavior, not homosexuality itself. In other words, when passages talk against male/female fornication, it is not a blanket condemnation of all heterosexuality, but of a specific subset of heterosexual behavior.
This passage in Romans begins by talking about those who worship idols, a people who "changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
THESE people are the ones who Romans says God "gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly..."
Later in this passage, Paul describes them as "Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; gossips, backbiters...," etc.
And, as I read this passage prayerfully, seeking God's will, it did not strike me as talking about ALL homosexual behavior, but a subset of it. One that is licentious and pleasure seeking. And, I know gay Christian folk who are not idol worshipers, not gossips or liars or malignant in their behavior but who, instead, exhibit the fruit of God's Spirit.
This passage (as well as the two in Leviticus) just don't strike me as talking about all homosexual behavior, any more than a passage condemning adultery is talking about all heterosexual behavior.
As you can see in looking at the Bible, then:
1. The word "homosexuality" is never mentioned.
2. Gay marriage is never mentioned.
3. Jesus never addresses homosexuality. Ever.
4. Apparently gay behavior does appear to be mentioned a grand total of THREE times.
5. It is not at all directly clear in those three passages that they are condemning ALL homosexuality, and to some of us, it appears that they are condemning some specific subset of homosexuality - licentious sex, pedophilia, boy prostitution or some such behavior, likely associated with idol worship.
Now, you can look at those three verses in all the Bible and say that you disagree with our opinion, but what no one CAN do is say that we are interpreting these passages thusly because we "want to be soft on homosexuality," or because we "want to do harm to the church" or for some concocted selfish sinful reason.
The only reason that ANY Christians that I know personally believe that gay marriage is okay is because we don't think God teaches that it isn't and, indeed, because we believe married, committed, loving relationships are a blessed and wonderful thing for both gay and straight folk.
Anyone who makes a claim to the contrary (that we have nefarious motives) are either out and out liars or arrogantly self-deceived into thinking that their view is the only possible view that can be taken in seeking God's Will.
So, the Scripture doesn't say what it says, it says what you say it says, huh?
That's pretty good.
One last time...
The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as sin in both the Old and New Testaments.
It clearly defines marriage as the union of a man to a woman in both Testaments.
It never promotes a homosexual lifestyle of any kind, anywhere, by your own admission.
It condemns ALL sexual activity outside of marriage as sin.
It never addresses Gay Marriage by your own admission, so there is no Biblical provision for such a thing. It does not exist, from a Biblical standpoint.
It warns strongly against tolerating sin within the Church.
It also warns strongly about false teachings and false prophets.
So, if it's all the same to you, I will continue to read what the Bible says, and ignore you on this subject.
When I quote Scripture verses to you, and you respond with "Those verses do not matter, they do not really say that...", it is pointless to waste any more time with you.
Have fun at your Bible Study of a subject about which the Bible is absolutely silent...
It should be interesting...
Oh, and I don't believe that you have any nefarious motives whatsoever.
Never have.
I simply believe that you have been decieved.
But that's okay, too.
Have a great vacation.
As to this:
There's nothing in Scripture that indicates that Christ's ethical commands are deeper or more meaty than the doctrines of the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection:
Nor is there anything to suggest that the doctrines of Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection are more meaty than the ethical teachings. I'm suggesting they are all one in the same. Jesus came to earth...
1. to show us how to live,
2. to live right here with us and know how we live,
3. To preach (according to Jesus) Good News for the poor, liberation for the captive, healthy for the ill and God's day of Good Favor
4. to live a perfect life
5. ultimately to be killed and raise again
6. To forgive us of our sins
7. To invite us to follow in this Way
That IS the whole of the Gospel story. All of it.
Thanks, Alan. Happy holiday weekend to you, as well (or is it wrong to say "happy Holiday" about the 4th of July?)
To address the questions about Matthew 19, let me ask: What do these passages...
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves."
~Numbers 31
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do. But if her master, who had destined her for himself, dislikes her, he shall let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreigner, since he has broken faith with her. If he destines her for his son, he shall treat her like a daughter. If he takes another wife, he shall not withhold her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights."
~Exodus 21
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
~Matthew 19
...What do they have in common?
They each represent passages that:
1. Are not clearly contradicted elsewhere within the Bible (that is, no where does Jesus or someone else say, "You know when God commanded genocide? Or the selling of daughters into slavery and/or forced marriages and what rights she does and does not have? Or where Jesus mentioned men/women marriages? That is not how that is to be taken literally for all times.)
2. Since nowhere in the Bible are those passages contradicted/contravened, a literal interpretation of those passages would suggest, respectively, that:
a. when "God's People" invade a nation, they ought wipe out everyone except for the virgin girls, which can be taken as slaves/wives for the soldiers
b. that it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery, to be married by her new master or to be "given" to the master's son to be married and, if the man engages in polygamy (NOT CONDEMNED HERE BY GOD, by the way) she is to not be starved and she still should "get" to have sex with the master or his son
c. for this reason, men shall leave their parents and "be joined" with his wife.
3. Taken absolutely literally and assuming that those passages are the FULL AND COMPLETE Word of God and nothing beyond what they say could be the Word of God, this is what we get.
Now, for those who are opposed to gay marriage, the third consequence of this approach may not be too bad. BUT, if this is our model of how to interpret verses (take them fully literally with the assumption that these passages are the full and complete Word of God and nothing beyond the literal words is to be considered as the Word of God), then we have a holy mess with those first two examples.
In short, to assume that because the Bible says in a few places, "A is True and B is True" that we can NOT use our own God-given reasoning and inferences from more general biblical references that "C is ALSO True, even though the Bible does not say so," is to make a mess of what the Bible has to say. If THAT approach is our guide, then we have the Bible teaching horrors that our own humanity would reject as ungodly and an atrocity, even if the Bible didn't.
So, Tug, since you noted:
The Bible says what it says, no matter how I read it.
Tell me what you do with those first two examples in my three examples. Are we to use the same measure that you use for gay marriage for these passages as well? That is, do you think that SINCE THE BIBLE TEACHES SELLING DAUGHTERS INTO SLAVERY AND MARRIAGES AND POLYGAMY and COMMITTING GENOCIDE, KILLING EVEN THE MALE CHILDREN OF THE ENEMY (BUT SPARING THE VIRGIN GIRLS FOR YOUR SELVES)... since the Bible teaches these two ideals EXTREMELY clearly and in much more volume than it deals with homosexuality and since these ideals are never directly changed anywhere in the Bible, can we assume that you think these are good things, too?
I would bet that you do not think this, but you tell me.
Great article Alan -
"No matter where you go, no matter what it is you’re into, there’s going to be some ass that doesn’t think you belong there."
Ain't that the truth.
Dan, I really doubt you will get an honest answer from Tug. But I'm just as curious as you to know how he deals with those passages of Scripture.
Thanks, Marty. However, I have no doubt that if Tug were to answer, he would offer his honest opinion. It just remains to be seen if he'll answer. It's early yet.
Of course, I'm open to anyone answering and I'll be sure to come back and check when Bubba gets back from vacation to see if he has thoughts.
When is the last time an invitation to a Bible study/discussion at a congregation became an open invitation to smear the congregation and the invitee without ever first coming to the study to see what was said? Lot's of open minds, here, huh?
The Pilgrim leader John Robinson said, "God hath yet more light to break forth from His Word." And Oliver Cromwell told the divines at the Westminster Assembly, "Gentlemen, I beseech you by the mercies of Christ to consider that you may be wrong."
Dan's attackers all seem to think they have papal infallibility--and even the pope's supposed infallibility is supposed to function only under highly specified conditions.
Sheesh!
Well, Dan, Jesus sort of does contradict the passage about Genocide in Luke 6:27 when He commands us to love our enemies...
And we may be opening a can of worms here, but I can't actually find a Biblical prohibition of Slavery, other than the general command to treat others the way that you would want to be treated.(Luke 6:31, Matthew 7:12...)
The passage that you posted instructs us on how to treat our slaves, not on whether or not we should own them.
In any case, Slavery is against the law in America today, and the Bible commands Christians to obey the law of the land.
To answer your question...
"What do [these verses] have in common?"
Nothing.
Well, that's not entirely true...
1) They are all in the Bible, and
2) They are being used by Dan to prove a non-sequitur.
Oh, and thanks, Dan, for sticking up for my integrity...
If I give an answer at all, it will be an honest one, no matter what the question...
So then, is it safe to think that you think, Tug, that neither Genocide nor Selling your daughters in to slavery and forced marriages is a good thing? That they are, in fact, BAD?
EVEN THOUGH, the Bible does not call them bad, and even endorses them?
And no, I don't believe that I have "papal infallibility", but neither do I believe that Dan, nor his church for that matter, does.
This started when I posted a few suggestions as to how a Bible Study on homosexuality might go, and then became a discussion about the meanings of words and scripture passages.
I have not smeared a congregation, but rather a situation, or a policy.
Stating that I believe someone to be wrong about something is not a smear.
And as far as sttending the study... I see no need to subject myself to distortions of God's Word, that is, beyond what I get by arguing with Dan on the Internet.
As I said before... You guys have fun studying what isn't in the Bible.
Although, how that qualifies as "Bible Study" escapes me...
And why should I consider the possibility that I might be wrong?
No one here has considered the possibility that I might be right...
Open minds indeed!
I haven't offered judgement on whether they were "good" or "bad", Dan.
I thought that we were discussing whether or not these practices were condemned or prohibited in the Bible.
They are not.
Homosexuality is.
"Do you know what Jesus had to say about homosexuality?
Nothing."
Dan has been corrected numerous times on the logical fallacy of arguing from silence. And even if it wasn't a fallacy, Jesus, being God, authored the whole Bible including the passages about human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular.
100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
And he is still trotting out the lame bits about how parts of the Bible don't really belong. Even though he really loves it and thinks it is the word of God.
So this is where the debate went!
Dan,
Your three examples differ in this way: You have once again provided passages that don't really prove your point, in that, the first two are for a specific people at a specific time for a specific situtation, and the third is for all time, for everyone, always. Normally here I'd say "Nice try", but it really wasn't. I know how you feel about bearing false witness.
This comment we hear over and over regarding Christ's silence on the issue, though explained by Neil well enough, is also due to the fact that the sinfulness of the behavior was well known at the time, as were the penalties, and as such was not a widespread problem as was the wealthy hypocrites oppressing the rest of Hebrew society. In other words, the things of which Christ spoke to God's chosen at the time were related to the things they were actually doing wrong. Obviously so.
One more thing that is ongoing is the fact that all the statements made to support the pro-homosex position have been expertly and exhaustively countered and still I hear nothing new here. Perhaps the books offered by Alan, when he wasn't busy being snarky, contains some new insights (I won't hold my breath) that he might be willing to impart. I've sincerely been waiting for something new on the subject for quite some time. At least since Michael banned me from his site after questioning his six-part waste of time regarding inclusion.
I am also going away for a week, but if the chance arises, I'll check in to see if there's anything new to consider.
Finally, for Marty, I don't believe you find Dan's arguments more convincing that Bubba's. It's astounding to even suppose so. I find Bubba's abilities an example of logic and consistency. I don't know what the guy does for a living, but his opponents don't come close to presenting as coherent a defense of their position as Bubba does of his. You said you couldn't read the rest of his comments. I encourage you to do just that, and pay attention. If we were to imagine his position was wrong, which of course it clearly isn't, he'd still be the more persuasive and compelling. I think you just don't like his position.
Perhaps my use of the word honest wasn't quite right. Sorry. I was hoping for a "real" explanation on how Tug deals with those passages today. His answer seems to indicate he doesn't deal with them at all.
Marshall, I spent the better part of 55 years thinking as you, Tug, Bubba and 4Simpsons...using your same arguments, quoting those same scriptures....I've paid attention. I've lived it....
...then I met a gay Christian. It changed my life. His deep abiding love for Jesus Christ showed me a humbleness and gratefulness that I have never witnessed in another human being before or since. I set out to change him, but I was changed in the process. And I thank God everyday for sending that person into my life.
A good book to read is What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak
Marshall said:
You have once again provided passages that don't really prove your point, in that, the first two are for a specific people at a specific time for a specific situtation, and the third is for all time, for everyone, always.
And we have been over this before...
Says you. The BIBLE does not make the claim that those two passages are different in that they're for a specific people and a specific time and that the 3 verses that sound like are talking about some sort of homosexual behavior is for all people and all time.
Do you understand the difference? I'm not necessarily disagreeing that some passages in the Bible may be time and place-specific. I'm saying that you have no BIBLICAL case to make the distinction for the first two but not the last one.
IF you're consistent in how you are trying to read the three homosexual-related passages (ie, pretty literally all people all times), then you'd also take the other passages the same way. But to do that would be atrocious, so you abandon consistency and engage in cherry picking which passages are are to be applied universally and which ones are not.
I'll say it again, the Bible makes no such distinction.
Marty,
I've known nice sinners as well. I've been known to sin now and again myself and I'm a great guy. The homosexual with whom I was closest was a really nice guy and I wish I knew he was a homosexual before he told me he had AIDS.
Your friend may indeed have been a blessing to you, but his deep abiding love for Christ isn't so deep if he engages in homosexual behavior (being a homosexual itself isn't a sin, of course). If one still steals, it doesn't much matter how much he loves Christ because his love is limited by his devotion to his sin. You know, you can't serve two masters. And in reality, your friend hasn't been much of a blessing to you if he has convinced you that homosexual behavior isn't sinful.
As for your book offering, I sincerely thank you for the thought, but Helminiak is one of those guys whose arguments have been expertly countered by Robert Gagnon, a man that homosexual apologists dismiss without any real argument for doing so, as well as two gentleman featured in the very first post I ever presented at my blog.
Neil said:
And even if it wasn't a fallacy, Jesus, being God, authored the whole Bible including the passages about human sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular.
That might be true IF one thought the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. We don't buy your interpretation.
And, as noted before, Neil:
100% of Bible verses that talk about selling one's daughters into slavery and forced marriages (monogamous or polygamous, according to the whim of the husband), do not condemn it.
100% of Bible verses that talk about genocide to not condemn it.
If we're going to go by what the Bible says 100% of the time and assume that this means all such instances reflect God's whole will, then we will have to embrace atrocities.
Oh, also, 100% of the verses that talk about gay marriage do not condemn it (since 100% of nothing is nothing). Arguing from silence, indeed.
Marshall said:
Your friend may indeed have been a blessing to you, but his deep abiding love for Christ isn't so deep if he engages in homosexual behavior...
But you can't really know that, can you, Marshall. You have never met this fellow. You know nothing about him but Marty's glowing testimony.
The thing is, Marshall, the Bible says that we can recognize the followers of Christ by their love. We can recognize those who are of God when they have the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. Marty is saying that this is true for this fella.
She knows him. You don't. You have no way of knowing if his love for Christ is deep and I'll thank you to remember that. Your consistent arrogance in presuming that you can know people's thoughts and reasonings and desires is, well, sinful.
And I can say that without fear of being hypocritical because it is there for all to see: IF YOU CLAIM to be able to know what people's motivations and thoughts are, you are claiming something beyond your ability to claim. The likely reason for this is an arrogant hubris. I suppose it could also be sheer ignorance, but I don't think you are an ignorant man. What other reason could there be for you to keep making such preposterous claims?
Now is it possible that Marty's friend or Marshall or Dan HAVE the fruit of the Spirit in their lives, demonstrating they are followers of Christ by their love AND YET still be consistently wrong on one (or more) sins? Sure. We're fallible humans. Thank God for Grace.
But not perfectly "getting" all of God's Will perfectly right is not to suggest that one's love for Christ is deeply abiding. It suggests that we're human.
After all, Marshall and others here (myself included, no doubt) consistently engage in arrogant, presumptive behavior. I don't think that means that Marshall (or myself) don't have a deep and abiding love of Christ. Just that Marshall and me are human and fail sometimes.
Would that you would find it in your heart to allow that sort of grace for others in their journey. Amen.
It is false grace and false compassion to "affirm" and encourage people to sin against God.
Listen closely, Neil:
We. Disagree. With. Your. Opinion. On. The. Topic.
We don't believe the Bible teaches homosexuality as a sin.
We may be wrong (and you may be wrong). We may both be wrong. Maybe heterosexuality is a sin!
If you are wrong, then it would be false grace and false compassion on your part to oppose gay marriage, right?
Dan, we will reverse our position as soon as you produce one scrap of Biblical evidence that we are wrong.
I do not want to be wrong, and so far the fact that YOU don't agree with my position has not been enough to convince me.
I say "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly... And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient...Romans 1:27,27..."
And you guys say "No! We do not agree! It doesn't say that! We know a Gay christian! Slavery! Genocide! Feed the POOR!!"
I say "...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God... 1 Corinthians 6:9,10...
And you guys say "YOU don't have an open Mind! How DARE you attack our congregation! Don't you know that Jesus never said that homosexuality (in certain circumstances) was sin? YOU'VE never even BEEN to one of our Bible Studies! YOU don't want to deal with REALITY!
How foolish of us to think that we could overcome such brilliance with our puny little Bible verses...
Once again, have fun studying what the Bible DOESN'T say.
"I've known nice sinners as well. I've been known to sin now and again myself and I'm a great guy"
Now and again? Wow! So you're a perfectly behaved guy most of the time.
Jesus tells us there are NONE who are good.
Careful there, Marshall, pride goeth before the fall.
See the thing is. My friend KNEW he was a sinner ALL the time and that he didn't deserve God's grace ANYTIME. So his humbleness and thankfulness was great. That is what he taught me. And an important lesson indeed.
Luke 18:9-14.
Yeah, Marshall...
Just look at how much more humble and thankful Marty and friends are than YOU!
You should be ashamed of yourself for saying that YOU only sin once in a while!
Don't you know that THEY sin ALL THE TIME!
Why they harldy have time to to find things in the Bible that no one ever found before, and to correct the rest of the unenlightened Christians about what God forgot to remove from the various lists of sinful things when He decided that they were not sins anymore, because of all the sinning!
No go, and sin the more, that grace may ABOUND!
Boy howdy.
Tug, that's enough. If you want to discuss, that is fine. If you want to mock the body of Christ, you will be deleted.
And by Body of Christ, I mean my church, you church, Marshall's church, all those who have been saved by God's Grace through faith in Jesus, all those who have decided to follow Jesus.
You are engaging in slander and a bearing of false witness and divisiveness, all of which are clearly warned in the Bible. I won't let you do so here.
I do welcome your serious thoughts about Bible study, but not the belligerent tone. Last warning.
Tug, you have offered a few verses that YOU THINK are talking about and condemning all of homosexual behavior. The words of the Bible do not say that directly, but rather that is your interpretation of it. As it was mine at one point in time.
I don't believe anyone but God will change anyone's mind about this point. What I WOULD like to see in these conversations is Christian love in the way we handle ourselves. I would like to see God's grace in the way we deal with those with whom we disagree about a sin.
You have never seen me mock you or your comrades for your (wrong, I believe) position on gay marriage nor your position in supporting this Iraq invasion and the killing of our enemies and their children. I disagree with you as a brother in Christ as strongly as I can. BUT, I will not mock you nor reject you personally for your position on those sins.
THIS is my main concern in these sorts of discussions: NOT that we manage to agree about this sin or that sin, but rather that we can disagree in love and with humility.
Let's work on that some, shall we? For clearly, a house divided can not stand. It's okay to disagree about sins. It's not okay to demonize and castigate and viciously mock one another when we do so.
And if any of you all wish to comment here again on this topic, then I will entertain an answer to my questions that you have consistently ignored, for the most part.
IF 100% of the verses in the Bible about selling your daughter into slavery AND 100% of the verses in the Bible that mention marriage, mention male/female marriage, does that mean that this is the only way we can interpret those passages?
Yes or no?
No more commentary - and certainly no more attacks - until you address this question.
You all DON'T answer this question (I would hazard to guess, although of course I don't know for sure what's in your heads or hearts) because there is no answer to that question that is biblically nor morally sound.
IF you say that, YES, we should take both passages literally and NO OTHER possible positions can be had but to support selling daughters into slavery and support male/female marriages only... if you say that, well you are supporting an atrocity and you obviously don't want to do that.
IF, however, you claim to believe we can take a literal and nothing else meaning on male/female marriages BUT we can explain away selling daughters into slavery, then you do not have a consistent and sound way of examining the Bible or making decisions. It's cherry-picking and lacking in grace.
But you can tell me, if you wish, what position you hold and why.
I'd like to mention the following book since the other one I mentioned wasn't so well received by Marshall:
Confronting the Controversies- Biblical Perspectives on Tough Issues by Adam Hamilton. We did a study on this book in my Sunday School Class. It touches on several issues - Separation of Church and State, Evolution, Abortion, Death Penalty, Euthanasia, Prayer in Schools and Homosexuality. Both sides of the issues are presented in an attempt to understand the different perpectives held by Christians and why they hold those perspectives. You can get it through Cokesbury for less than $9.00.
"The BIBLE does not make the claim..."
This is a very lame argument, Dan. You use it any time the debate goes against your position. Reasonable people can understand plainly what the lessons are in almost every case. To be more precise, reasonable people can understand the lessons regarding the topic we are discussing.
But let me answer your last distracting question. 100% of the verses referring to selling your daughter into slavery was speaking to a specific people, in a specific time, for a specific purpose. The Bible doesn't need to claim anything to support this position as it is obvious by the mere reading of it. That is, obvious if one isn't trying to support something that contradicts Biblical teaching on homosexual behavior. There is no way to pretend that these verses apply to us here in the present.
But for the verses regarding the definition of marriage, those are as Bubba described them (I defer for the sake of space). They cannot be interpreted any other way without adding what is not there, which is what YOU are doing in your support of sinful behavior. This is not in any way cherry picking, but being honest about what is being related to us in Scripture. YOU are the one making the stretches, and leaps of logic, and twisting meanings, in order to defend your position.
Now, I sure I've mentioned this concern in the past on more than one occasion, but I said:
"Your friend may indeed have been a blessing to you, but his deep abiding love for Christ isn't so deep if he engages in homosexual behavior..."
Did you see the "if"? That means, that my statement didn't in anyway suggest that I know anything about the guy, but qualified my statement in order to respond to Marty's comment. But worse than that, you have done this before, as have others, and it is dishonest when we are discussing a specific behavior. That is, one uses anecdotal examples, and the other is supposed to NOT assume that the example accurately reflects the nature of the discussion. So, are you prepared to apologize for YOUR false witnessing? Don't bother. I don't play that game so I don't require one.
Marshall tried to answer my question (thanks) and said:
100% of the verses referring to selling your daughter into slavery was speaking to a specific people, in a specific time, for a specific purpose. The Bible doesn't need to claim anything to support this position as it is obvious by the mere reading of it.
Listen closely and understand this point, Marshall:
"Says you."
YOU say that the Bible, when it spoke of slavery, "was speaking to a specific people, in a specific time, for a specific purpose" That is YOUR claim. The Bible does not make that claim about itself, but rather, Marshall has deduced this.
As have I. I don't think those verses are applicable to us at all. But the Bible does not teach that. It is your and my extrabiblical consensus on the point.
But I don't know that I'd make the claim that the Bible is clear on the point at all - it states it decisively and conclusively leaving no room for doubt and the rest of the Bible never contravenes that point.
No, the Bible is not clear at all, but rather, it is the only reasonable conclusion one can come to, using our God-given logic and morality of God written on our own hearts.
Similarly for the gay marriage thing. The Bible, in that case, is silent on that topic, and so we use our God-given logic and God's Law written in our hearts.
You also said:
That is, obvious if one isn't trying to support something that contradicts Biblical teaching on homosexual behavior.
I am an obvious example from the real world that your statement above is obviously not factual. On all my rather shallow studies into the topic growing up, I thought it was obvious, but that was not really looking too deeply into the topic. Studying more prayerfully and carefully, I do not think that it is obvious at all and it had nothing to do with me "trying" to contradict the Bible.
That kind of language is what I object to as arrogant and dishonest. You don't know me you can't possibly know that I was striving to find God's Will and found it not obvious at all.
Arrogant religious hypocrisy is a sin beyond all doubt, that's all I'm saying.
Dan, I was mocking the tone of Marty's attack on Marshall.
Sarcasm is not "mocking the body of Christ", at least not in this instance.
Delete me if you must, but when Marty posted what she wrote, followed by the reference to the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, honestly it was difficult to determine which one was supposed to be Marty.
And if anything I said qualifies as "false witness", then most certainly Marty's nit-picking and misrepresentation of Marshall's comment does as well. (Unless you think that Marshall actually meant to say that he was without sin...)
And I have addressed your question about Genocide and Slavery repeatedly.
I don't think that your argument supports your point, but then again, they rarely do.
If I see a homosexual christian who owns slaves and commits genocide, I'll send him your way.
Look Tug, Marshall's comment, in my opinion, implied that my friend was somehow more of a sinner than Marshall. At least that is how it appeared to me.
No one here is without sin Tug. And yes, that means every minute of every day. Not every now and then.
I thought the Luke passage quite appropriate for all of us.
As far as the Romans passage you quoted regarding men burning in lust for other men. Well yes. Lust is regarded as sinful - heterosexual and homosexual.
No need to explain yourself to me, Marty...
I know that no one here is without sin.
But when we begin to give ourselves the power to pick and choose various sins, and to declare that one thing or another is not sin anymore, then we need to be able to quote the passage of scripture which supports our position.
I can find Bible verses that support my point, which are immediately disregarded as soon as I post them, and when I ask for the Biblical basis for the opposing viewpoint, I get called a pharisee, accused of bearing false witness, being closed minded, told that I just don't understand, etc, etc...
Everything BUT a Biblical basis for the opposing viewpoint.
Perhaps, given enough time, Marshall could find a particular sin which is important to him, but that Jesus did not directly address, and that is only addressed a couple of times in the texts dealing with what should and should not be exalted in God's Church.
He could then declare that no matter what Christians have thought about it since the dawn of Christianity, HIS sin is not really "sin". Not anymore. Not the way HE does it.
If he could point to his good works in his community, his percieved "fruits of the spirit", if he was a really swell guy and didn't hurt nobody, would you all agree with him without some Biblical proof that his sin was all hunkey-dorrey now?
2 Corinthians 11, vs12-14
If he could point to his good works in his community, his percieved "fruits of the spirit"
Tell me, Tug, when the Bible says - when JESUS says, "So then, you will know them by their fruits..."
And then Paul further illuminates that "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control..."
And John tells us, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God..." [emphasis mine]
When we hear all of that, do you think that Jesus was lying or just wrong when he said that "you WILL KNOW THEM by their fruits"? And when someone is demonstrating clearly "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control" in their lives (as my church members, do) and are clearly loving and therefore demonstrating according to John that they are of God, do you think that Jesus, Paul and John were mistaken?
Or is there some reason that you think we should take those three verses that SOUND LIKE they MAY be talking about some sort of homosexual behavior literally, BUT we should ignore the direct and clear words of Jesus, Paul and John?
For what it's worth, I've seen more love demonstrated consistently over the last 12 years at Jeff Street by my gay and straight brothers and sisters than I have with you in just the relative few moments we have interacted here in the blogosphere. Do you think that's an indication that you do NOT have the fruit of the Spirit being borne in your life or could it be that sometimes we don't come off as Christian as we would hope when we're an anonymous typist in the blogosphere?
I'm hoping (and am sure that you are) more grace-filled and loving in the real world. Being a disembodied set of words can make us not come across so well, sometimes. Lord knows it's true for me.
Yeah, I'm a good guy in real life.
As I'm sure that you are.
And I do not advocate disregarding the clear words of the Bible in any case, Dan.
That is what this whole argument has been about.
Oh, and nice attempt to redirect the argument and avoid addressing my point by focusing on one insignificant phrase...
I asked you a question.
I've asked YOU a question:
"IF 100% of the verses in the Bible about selling your daughter into slavery AND 100% of the verses in the Bible that mention marriage, mention male/female marriage, does that mean that this is the only way we can interpret those passages?"
Yes or no?
And I answered it.
Repeatedly.
And with answers. Not with more distracting, irrellevant questions.
Bible verses, please. Clearly and directly supporting homosexual activity or gay marriage.
Or an admission of defeat.
Either will do.
Tug, I am striving to be polite but I am going to have to ask this question rather bluntly:
Are you a complete imbecile incapable of understanding written words on a page or are you a deliberate and malicious deviant intent on spreading strife?
The bible is SILENT on gay marriage. It has no words to say about the topic. There are no verses condemning or supporting gay marriage because the topic is not broached within the pages of the Bible.
Do you understand the words written there?
There are three passages that are probably condemning some specific type of homosexual behavior and dozens of passages condemning some specific type of heterosexual behavior.
Do you understand the words written there?
And you have NOT answered the question I have asked of you. If you have, feel free to copy and paste it again, but I do not see any answer to this question:
"IF 100% of the verses in the Bible about selling your daughter into slavery AND 100% of the verses in the Bible that mention marriage, mention male/female marriage, does that mean that this is the only way we can interpret those passages?"
Don't bother giving any other comments besides an answer to this question.
The only response that I could find Tug giving with regard to your question Dan was this:
"I haven't offered judgement on whether they were "good" or "bad", Dan."
He has avoided the question. I'm sure he has a reason, but he's not given one.
Here, stupid.
From earlier in this thread, copied and pasted.
Well, Dan, Jesus sort of does contradict the passage about Genocide in Luke 6:27 when He commands us to love our enemies...
And we may be opening a can of worms here, but I can't actually find a Biblical prohibition of Slavery, other than the general command to treat others the way that you would want to be treated.(Luke 6:31, Matthew 7:12...)
The passage that you posted instructs us on how to treat our slaves, not on whether or not we should own them.
In any case, Slavery is against the law in America today, and the Bible commands Christians to obey the law of the land.
Do you understand the words written there?
So, by your own admission then, there is no Biblical support for your position?
It is extra-biblical?
You made it up?
Furthermore, I have also said, and still say, that genocide/slavery has nothing to do with this discussion.
It is an attempt by you to use a distraction/redirection debate technique to try to shift focus off of the fact that you cannot Biblically prove your argument.
If I answered yes or no to your question, it still would not negate the fact that there is nothing in the Bible which supports your side of this argument.
Game over.
Thanks for pointing to the place where you tried to answer my question. As to this:
Furthermore, I have also said, and still say, that genocide/slavery has nothing to do with this discussion.
It is an attempt by you to use a distraction/redirection debate technique to try to shift focus off of the fact that you cannot Biblically prove your argument.
1. Says you. YOU think how we read the genocide/slavery passages in the Bible has nothing to do with the question at hand, but I think it has everything to do with how we interpret scripture.
2. You are not God enough to know my motivations. You are quite simply wrong in your attempt to guess why I bring it up. It has nothing to do with an attempt to shift focus and everything to do with, again, HOW we interpret scripture.
3. IF we read a passage in scripture and say, "This ideal is nowhere contradicted in the Bible. Therefore, the only way to treat this topic is literally how it is described here," then we need to do so consistently.
4. By this mode of reading scripture then, because the Bible endorses selling your child into slavery, and never contradicts that, then the ONE and ONLY way to interpret that passage is to say, "Since God said it, that must be the one and only way of interpreting. Sell your daughter off if you wish and it is a good and holy thing!"
5. IF, on the other hand, you truly believe (as you just indicated and as I agree) that "do unto others" has wider applications and can "overrule" older passages that suggest genocide and slavery, then you and I are in 100% agreement.
No! It is NOT a good thing to sell your daughter into slavery. No! It is not a good thing to wipe out a village - including all the boys and babies, but saving the virgins for yourself!
How do we know? Well, if for no other reason, the Golden Rule prevents it. Also, as you note, Tug, it is against the law of the land to do so (although there is certainly the possibility for unjust laws to exist).
So, by that reasoning, I agree that we also ought not take the passage about male/female marriage as representing the one and only way of interpreting that passage. The Golden Rule would suggest that if we allow heterosexuals the privileges and love afforded by marriage, then we ought to do unto our homosexual friends the same way. There being no proscription against homosexuality in general, it is a good and holy thing to do so.
6. And so, I agree with your Golden Rule reasoning and that is why I support gay marriage.
But there is nothing in the Bible specifically supporting your position?
It requires mental gymnastics, gray areas, and interpretation?
Game over.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BIBLE SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION, EITHER!
The Bible is silent on the topic of gay marriage.
Don't get all hypocritical and self-righteous when you're in the same boat that I am in.
Understand this:
Sometimes, the Bible is silent on the topic and in those cases, we have to prayerfully seek God's Will the best we can.
Game over, indeed.
"Perhaps the books offered by Alan, when he wasn't busy being snarky...
Gotta love that someone who writes that can, in the very same sentence write,
"contains some new insights (I won't hold my breath)"
LOL. MA, you're nothing but a hypocrite and a snarky hypocrite at that. At least your consistent.
If you're willing to read those references (I won't hold my breath) maybe you'll learn something. Maybe you won't. I. Don't. Care. (Though as this thread clearly shows, not actually reading them will be no barrier to criticizing them. LOL Why confuse the matter with, you know, actual knowledge? ROFL)
BTW, I'm sure it's lost on you, but I wasn't commenting to you anyway, but suggesting some resources to Dan that he may find useful.
"... since Michael banned me from his site after questioning his six-part waste of time...."
Thanks for the lesson in snark, MA. You're truly the unrivaled expert here! ROFL. Again, you demonstrate your rank hypocrisy.
So tell me, tug, MA, Neil, how did you enjoy the study this evening at Dan's church? Given all of your problems with it, I'm sure you attended to see if you actually had anything useful to contribute. No? You're just talking out of your hat again about something you know nothing about and didn't even attend? Color me surprised. ;)
There was a nice crowd there and everyone enjoyed the movie. Very powerful and well-done. Worth viewing, whatever your view is on the topic.
I reviewed the film on my blog and am resuming my case for full-inclusion of GLBT folk in church.
"The Bible is silent on the topic of gay marriage."
Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, Jesus inspired all scripture, He supported the Old Testament law to the last letter, the "red letters" weren't silent on these topics in the sense that they reiterated what marriage and murder were, He emphasized many other important issues that these liberal theologians completely ignore (Hell, his divinity, his exclusivity, etc.), He was equally "silent" on issues that these folks treat as having the utmost importance (capital punishment, war, welfare, universal health care, etc.), and abortion and homosexual behavior simply weren't hot topics for 1st century Jews.
Other than that, your argument from silence is on solid ground.
Neil, YOU are arguing from silence. I am, too. We all are and you know why? Because GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT IN THE BIBLE.
ROFL. Classic. One can always count on Neil to get a logical fallacy wrong. Nice to see that he's branching out from his patented cliche "Straw man alert!!" to the slightly less catchy "Argument from Silence!!"
First Neil argues that Jesus wasn't silent on any of these issues because Jesus inspired all Scripture. Then he flip-flops and argues that "Jesus was equally 'silent'"... on this and other issues because they weren't a big deal back then. Then he argues from that silence that we're all wrong anyway.
As they say over at LOLCats: Logic. Yer doin' it wrong. LOL
The implication that we should "move on past those beginning points on to the deeper, more meaty teachings," is that the Crucifixion and Resurrection aren't as "meaty" as other teachings; and just what do you mean by your allusion to "childish things"?
Fair enough. Allow me to clarify my position.
The story of Jesus and his life, death and resurrection are the starting point for Christians. We learn about Jesus, how and why he lived as he lived and died as he died. We are saved by the grace that he offers us in his life and resurrection.
That is our starting point.
As Peter says:
Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.
It is appropriate to have a childlike faith and appetite when we're seeking God. Saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus. Hallelujah, I'm born again.
But then, we move beyond that to leading a life following in Jesus' steps, taking up the hard teachings that he gave us. Love our enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Overcome evil with good. Sell your belongings and give alms.
Follow me.
As the author of Hebrews notes, we ought to move beyond the "milk" eventually...
In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
So, by my saying that the story of Jesus - the life, crucifixion and resurrection - are our starting point. But they're not the whole of the Gospel.
That is not to say that they're bad or inferior, just that they're our starting point. And that is a good thing. But, as the DVD we watched this weekend at church noted, "There's nothing wrong with a 3rd grade faith in Christ. If you're in 3rd grade..."
Dan:
But then, we move beyond that to leading a life following in Jesus' steps, taking up the hard teachings that he gave us. Love our enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Overcome evil with good. Sell your belongings and give alms.
Follow me.
As the author of Hebrews notes, we ought to move beyond the "milk" eventually...
To what does the author of Hebrews refer when he invokes the analogy of milk and solid food? What are the hard teachings for which his readers are not ready? Loving your enemies? Giving alms?
The context gives us an entirely different answer:
Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was.
So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"; as he says also in another place, "Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz'edek."
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek.
About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God's word. You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. - Hebrews 4:14-16, 5:1-14, emphasis mine
The "solid food", the teaching that is hard to explain isn't any ethical teaching at all, but rather the doctrine that Christ is "a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek."
Your prooftexting, invoking a biblical metaphor in a way that the passage's context clearly doesn't suggest -- in fact, contrary to the plain meaning of the passage.
Hebrews teaches that we should move from milk to solid food, but it doesn't correlate the latter to Christ's ethical teachings. Instead, "solid food" is correlated to a deeper understanding of who Christ is and what He has done -- namely, His death, where "being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek."
I don't believe there is anything in Scripture that -- in context -- justifies your apparent position that moving from spiritual milk to solid food is moving from Christ's death and resurrection to His ethical teachings. The cross and empty tomb are the starting point of Christian faith, but they also remain the foundation of a maturing faith and remain, indeed, absolutely central to our faith.
"The cross and empty tomb are the starting point of Christian faith, but they also remain the foundation of a maturing faith and remain, indeed, absolutely central to our faith."
Foundation and central. Yes. But not to the exclusion of all else.
The Resurrection gives us life. A life not only hereafter, but in the here and now.
How we live that life is most important as it is our witness of Christ living in us.
I believe that is Dan's point. I really don't think you disagree with that Bubba.
"Yeah, and you most likely molest grandmothers.
Y'all can pat yourselves on the back or buttocks or wherever all you want. I'm outta here, I've had enough of your hypocrisy.
Just keep your religious eccentricities out of the public square and we'll get along relatively well."
"But, as the DVD we watched this weekend at church noted, "There's nothing wrong with a 3rd grade faith in Christ. If you're in 3rd grade..."
LOL!!
Dan, you sure are a piece of work, do you know that?
Dan, no matter how many comments you post in all caps, YOU are the only one here arguing from silence.
You, apparently, have set yourself up as "Editor in Chief" of the Bible, and as such, you seem to reject anything that does not fit your agenda, and that of your church.
This argument has been about whether or not we, as Christians, should adhere to the guidelines set forth in the Epistles in the New Testament on what should or should not be exalted in God's Church.
If homosexuality is not sin, no matter where it is clearly listed along with fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whispering (gossip), Backbiting, hating God, spitefulness, pride, boasting..., then what activity can be called sin anymore?
All of this discussion of the "Spiritual Milk and Solid Food" is another distraction, a redirection of the argument.
Any of us here who are Christians understand that we will grow as Christians through study of God's Word.
That is not what is being argued here.
What the argument both here, and over at Eric's place is, and has been, is whether or not modern Christians should, within the body of our Church, exalt behavior which is clearly and definitely prohibited in both Testaments of the Bible.
If the "Milk/Solid Food" argument applies, then in what "Spiritual Grade" do we have to be before we are empowered to declare whether our sin is "Sin"?
Where in the scripture are we given that power?
If the "Spiritual Fruits" argument applies, then how much, and what kind of "Spiritual Fruit" are we to bear before we are empowered to declare whether our sin is "Sin"?
Where in the scripture are we given the power to retain our particular sin if we bear enough of the right kind of "Spiritual Fruit"?
Are the unrighteous or unrepentant absolutely incapable of doing good things, or of living apparently "righteous" lives?
And, most important...
Do we accept the guidelines set forth in the Bible for the configuration of God's Church, or don't we?
Where in the scripture are we given instructions as to how the doctrine of God's Church can evolve, or how "Sin" is to be redefined to reflect the decaying of Human Culture?
No one here (that I have seen) has stated that homosexuals cannot become Christians. They can.
But when they do, they cannot (in my opinion), hold on to their tendancy toward the sinful practice of homosexual behavior.
Any who do have not left their sin on the Altar of Christ, and have kept this particular sin and made it an Idol in their lives.
And any who confirm the decision to keep the sin of homosexuality as an Idol are guilty of sin as well.
Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Dan, you are wrong here. Your church has embraced a thing which will kill it's witness and render it irrellevant.
And no ammount of "good works" will save it unless you, and the rest of the members there put away sin from among the congregation. (As hard as that may be at this point.)
And I know that you think that you are smarter than I am, Dan...
But I can read and understand the Bible. It isn't written in code.
The path that you and your church have chosen will lead people into a life of sinful disobedience to God's Word.
That's all any of us have been trying to say here.
And you joke about leading the Youth of America astray!?!
Doing our part to promote the Gay Agenda and brainwash the Youth of America...
Luk 17:1-2
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe [unto him], through whom they come!
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Not that you would believe that that passage applies to you, or anything...
Dan, to return to your comparisons between Exodus 21, Numbers 31, and Matthew 19, I must say that I've read and reread your assertions, and I'm not quite sure I grasp your claim.
I do know that I don't agree with specifics of your interpretation. In Numbers 31, for instance, we don't have a general command to wage wars of annihilation, but a very specific command against the Midianites.
In Exodus 21, we don't have an endorsement of slavery as an objective good, but a mere regulation of slavery as it existed: the Bible doesn't suggest that men should sell their daughters into slavery, rather, it commands particular regulations for when it occurs -- regulations, it's worth noting, that gave the weaker party more dignity than was the general practice at the time. We have it on good authority that the Old Testament's regulations on divorce were not commending divorce but were merely concessions because of our hard-heartedness, and I see no problem with drawing the same conclusion about slavery.
And, you seem to suggest that the Bible itself doesn't make clear when a teaching is specific to a particular set of circumstances or universal, but since -- so far as I know -- your church doesn't obey the command in Luke 19 and make a habit of seeking out donkeys and colts and taking them because the Lord has need of them, I don't think you really mean that we can't ascertain to some degree (if not perfectly) whether a principle is specific or universal.
But what I don't fully grasp is the point in the comparison.
It sounds like what you're arguing is this:
"Even when applying proper hermeneutics to these passages, accounting for their genre, their immediate context, and the context of the rest of the Bible, we can find no persuasive argument to dismiss the plain meaning of the text, but we should still do so, because doing otherwise would 'have the Bible teaching horrors that our own humanity would reject as ungodly and an atrocity.'"
(Yes, horrors such as the idea that God made us male and female for marriage.)
We can discuss the merits of this point shortly, but first, is that an accurate summary of the point you were trying to make?
If it's not, I would appreciate your clarifying your point.
Didn't I say that already?
Briefly, Marty, regarding the centrality of the crucifixion and the resurrection, you write:
Foundation and central. Yes. But not to the exclusion of all else.
The Resurrection gives us life. A life not only hereafter, but in the here and now.
How we live that life is most important as it is our witness of Christ living in us.
I believe that is Dan's point. I really don't think you disagree with that Bubba. [emphasis mine]
I'm not arguing that Christ's ethical teachings should be excluded, only that they should be (and biblically are) subordinated to the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.
In your third paragraph here, though, you don't just suggest that Christ's ethical commands should be included, but that our obedience to them is "most important," which implies, not only their inclusion, but their primacy, an implication I reject in the strongest possible terms.
A lot of what Dan has written on the subject could be read to imply one of two positions:
1. That Christ's ethical commands and the Crucifixion and Resurrection are equally important.
2. That the ethical commands are more important.
(I've never seen Dan write anything that would imply a third alternative, which I hold, that it's the Crucifixion and the Resurrection that are most important.)
The two positions are different and easily distinguished, and I have long since wanted from Dan some truly unambiguous clarity on which position he holds.
I think I've made it clear that they are all one in the same. Jesus' life, Jesus' teachings, Jesus' death, Jesus' resurrection, they are all part and parcel of the Gospel.
On your position, as you say:
I'm not arguing that Christ's ethical teachings should be excluded, only that they should be (and biblically are) subordinated to the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.
I'm wondering what biblical grounds you have for believing this? (With apologies if you've offered this answer before.)
Dan:
I think I've made it clear that they are all one in the same. Jesus' life, Jesus' teachings, Jesus' death, Jesus' resurrection, they are all part and parcel of the Gospel.
You've made clear that they're all part of the Gospel, but that doesn't tell me whether you think they're all equally important. The steering wheel and the radio are both part of an automobile, but the former is far more important; the appendix and the brain are both part of the human body, but the latter is far more important.
As for their being "one in the same," they're clearly not: the command to love your neighbor and the historical claim that Jesus rose from the dead aren't identical or interchangeable. Heck, they're not even in the same grammatical mood, as one is an imperative and the other is a declarative.
The ethical commands are part of the Gospel. Got it. Check. We agree.
Are they more important than the claims of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, less important, or equally important?
This is a very, very easy question to answer, and I ask you again to clarify your position.
I would be happy to detail the reasons why I believe the Bible supports my position, that the claims about what Christ has done are more important (and the explanation is redundant to some degree), but first, I would like you to clarify your position.
Fill in the blank.
"Christ's ethical teachings are __________ His death and resurrection."
A) less important than
B) more important than
C) as important as
Your answer would be...?
Bubba, I don't know how many times I have to answer this, although I DO know how many more times I WILL answer this (none):
I do not believe that the Bible puts a place holder on the teachings of Jesus.
The Bible, God, Jesus, none of them saw fit to say, "And when I talk about the death of Jesus, that is the SECOND most important thing, and when I talk about the Resurrection of Jesus, that is the FIRST most important thing. The stuff I said about loving your neighbor, that's probably about number 4. All that crap I said about selling your daughter into slavery, I dunno, I was tired or something that day - it's not important at all to the Gospel..." etc, etc.
IF God, nor Jesus, nor the Bible saw fit to put the parts of the gospel in a hierarchical order, then I won't attempt to either.
They ALL are important parts of the Gospel story. THAT is my opinion. I don't know that I believe that the Resurrection is most important (if he hadn't been killed, then he couldn't have been resurrected) or that his death was most important (if he died but hadn't raised from the dead, then what would that mean?) or that his teachings were most important (can you take away his teachings and still have a gospel story??).
I'm not willing to do what the Bible hasn't done in this regards. It seems like a rather childish game, to me.
The Gospel Story is what is important to me. ALL of it. That is my opinion.
If you want to put it into your little schematic, then that would come closest to falling in to the C answer, but I don't know that I believe that Jesus' teachings (ethical and otherwise) are equal to his death and resurrection. I believe they are all part of the Gospel story.
Period.
And your biblical reason for wanting to do what the bible hasn't done...?
"In your third paragraph here, though, you don't just suggest that Christ's ethical commands should be included, but that our obedience to them is "most important," which implies, not only their inclusion, but their primacy, an implication I reject in the strongest possible terms."
I suppose it has to do with how you interpret the word "most" Bubba. I'm from Texas, maybe it has a different meaning down here than over there. I'll admit we have our own special way of sayin' some things.
I tell you what Bubba, for professing Christians, HOW we live our lives is pretty high up on that totem pole for me. Saying it's so is easy. Doing so is a bit harder. And we will falter probably more often than not.
If we only say so, and our lives don't live so ...who's to believe us?
So yeah, it pretty darned important.
Marty said:
If we only say so, and our lives don't live so ...who's to believe us?
James said:
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
Two versions of the same message, sounds like to me.
I agree, Marty, that how we live is very important, but it is still subordinated to what Christ has already done for us: because we are sinners, we need the forgiveness that only His death purchased -- no amount of good deeds can purchase that salvation -- and it is only through the new birth that He provides through His death and resurrection that we are even capable of more faithfully obeying His ethical commands and growing in maturity.
Certainly, Dan, true faith should produce a gratitude that leads to good works in most circumstances, but it's still the case that we're saved by God's grace, not by our works: our works are an indication of our salvation, but the cause is Christ's death.
Considering that you apparently think we can dismiss the clear teaching in Matthew 19 -- if I misunderstood your point with that comparison to the two OT passages, I'll ask you again to clarify your point -- I'm not sure how credible is your position, that fidelity to the Bible is the reason for your near agnosticism on the issue of whether the Crucifixion and Resurrection are more important than the ethical teachings.
(For the matter, I'll remind you that you've appealed to extrabiblical creeds -- the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed -- as proof that your beliefs are orthodox. Unless I'm seriously mistaken, neither creed mentions alms-giving or loving your neighbor. Both mention the death and resurrection of Jesus.)
I agree that the Bible doesn't provide a handy list of what teachings are most essential and most important, but I still think the gist of the New Testament is clear.
As I previously explained here, Christ was heralded, by the angel who appeared to Joseph and by the angel who appeared the the shepherds and by John the Baptist, as the Savior. As I pointed out here, the passages you yourself cited as examples of the variety of the reason Christ came almost all return back to the cross. The Gospel writers spent an inordinate amount of time on Easter week, Jesus Himself repeatedly prophesied His death and resurrection, and the two ordinances He personally instituted focus on His death.
I can say with certainty that God is the central figure of the Bible, and I don't need a dramatis personae to figure that out. Likewise, I don't need a numbered list to determine that the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection are absolutely central to the Bible and thus central to Christianity.
And this supposedly "childish game" matters because, if someone emphasized the ethical teachings over the cross, he risks living a religion of good works even if his affiliation is ostensibly to a religion of faith.
But then, no one is emphasizing the teachings of Jesus over the cross. At least no one here.
I can say with certainty that God is the central figure of the Bible
Okay.
Likewise, I don't need a numbered list to determine that the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection are absolutely central to the Bible and thus central to Christianity.
...as are Jesus' teachings.
So, Okay.
We done now?
Considering that you apparently think we can dismiss the clear teaching in Matthew 19
I DON'T dismiss the "clear teaching" of Matthew 19. I disagree with your interpretation of it.
Don't confuse yourself with God...
Bubba said:
Unless I'm seriously mistaken, neither creed mentions alms-giving or loving your neighbor. Both mention the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Well, just because I don't have a problem with the creeds does not mean that I think they're complete. I've just said that I don't necessarily disagree with them to point out that I'm not unorthodox in that way.
Here's our church covenant, that I think comes closer to representing my faith position:
Having experienced God’s love as shown through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we, the members of the Jeff Street Baptist Community at Liberty, share this promise of commitment and covenant to:
cultivate an awareness of God through devotional activities such as Bible study, prayer, and worship experiences;
share all things, regarding our possessions as gifts from God to be used for the betterment of all persons one to another;
deepen our relationships by being honest, open, and forgiving one another;
work to ensure that Creation is respected, enhanced, and protected;
discover and affirm our individual gifts and use them in celebration as God’s servants;
speak out against all forms of oppression to ensure the dignity and worth of all people;
accept our responsibility as ministers of reconciliation in the world by helping people to accept one another and God;
promote peace and justice in all life circumstances;
witness to the redemptive love of Jesus Christ;
participate in and contribute to the mission of the Church.
With God’s help and the support of one another, we covenant together to fulfill the purpose of the Church. We, the Jeff Street Baptist Community at Liberty, as Christians, aim to love God and
others by helping them, believing as God loves us, we should love others.
Dan, telling me I shouldn't confuse myself with God is wholly unnecessary given the complete sentence that I wrote:
"Considering that you apparently think we can dismiss the clear teaching in Matthew 19 -- if I misunderstood your point with that comparison to the two OT passages, I'll ask you again to clarify your point -- I'm not sure how credible is your position, that fidelity to the Bible is the reason for your near agnosticism on the issue of whether the Crucifixion and Resurrection are more important than the ethical teachings."
It's also unnecessary since I did use the Magic Adverb, "apparently."
I said earlier that I didn't understand the point you were trying to make with your comparison of Matthew 19 to supposed atrocities in the Old Testament. I took a stab at it, asked whether I was right, and asked you to correct me if I wasn't. This will make the third time that I will have asked you to clarify your point.
I have been as civil as I can be. In light of certain comments you've made at EL's blog -- "you most likely molest grandmothers" -- I think I've been far more civil to you than you have been to me.
This implication that I think I'm God is a tired refrain and is, particularly in this case, a clear ad hominem attack.
You misunderstand my point in that comment. I said, "Don't confuse yourself with God," not because you were trying to read my mind but because you were suggesting that it is the "clear teaching," of the passage, when not everyone agrees with you.
If GOD said it was the clear teaching, then that would be one thing. But for another mortal to tell me I'm wrong because I'm missing what HE considers the "clear teaching," is not to say that I've missed the clear teaching, just what that MORTAL thinks is the clear teaching.
Also, it was intended as a joke, for what it is worth. Apologies for the confusion.
Thanks.
If you could clarify what point you were trying to make comparing Matthew 19 to the passages in Exodus and Numbers, I'd appreciate it.
Or, perhaps more simply, you could explain what you believe the meaning is behind Matthew 19:4-5.
"Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
I the meaning is fairly straightforward: God made us male and female so that a man will become one flesh with his wife. That's pretty much what the text itself says.
If you have different interpretation, I would like to see it, and -- if its rationale isn't obvious -- I would like to see you explain how you reached the conclusion you did.
As to the molesting grandmothers comment, I shall apologize. But it was following your comment:
"the definition you apparently support would exclude polygamy, and presumably adult incest, zoophilia, and necrophilia."
And repeated similar attacks upon my and my church's faith. I've been striving to get across the point that we can disagree with other Christians' POSITIONS (and should, if we think they're wrong) without attacks upon their faith.
I was growing tired of that sort of nonsense and your comment seemed to be yet another stretch to do the same thing, "Well, if you believe that, then this argument means that you must also support incest and bestiality," when, of course, that is a ridiculous conclusion to make.
And so, in THAT context, I chose to make the similarly ridiculous claim that you molest grandmothers, in order to make a point. Nonetheless, it was not especially kind and I apologize.
My comment wasn't an attack on you, your faith, your church, or your church's faith. I was simply making the point that, since the legal definition of marriage that you support surely excludes some relationship or other, your definition involves "selectively 'looking into people's bedrooms' (metaphorically speaking)" just as much as ours.
My point wasn't, "Well, if you believe that, then this argument means that you must also support incest and bestiality."
Instead, I took for granted that you don't support extending the legal definition to adult incest, etc. Because you don't, your definition is exclusive, same as ours: it excludes a different subset, but it still excludes.
And because it excludes, by the illogic you used at EL's blog, it qualifies as "selectively 'looking into people's bedrooms' (metaphorically speaking)."
The argument you invoked against the traditional legal definition of marriage applies just as easily to your own definition, not because you support adult incest, but because you don't.
I've tried to explain this, I shall again. When Jesus says:
Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
That is a true statement. I don't disagree with that as a true statement.
But, just because A + B = C is a true statement does not mean that A + D = C is NOT a true statement.
2 + 1 = 3
AND
2 + 2/2 = 3 is ALSO true.
By thinking that Jesus statement above is true does not mean that I think that any other options are NOT true.
Jesus also says, "Blessed are the poor," and that is an extremely clear and straightforward comment. The poor ARE blessed. Period.
Does that mean that one can not also say, "blessed are the rich?" and there be no possibility that this is also true? Does one statement in the affirmative about one group of people mean that all similar statements about all other people MUST be in the negative?
Because selling your daughters is nowhere condemned in the Bible, does that mean that the ONLY position to take,then, is that it is OKAY to sell your daughters into slavery?
I say, no.
Made in the most general form, your rhetorical question is, "Does one statement in the affirmative about one group of people mean that all similar statements about all other people MUST be in the negative?"
No, but to what group of people does Matthew 19 refer? Since it points back to Adam and the creation of the human race as male and female, the principle that we were made for heterosexual monogamy appears to be very plainly universal to all men and women.
The "other people" for which a similar principle could be drawn can't be gay men and lesbians -- because they too were made male and female -- but true genetic hermaphrodites, X-chromosomal and XXY-chromosomal humans.
It doesn't say that He who made them, made them heterosexual. It's that He who made them, made them male and female. That's a physiological attribute that isn't unique to straight men and women.
"No, but to what group of people does Matthew 19 refer?"
Um.... Heterosexual people considering divorce. How hard is it to read?
Verse 3 tells us exactly what group of people to whom Matthew 19 refers: "Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?'"
Man. Wife. Divorce. These aren't difficult words, nor unfamiliar concepts are they? One would think that would be clear to anyone who bothers to actually read it. Sheesh.
So the question is about heterosexual divorce ("man divorce his wife") and the answer is about heterosexual marriage and divorce. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gay marriage.
This really isn't so hard to figure out if one bothers to read the Bible in the first place. ;)
Alan, the question the Pharisees asked concerned married men who want to divorce their wives, but the principle Jesus affirmed in His answer in Matthew 19:4-5 -- which I quoted -- has a far broader application:
"Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
The principle doesn't just apply to Pharisees or to those considering divorce, but to all of us who are male or female.
Bubba, I'd like to ask you a question. How do you think a person's sexuality is determined?
Is it a choice? At some point in your life did you choose to be heterosexual?
Just curious.
but the principle Jesus affirmed in His answer in Matthew 19:4-5 -- which I quoted -- has a far broader application
I guess what we're thinking is that YOU'RE thinking it is a principle there for all to emulate.
Like "love your enemies" is a principle. That is given as a principle by which all people should live.
WE, on the other hand, think your man/woman line is there in the story, but NOT intended to be a be all/end all principle.
It is more like the "Sell your daughters" or "be a good slave" lines in the Bible. It is there, part of the story, but NOT intended to be a principle for all time.
As Alan rightly notes, the PRINCIPLE in this story has to do with the nature of divorce, not the nature of marriage. It seems like to us that you are picking out a random passage in a story with another meaning altogether to support a non-intended principle.
Why would you think that is there as an everlasting principle? On what basis?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Of course Jesus discussed men and women in his answer about divorce. He was asked about men and women in the question. So?
Mr X: "What is the speed limit for cars on Michigan freeways?"
Mr Y: "The speed limit for cars on Michigan freeways is 70 Miles an hour"
Now according to Bubba's line of reasoning, that means one can drive a car everywhere on any road at 70 mph even though both the question and the answer specifically are talking about Michigan freeways. (And since trucks weren't specifically mentioned, they can't drive at all.)
There is a clear and obvious difference between descriptive and proscriptive statements. Though sometimes people do confuse the two, as Bubba is doing here.
"The principle doesn't just apply to Pharisees or to those considering divorce, but to all of us who are male or female."
Indeed Bubba, and the principle here is that divorce, except for infidelity, is wrong. The question is about divorce. The answer is about divorce. So it doesn't take much of a leap to figure out that the principle being discussed is divorce. The specific example used is male/female marriage. The principle however applies to everyone, gay or straight. I believe divorce, except for infidelity, is just as wrong for gay people as straight people.
If only folks like yourself clung as tenaciously to the divorce part of the answer as they do words that aren't even on the page (eg "gay marriage") then perhaps marriage wouldn't be in the state it's in now.
Marty, I believe a person's feelings of sexual attractions are largely involuntary; to the extent that they are, these feelings are neither moral nor immoral. It is whether we choose to act on these feelings where morality becomes an issue.
Dan:
It is more like the "Sell your daughters" or "be a good slave" lines in the Bible. It is there, part of the story, but NOT intended to be a principle for all time.
First, the Bible doesn't contain the command, "Sell your daughters." Rather, it commands particular regulations for when ancient Israelites sold their daughters as slaves.
More importantly, you need to argue that the principle wasn't intended for all time, rather than merely make such a claim. What evidence do you have that the principle isn't universal?
Alan, imagine the following exchange between a ten-year-old and his mother.
Child: Can I have a candy bar?
Mother: Dinner's in 30 minutes and I don't want you to spoil your appetite, so no.
Does the mother's answer contain implications about whether the child is permitted to eat a cookie or slice of cake instead? Yes, it does.
Or, consider this exchange in a math class.
Student: Is 42 a prime number?
Teacher: All even numbers are divisible by two, which means that two is the only even number that's prime, so 42 is not prime.
Does this exchange answer whether 98 or 1,454 is prime? Yes, it does.
Or consider this riff on your example.
Mr X: "What is the speed limit for cars on Michigan freeways?"
Mr Y: "Nationally, the speed limit is capped at 70 mph, and here, the speed limit for cars on Michigan freeways is 70 Miles an hour."
Does this tell you something about the speed limit in Texas, that it is at most 70 mph? Of course it does.
In each of these cases, a question is addressed with a specific answer and a broader principle from which further information can be deduced.
That's exactly what we have in Matthew 19.
Question: "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"
Principle: God made us male and female so that a man will leave his mother and father and join his wife, and the two will become one flesh.
Answer: No; what God has joined together, let no man separate.
The principle is in Matthew 19:4-5, and this principle provides implications, not only about divorce, but also about adultery, polygamy, incest (we're to leave the family of our birth), and -- yes -- homosexuality.
You act as if Christ only gave a yes/no answer and didn't root His answer in a much broader principle. You act as if vv. 4-5 don't matter or even exist.
"Child: Can I have a candy bar?
Mother: Dinner's in 30 minutes and I don't want you to spoil your appetite, so no.
Does the mother's answer contain implications about whether the child is permitted to eat a cookie or slice of cake instead? Yes, it does."
Of course. The principle "don't want you to spoil your appetite" applies to both cookies and cake. And in the same way, Jesus's teaching about divorce applies to everyone, even though the specific example is heterosexual marriage.
"In each of these cases, a question is addressed with a specific answer and a broader principle from which further information can be deduced."
Excellent. We agree on that point.
But quite simply, the specific answer regarding heterosexual divorce points to a broader principle regarding divorce. The question was about divorce, the answer was about divorce. Again, it isn't much of a leap to say that the broader principle being discussed is ... surprise ... divorce.
"You act as if Christ only gave a yes/no answer and didn't root His answer in a much broader principle. You act as if vv. 4-5 don't matter or even exist."
*yawn* This again? Really?
Um...no, Bubba. I'll type more slowly so you can get it this time. I already addressed verses 4 and 5. Look at my most recent comment. I'll wait.
Find it? You'll see there right at the top I wrote, "Of course Jesus discussed men and women in his answer about divorce. He was asked about men and women in the question. So?"
Don't say I ignore something, or suggest that I believe something didn't exist when I specifically, and not more than one comment ago discussed it. I find it hard to believe that your memory is that short. If you don't want to be accused of lying, don't do it. You said I "act as if those verses don't matter or even exist," even though I specifically addressed them in my previous comment. Thus, that statement of yours is a lie. I'll be happy to accept your apology.
To reiterate, since you seem to have missed it the first time, verses 4 and 5 describe heterosexual marriage because Jesus was asked about heterosexual marriage. See? Didn't ignore them. Didn't say they didn't exist. They simply describe (not proscribe) a specific example to illustrate a broader principle.
Your "you just ignore..." comments long ago became tedious. If you can't even, apparently, read the clear discussion of those specific points, then you should simply move on rather than lie in an attempt to cloak what is simple disagreement as something else. Try to do better next time.
Alan, that first paragraph hardly address the content of Mt 19:4-5.
Of course Jesus discussed men and women in his answer about divorce. He was asked about men and women in the question. So?
In vv. 4-5, Jesus doesn't merely discuss men and women. He explains why we were created male and female and invokes a principle that applies to all men and women, that a man should become one flesh with his wife.
I'm sorry for missing the fact that that paragraph was where you addressed the verses in question, but but that blurb had so little relation to the content of those verses that I don't think it's reasonable to expect every reader to see the connection.
To reiterate, since you seem to have missed it the first time, verses 4 and 5 describe heterosexual marriage because Jesus was asked about heterosexual marriage. See? Didn't ignore them. Didn't say they didn't exist. They simply describe (not proscribe) a specific example to illustrate a broader principle.
The verses do not merely describe heterosexual marriage: they assert that we were created male and female for marriage that is intrinsically heterosexual.
Why were we created male and female? The Bible has a clear answer, and the implications of that answer addresses much, much more than divorce.
"I'm sorry for missing the fact that that paragraph was where you addressed the verses in question, but but that blurb had so little relation to the content of those verses that I don't think it's reasonable to expect every reader to see the connection."
So little relation to the content of those verses? You mean like gay marriage? LOL
Sorry I wasn't clearer, I'll try to be clearer in the future. Yet I can't help but notice that instead of supposing that I either hadn't addressed those verses, or hadn't done so clearly, you immediately assume the very worst and say that I ignore Scripture. Nicely done. I won't bother to tell you that I don't ignore a single word of Scripture because you'll just forget it by the next comment.
And yet somehow you can read the words "gay marriage" into a discussion about heterosexual divorce. Funny how simple it is to read into things sometimes, but not others, eh?
"Why were we created male and female? The Bible has a clear answer, and the implications of that answer addresses much, much more than divorce."
Says you.
Honest, faithful people can read the same words, and even agree on the same principles of interpretation (ie. specific example to illustrate a broader principle) and quite easily read that passage about divorce to mean that it refers to ... divorce!
And we can do so without inserting words into the verses that aren't there (ie. gay marriage) and we can do so without ignoring a single jot nor tittle of the text.
"they assert that we were created male and female for marriage that is intrinsically heterosexual."
BTW, The Catholics would say that there are plenty of guys created male NOT for marriage. They're called priests.
Just another example of folks who honestly and faithfully interpret Scripture differently than you do.
But I suppose you'd assert they're just ignoring Scripture too, eh? ;)
Alan:
I'm not "reading" gay marriage into any part of the Bible: I just believe that the principle given in Mt 19:4-5 has applications that reach beyond divorce: it explains that God's will for sexuality is lifelong heterosexual monogamy, a standard which precludes not only divorce, but also polygamy and adultery and, yes, homosexual relationships. An exclusion of so-called "gay marriage" isn't explicit, nor do I argue it's explicit: my position is that it is, instead, a rational (and I believe inevitable) consequence of the principle that is explicitly given.
I also happen to think that the parable of the Good Samaritan implies that we should, whenever possible, help a person whose car has broken down, but that doesn't mean I read the phrase "stranded motorist" into the passage.
It's not just Catholics that believe celibacy is a moral alternative to marriage, and Christians have good reason for holding this belief: in talking about eunuchs in the very same passage, Jesus Christ asserts that complete abstinence from sexual expression is moral. While we were created male and female for the one-flesh relationship of marriage (man and wife), some may be individually called for various reasons to abstain altogether from sexual expression.
And I agree that honest, faithful Christians can sometimes disagree about the meaning of a particular passage, but not all disagreement is in good faith.
Rather than read platitudes about hwo people can disagree in good faith, I would much rather see a persuasive argument for your particular interpretation. If you are studying Scripture in good faith, such an argument shouldn't be too difficult.
"I also happen to think that the parable of the Good Samaritan implies that we should, whenever possible, help a person whose car has broken down, but that doesn't mean I read the phrase "stranded motorist" into the passage."
Indeed. The general principle is help your neighbor, and your neighbor is even those people you wouldn't traditionally consider your neighbor (ie. a Samaritan for a Jewish audience.) In the same way a question about divorce yields the general principle about divorce. Easy.
Unfortunately your reading of this, applying the same principles you're using in Matthew 19 is that we should help our neighbor unless we have some group we feel are excluded by the term "neighbor" regardless of whether or not that group is mentioned in the verse or not.
"While we were created male and female for the one-flesh relationship of marriage (man and wife), some may be individually called for various reasons to abstain altogether from sexual expression."
First you argue that we *can not* allow gay marriage because we were exclusively created male and female for heterosexual marriage. Then you point out correctly that even Jesus doesn't see things that black and white. He again gives another specific example to illustrate the general principle about divorce: don't get married unless you really mean it because the teaching about divorce is really difficult. As the Disciples say a verse earlier, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
So you're reading of "gay marriage" into this chapter violates even your own understanding of the chapter itself.
Heh. So much for "defending heterosexual marriage." Suddenly even the Disciples aren't such fans. LOL
"I would much rather see a persuasive argument for your particular interpretation. If you are studying Scripture in good faith, such an argument shouldn't be too difficult."
And if I don't persuade you, then I'm not arguing in good faith? Just giving "platitudes" perhaps? Sorry, bud, but I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I simply answered a straight forward question: "to what group of people does Matthew 19 refer?" To which I answered: "Um.... Heterosexual people considering divorce." Obviously.
Yeah, speaking of good faith... LOL
Already asked, and answered. If you'd been having a discussion in good faith, perhaps you might have noticed that. ;)
Let's try again, for the FOURTH time: The question was about divorce. The answer was about divorce. The specific example in the question was about heterosexual marriage and divorce and Jesus's answer used the specific example he was given (heterosexual marriage & divorce) to answer and give the broader principle about divorce in general (ie. it's bad.) Not sure what part of that answer you didn't get the first two times I gave it.
Thanks, Alan. Great answers.
Let me address one thing Bubba said:
More importantly, you need to argue that the principle [slavery, in this case] wasn't intended for all time, rather than merely make such a claim. What evidence do you have that the principle isn't universal?
Because slavery is wrong. I am entirely comfortable saying that there are some actions that we innately know as humans are wrong. Genocide. Infanticide. Slavery.
While I love the Bible, I don't need the Bible to "prove" that these things are wrong. All people everywhere in all times acknowledge this, and certainly in our day and age.
Why then, is slavery allowed (supposedly) back then? Some (I believe perhaps you, Bubba) say that times change and customs change sometimes with them. I agree with that to some degree. That might be one explanation for why slavery, genocide and polygamy seemed to be accepted back then but we "know" that they're not right today.
But I'm not sure how that helps those who are opposed to gay marriage to support their view.
Anyway, is "innate" an acceptable answer to your request for evidence or do you want something more?
Dan said:
All people everywhere in all times acknowledge this, and certainly in our day and age.
Dang, got to correct myself!
By the above statement, I meant that all people everywhere TEND to acknowledge that slavery is a wrong, at least inasmuch as they don't want to be enslaved themselves, they acknowledge that.
Of course, there are some people and times when slavery was accepted, but not so much anymore. We know better now.
"Thanks, Alan. Great answers."
Thanks, though one does tire of repeating oneself over and over and over and over. I don't know how you put up with it. That, combined with the BS they like to spew about "ignoring" Scripture when the answers we've given are right there in front of their frakin' faces is why I've started to engage with them less and less frequently. No sense casting pearls before swine as they say. It simply isn't worth wading through all their crap just to repeat myself over and over while attempting to defend myself from their spurious charges and lies. (And then get, if I'm lucky, a half-assed excuse for their lies instead of a real apology. Of course, no such apology would be necessary if they were interested in actually having a discussion in "good faith", rather than immediately jumping on the "You ignore scripture!" charge every time they disagree with something.)
*sigh* Oh well.
But sometimes I do get weak and have to butt in. LOL I'm not made of stone. ;)
Dan, let me be clear, what I was asking for was an argument that the principle that God made us male and female was not universal.
You wrote:
It is more like the "Sell your daughters" or "be a good slave" lines in the Bible. It is there, part of the story, but NOT intended to be a principle for all time.
What I was asking about was the "it" in these two sentences. You claim that the principle that we were made male and female for marriage was "NOT intended to be a principle for all time," that it was just "part of the story."
I'm asking for your evidence for that claim.
Alan:
The question was about divorce. The answer was about divorce. The specific example in the question was about heterosexual marriage and divorce and Jesus's answer used the specific example he was given (heterosexual marriage & divorce) to answer and give the broader principle about divorce in general (ie. it's bad.)
The question wasn't about "heterosexual marriage and divorce." It was about marriage and divorce, period: Biblically, marriage is definitionally between a man and a woman.
(The word "heterosexual" isn't to be found in that chapter; you add the adjective without explaining how this isn't an instance of reading the word into the passage.)
The broader principle wasn't merely about divorce, but about why we were made male and female -- that is, for marriage.
Christ explains that celibacy is, for some, a moral alternative, but that only affirms that abstinence from sexual behavior is moral. That doesn't imply that other actual expressions of sexuality are likewise moral. Instead, Christ is clear about God's will regarding our sexuality: a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.
That's it. That's the only truly moral expression of sexual desire that the Bible outlines: a man and his wife becoming one flesh.
Because they become one flesh, divorce is a deviation from God intended, but just because the chapter focuses on this one particular deviation of this principle, it simply does not follow that there are no other possible deviations.
Just checking in while on vacation to say to Alan, in a snarky manner,
Nice try. For all your weariness at repeating yourself over and over and over again, you've still not been able to support your position anymore than has Dan. Now, sure, we might not care to convince others of our beliefs. That's just dandy. But this medium IS for the presenting arguments. You and Dan have not done such a good job of it. That's all anyone has been saying. No claims of direct connections to God (as Dan almost suggests by his claims of prayerful study), no demands that anyone does anything OUR way, no distracting with accusations of not being brothers in Christ or mindreaders or any such nonsense. Only the countering of arguments. In that, you have failed and failed miserably. In truth, I would not want to argue against Bubba and I give you both props for the attempt.
But all we're asking for is the how you support your convictions and you offer nothing concrete. That is the whole point of this excercise. No need for nastiness (though snark never killed anyone---even Alan still lives). Frankly, I don't think you guys got nothin'! You're spent. Alan offered a book but not any exerpt to strengthen your position. It's why I don't hold my breath. I don't expect there is anything new at this point that hasn't already been refuted. If there was you'd be trumpeting it to our detriment. All that is left is, "Sez you!" and your interpretation. I don't believe there is such a thing. I believe you are all simply denying what you'd prefer was different.
And I know you don't care what I think.
"Marty, I believe a person's feelings of sexual attractions are largely involuntary"
Ok. So you're admitting that sexual orientation is not chosen?
"to the extent that they are, these feelings are neither moral nor immoral. It is whether we choose to act on these feelings where morality becomes an issue."
How do you define "act on"? The Bible tells us that if we even so much as think it, we have already done it. So where do you draw the line?
"(The word "heterosexual" isn't to be found in that chapter; you add the adjective without explaining how this isn't an instance of reading the word into the passage.)"
LOL. Have you even bothered to read the Bible, Bubba?
Verse 3: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
Man to divorce his wife. That's heterosexual marriage. Duh. I'm not reading anything into it. Those are the words on the page. I use the term "heterosexual" as a short hand for "marriage between man and woman." I'm sorry if my big words confused you.
"The broader principle wasn't merely about divorce, but about why we were made male and female -- that is, for marriage."
Says you. The question was about divorce, the answer was about divorce. The principle was divorce. You can keep repeating your nonsense Bubba, but I rely on the clear words of Scripture, not on your interpretation.
"For all your weariness at repeating yourself over and over and over again, you've still not been able to support your position anymore than has Dan."
Gee MA, I would have thought quoting Scripture was enough. But clearly it isn't when YOU disagree with the clear meaning of Scripture. LOL
"But all we're asking for is the how you support your convictions and you offer nothing concrete. "
Now MA, I'd say Scripture is pretty concrete. You disagree, apparently. But don't lie like Bubba and say that I've offered nothing "concrete." I've offered Scripture. That's enough for me.
"Alan offered a book but not any exerpt to strengthen your position. "
Did you read it? Or do you need an excerpt because there aren't enough pictures in it for you? Go read it then complain. Your sophomoric attempt to criticize something you haven't even read (if you can read, frankly I see very little evidence of that) don't strike me as particularly convincing either. LOL
I offered my interpretation of Scripture. That's enough for me. I'm sorry that, for a so-called Christian, Scripture isn't enough for you, but that's your problem, not mine.
Everyone, meet Alan: Grand Master of Intentional Irony.
"Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
Those are the clear words of Scripture. I don't see how this statement is solely about divorce, how it must have no other implications.
Personally, I believe "heterosexual marriage" or "marriage between man and woman" is redundant. The Bible treats marriage as instrinsically heterosexual. So, just as "heterosexual marriage" is redundant, "homosexual marriage" is a contradiction in terms.
Matthew 19 doesn't reference heterosexual marriage, as if there are other kinds of marriage. It references marriage, period, with the rather explicit assertion that the institution is inherently heterosexual. If one was using the adjective "heterosexual" to describe what marriage intrinsically is, then using the adjective would be fine; but using it to suggest that there are other configurations is to read into the Bible a claim that simply is not there.
But let me concede the point, for a moment. Even if -- for the sake of argument -- gay marriage isn't as absurd a concept as promiscuous chastity, Matthew 19 doesn't allude to marriage in general (i.e., the Greek gamos), and Christ doesn't merely describe heterosexual marriage as an instance of what's permissible.
Christ teaches that the union between man and wife is the REASON WE WERE MADE MALE AND FEMALE.
"Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
My position is this:
- God made us male and female (see v. 4).
- Because He made us male and female, a man should become one flesh with his wife (see v. 5).
- The only moral alternative to this expression of sexuality is a denial of sexual expression altogether: celibacy, life as a eunuch, as described in vv 11-12.
This isn't some nonsensical position utterly divorced from the text: it's a reiteration of what the passage itself says.
"God made us male and female so that a man will become one flesh with his wife."
Since this is an extremely faithful restatement of Matthew 19:4-5, I don't see how one can reject this statement as nonsense and truthfully claim to rely on the clear words of Scripture.
1. No one has "rejected this statement as nonsense"
2. Even though you can't "see how one can" disagree with your take on that scripture and "truthfully claim to rely on the clear words of Scripture," that does not mean it is not the case that we rely upon the clear words of scripture. It merely means you can't see it.
I am sympathetic to this position. I can't see how one can read the teachings of Jesus to love our enemies, to overcome evil with good, etc and yet still think bombing Hiroshima was a good idea. It seems to me to be a rejection of clear words of scripture.
And yet, I don't feel it necessary to demonize the other person, to question their Christianity, to say that their church is heretical. I feel it enough to say that I disagree strongly with this fellow Christian.
You sure didn't seem to mind Alan questioning Marshall's Christianity, Dan.
I'm sorry that, for a so-called Christian, Scripture isn't enough for you, but that's your problem, not mine. [emphasis mine]
Alan posted a litany of ad hominem attacks, questioning not only our honesty, but our basic literacy skills and even our faith, and you not only abstain from criticizing his uncharitable mockery, you revel in it.
Everyone, meet Alan: Grand Master of Intentional Irony.
In less than 30 minutes you've gone from celebrating Alan's snark to patting yourself on the back for your charitable civility.
You recently wrote some fine, elegant words about how you're "much more concerned" about how Christians behave when we disagree than about the subject of the moral status of homosexual relationships.
I find that hard to believe. Maybe this is an area where something is true but I just don't see it, but until I do see persuasive evidence that you're genuinely concerned for civility from all sides, I think it may be best that I no longer continue to try to argue with you in good faith.
Bubba, unless I'm mistaken (and I don't think I am, but Alan can correct me if so), Alan was writing what he wrote in a grand display of irony.
He was mimicking the attacks that many of us have endured from some of those on the Religious Right. I do not believe that Alan was serious in his comment questioning anyone's so-called Christianity, but rather, he was writing clever satire, pointing out the flaws of the demonization approach to discussion.
You recognize how wrong it is, apparently, for Alan to question someone's so-called Christianity and how they question the scriptures, but you did not recognize Alan's ironic reasons for writing it.
It is always easier to recognize a wrong when the wrong is being foisted upon you. Hence, Alan's words.
Because I feared that some would miss the irony, that is why I crowned Alan the Master of Intentional Irony.
Apparently, the point was still missed.
"Everyone, meet Alan: Grand Master of Intentional Irony."
No applause please, just throw money. ;) I'm just glad someone gets the joke.
"Since this is an extremely faithful restatement of Matthew 19:4-5, I don't see how one can reject this statement as nonsense and truthfully claim to rely on the clear words of Scripture."
I'm sure you can't. So? You asked for my interpretation and I've given it (at least five times now) supported by the Word. You've given yours (for the record, I got yours on the first try) which you also believe is supported by the Word. And? So? I disagree with you; you disagree with me. No surprise there, not to me anyway. I can't understand how someone could not see what I believe is the clear meaning of this passage; and you can't understand how someone could not see what you believe is the clear meaning of the passage either. Again, so what?
Note (to head off yet another silly rabbit-trail that I'm sure is coming, truly you all are sooooo predictable) I'm not saying "what's right for you is fine, and what's right for me is fine." Let me be clear: you're wrong; I'm right. It might be nice if you weren't wrong, but I can't change that and it doesn't affect me one way or the other. Now in spite of the fact that neither of you can argue worth a damn without resorting to lies, hypocrisy, and ad hominem attacks, that doesn't mean I doubt for even a moment that you're doing your level best to prayerfully and faithfully trying to understand Scripture on these matters. That is, I'm able to separate out your manner of dialogue (such as it is) from what I hope is in your heart -- the honest intention to understand the Word. But I just don't care whether or not you agree with me. It's not like you're going to Hell because you're wrong.
You didn't actually think that I'd say something that would change your mind, did you, Bubba? Because I sure didn't think I would say something that would change your mind. :)
MA writes, "I believe you are all simply denying what you'd prefer was different."
Wow! What a revelation, MA! I'm shocked that's what you believe! Truly, I never expected you to say that!! ROFL. Again I ask, So what? Who cares what you believe? Not I.
In all honesty Bubba and MA (and I'll drop the snark act for a moment and be my normally polite self) it seems to me that you do put far too much importance on these little fights you all have. I, for one, frankly don't care what a complete stranger whom I'll never meet thinks or says about ... well, anything at all to be quite honest. And, I can't imagine why you all would care what I think or say. All I care about is what the Bible says and I doubt you're much different on that point.
The fact that I have no reason to care about nor respect your opinions doesn't mean I don't love you more than my luggage, though. :)
A question was asked, I answered it, supported by the Word. Love my answer or hate my answer, it honestly makes no difference to me as I've never met you and I doubt I ever will. But I'm happy to provide the answer even though I think all these arguments just fill up space. ;)
"Alan posted a litany of ad hominem attacks, questioning not only our honesty, but our basic literacy skills and even our faith, and you not only abstain from criticizing his uncharitable mockery, you revel in it."
*yawn* As your crony MA said, "snark never killed anyone" Take it up with him, Bubba.
Consider this: Orwell wrote the great satire, 1984.
But would it be wise or reasonable to get upset with Orwell because his words suggested Big Brother Gov't is a good thing? That twisting truths to lies is a good thing?
Rather, doesn't it make sense to praise Orwell for mocking those awful things? Because that was the purpose of the book, right?
(Well, except for some folk, like Bush, who took it as a primer on How to Run Gov't...)
Bubba, just FYI, I also believe that the best way to alleviate the hunger problem in the world is to eat babies, preferably of the Irish poor. ;)
Considering how often you accuse others of thinking that they're God for drawing incorrect or merely inconvenient inferences from what you write, I sincerely doubt that you would tolerate -- much less appreciate -- a thorough satire of your typical passive-aggressive behavior, Dan.
Both in civility and in substance, what you have demanded from us is not what you expect from Alan, Marty, and yourself.
"Both in civility and in substance, what you have demanded from us is not what you expect from Alan, Marty, and yourself."
*sniff*
You mean like this crap, Bubba, "You act as if vv. 4-5 don't matter or even exist."?
Dan might demand civility, but he certainly never gets it, certainly not from you guys anyway. So save the phony indignation. This is just your usual MO. You, MA, and the rest of your cronies suggest we ignore Scripture, you turn on the snark and insult machine, and then when someone stands up to your lame attempt at bullying, you start the whining game. Get down off the cross, Bubba, someone needs the wood. Sorry, I'm not buying the martyr routine anymore. I've seen you try to play it way too many times. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
You want civil conversation? Fine, I'd prefer that myself. When you and MA, and your cronies decide to start trying to be civil, I'll be more than happy to return the favor. (But I won't hold my breath, as your buddy MA would say.) Until then, save the whining. You reap what you sow.
Notice also, the other typical MO: When you can't argue about Scripture, start complaining about how the conversation is proceeding.
Nice try, but I think we've all seen your game about 100 times now Bubba. :)
"that doesn't mean I doubt for even a moment that you're doing your level best to prayerfully and faithfully trying to understand Scripture on these matters. That is, I'm able to separate out your manner of dialogue (such as it is) from what I hope is in your heart -- the honest intention to understand the Word."
Exactly.
I'm wondering if Bubba, MA, and the others feel the same way? From what they've written I doubt it.
What I've seen is both Dan's and Alan's christianity questioned time and time again.
As I said before, Alan, that particular comment was based on the fact that I didn't realize the paragraph you highlighted was your addressing vv. 4-5.
That's thin evidence of uncivil behavior, Alan, particularly compared to your comments here.
I can speak for no one else on my side of the aisle, but I actually have made a very good effort at trying to be civil. The comment you criticize as bullying was an oversight, one that I think is understandable since there wasn't an obvious connection between the paragraph I overlooked and the specific substance of Matthew 19:4-5. The comment was a drop in the bucket compared to the deliberate, sustained attack on my character that you're displaying now, an attack that cannot plausibly be called satirical.
You're bringing out butcher knives and battle axes in response to a papercut -- and an inadvertant papercut at that.
Well, Bubba, you pretty much answered my question with this:
"The only moral alternative to this expression of sexuality is a denial of sexual expression altogether: celibacy, life as a eunuch, as described in vv 11-12."
Wow.
Let's just put women back in their place too. The property of men -to make for them heirs - with no right to speak even in the church - and to learn only from their husbands at home. They've progressed way too far.
"You're bringing out butcher knives and battle axes in response to a papercut -- and an inadvertant papercut at that."
Tough. I gave an example. I could give plenty more from this thread, given the behavior of tug, edwin, MA, the Professor and Mary Ann. You admonish none of them. So forgive me if I think it's a little convenient of you to whine about my behavior while giving the rest of them a pass.
An "oversight"? Inadvertent? Sorry Bubba, but I simply don't believe you. Why don't I believe you? Well, perhaps because just a bit earlier in this thread you wrote nearly the same accusation of Dan's church (which I suspect you've never visited) "I'm frankly skeptical of the claim that your church preaches the Bible...."
You throw this accusation, that people ignore Scripture, around so often I simply don't believe it's an oversight or inadvertent. It's simply another tactic of yours, and a tired one at that. Whenever anyone disagrees with you, they "ignore" Scripture. blah, blah, blah. Habit? Yes. Oversight? I don't think so.
You whine, "Alan posted a litany of ad hominem attacks, questioning not only our honesty, but our basic literacy skills ..." Yup, I did. Basic literacy skills. I wonder where I got that little bit of snark. Oh right, from this very thread, when tug wrote, "Maybe if you had a Bible with pictures...."
Didn't you notice that I said almost the exact same thing to MA? Ever wonder where I came up with that? I simply use the crap you guys spew and lob it back at you. I see you were absolutely livid about tug's statement. Oh wait. You weren't.
Save your phony indignation. If you meant it, you'd apply it to your cronies, and not just me.
Again ... same old behavior as always, you folks dish it out but can't take it, then whine about it. When called on it, you don't apologize, you make excuses. When one points out the bad behavior of your cronies, you say nothing. And then you almost seem surprised that I don't take your complaints seriously.
Whenever you folks are prepared to have a civil conversation, whenever you folks are prepared to call each other out for bad behavior and do so consistently, then maybe you'd have room to complain. Until then I simply don't find your hypocritical complaining very persuasive.
Alan, are you prepared to criticize Dan, Marty and whoever else on your side of the aisle, each and every time they cross the line of civility?
Are you willing to eschew from here on out your tendency to escalate and retaliate for our apparent incivility -- recognizing that your decision to "simply use the crap [we] spew and lob it back" is just paying back eye for an eye?
Considering how often you accuse others of thinking that they're God for drawing incorrect or merely inconvenient inferences from what you write, I sincerely doubt that you would tolerate -- much less appreciate -- a thorough satire of your typical passive-aggressive behavior
Oh, I'm a huge fan of quality satire and I'm certainly as good a target for it as the next guy.
By all means, engage in satire. Just do a good job of it.
"Alan, are you prepared to criticize Dan, Marty and whoever else on your side of the aisle, each and every time they cross the line of civility?"
Are you prepared to criticize your cronies each and every time they cross the line of civility?
And what if Dan, for example, says something that you think crosses the line of civility and I think isn't uncivil at all? Will this just become yet another opportunity to complain for 30 more tedious comments? Or what if I only skim Dan's comment and miss some place where you believe he's being uncivil? If I don't jump on him in time, am I guilty?
And if you complain about Dan's bad behavior, will this just be another situation in which someone is once again snotty while attempting to complain about everyone else's snottiness, thus showing the utter hypocrisy of it all?
Is this call for civility just another tactic to legitimize your continued bad behavior and excuse the continued bad behavior of your pals so that you can use it as yet another tactic in the future? When one of you starts the insults and attacks will you actually take complaints about those attacks seriously, or will we be playing the martyr game yet again?
Why would I believe you'd do that when you never have before? It isn't like you haven't had the opportunity to admonish your friends before now. it isn't like we haven't ALREADY had this same conversation about civility about 20 times.
We agree on very little, it seems, Bubba. So I don't expect that we'd agree on what is and what is not civil discourse. For example, I believe if someone answers a question, they've given their answer. A little clarification may be necessary, but asking them to repeat it a dozen times, as you do, while not an ad hominem attack, isn't particularly civil either.
And frankly, I think folks like tug and edwin and mom2 aren't even genetically capable of civil discussion, and MA, perhaps only somewhat, the rest I try to ignore as much as possible. So, I think you'd have your hands full admonishing them. ;) Is that really a responsibility you want to take on?
"Are you willing to eschew from here on out your tendency to escalate and retaliate for our apparent incivility -- recognizing that your decision to "simply use the crap [we] spew and lob it back" is just paying back eye for an eye?"
See? "Apparent" incivility. You can't even admit that you folks are actually being uncivil.
Eye for an eye? Nah, more like turning the other cheek. I'm using your own words and the words of your buddies back against you in a satirical way, mocking your over-the-top rhetoric. Classic non-violent strategy: use humor and satire to embarrass (of course it only works if people are actually able to be embarrassed about their actions.) It's just satire, not sticks and stones. Let's not be too melodramatic here.
Alan, you seem to expect us "to call each other out for bad behavior and do so consistently," but you admit that it would be unreasonable to expect the same from you: people disagree on what qualifies as incivility (I agree: hence my later use of the word "apparent"), and people can't be asked to closely monitor another person's every comment and quickly criticize when necessary.
You seem unwilling to abstain from retaliation through your own insulting remarks, arguing -- quite absurdly -- that your mockery is more "turning the other cheek" simply because it's non-violent.
You want each of us to monitor our words and each other's, but you're not willing to control your own behavior, much less police the behavior of your "cronies."
"Alan, you seem to expect..."
"but you admit ..."
"You seem unwilling..."
"You want each of us..."
Nope, nope, nope, aaaaaaaand ..... nope.
I simply asked several questions for clarification. You answered none of them, instead you question motives for asking the questions. That's civil?
You still refuse to acknowledge even that tug's comments were uncivil even while disparaging the *exact same* comments from me. That's fair? That's your brand of civility? So if I agree to your brand of civility in which I'm to call out others for their behavior when you don't do the same thing, that seems reasonable to you? Well, it doesn't to me.
Why would I agree to stop making fun of you folks when you can't even acknowledge your own role and the role of your friends in the lack of civility in these dialogues? I may be young and cute, but I wasn't born yesterday. ;)
I simply brought up some possible situations in which we might disagree about what constitutes civility and asked how you might respond in those situations. One way to respond would be to attempt to lay out some ground rules for what you believe constitutes civil behavior. Instead, you didn't answer my questions; you just started making more assumptions. That's fine, but it does illustrate why I don't really take your call for civility seriously, when you can't even be civil in your call for civility.
Again, I've asked for civility a number of times in these threads, as has Dan more times than I can count. Those calls go no where. So why would this be any different?
Civility from you guys? Actually calling each other on your insulting, snotty comments? I'll believe it when I see it.
I simply asked several questions for clarification. You answered none of them, instead you question motives for asking the questions. That's civil?
...I simply brought up some possible situations in which we might disagree about what constitutes civility and asked how you might respond in those situations.
Right.
"Is this call for civility just another tactic to legitimize your continued bad behavior and excuse the continued bad behavior of your pals so that you can use it as yet another tactic in the future?"
You expect me to believe that, with this question in particular, you weren't questioning my motives?
"You expect me to believe that, with this question in particular, you weren't questioning my motives?"
I don't expect you to believe anything. I doubt you trust me any more than I trust you. Nor do I, frankly, care. It's you who are calling for civility this time, I gave up on expecting civility here quite a while ago. I'm just pointing out the problems with your attempt to get me to agree to something you seem unwilling to agree to yourself. That is, I'm simply pointing out the obvious. I gave a specific example of tug's comment and my comment side-by-side. You criticize mine, but in half a dozen comments you're still not willing to criticize his (or any of the other snotty comments by your friends in this thread, of which his is just one example.) So no, I've not questioned your motives, I've simply pointed out the irrefutable evidence.
You disagree. And apparently because you disagree, you believe I'm being uncivil. Apparently, because I don't bow to your notions of civility, as unfair as they seem to be, I'm being uncivil. See how this works? Now instead of arguing about gay marriage we can argue about who is being most uncivil in their calls for civility. I'm not willing to agree to your notions of civility because the evidence is obvious that you're unwilling to call out your friends on your behavior. Are you really surprised that I don't agree?
Like I said, I asked a number of questions. You still refuse to answer them, while still implying I'm being uncivil. Want civility? Then prove it. Otherwise, as the kids say, "Whatevs, dude."
What, specifically, do you require as proof that I'm genuinely interested in a civil discussion?
And what specifically will you offer as proof that you're genuinely interested in the same?
Sheesh!
That's a pretty good list, Alan.
I think I already do fairly well adhering to many of those principles already: I do try to make sure I understand other people's position as best as possible, I try to acknowledge where agreement exists, and I try to exhibit some amount of patience in waiting for answers to questions. Still, I can surely improve, and I will try to do so.
About the subject at hand, it appears that your position is that Matthew 19:1-12 is only about divorce. I think we all agree that the central subject is divorce, but I'm not sure what justifies the position that the passage is exclusively about divorce -- that there are no implications to be drawn regarding any other activity, behavior, or situation.
Alan, do you think Matthew 19 teaches anything about why we were created male and female? If so, what does it teach?
If you have any questions about my position regarding this passage, I would happy to field those questions as best as I can.
Dealing with the topic at hand, then, here is the passage in question:
Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
The pharisees approach Jesus with a question. That question?
"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
The question is about divorce, as we all acknowledge.
Jesus' response was:
'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
"FOR THIS REASON," Jesus said folk should get married. What was that reason? Because they were male and female? No. The purpose of his answer is to answer the question asked, "For this reason - for being joined together, for staying together, for becoming one flesh..."
For NOT getting a divorce. That was "for what reason."
And I might add some feminist angles on this about how women were treated like property and had no rights and how divorcing a woman was an injustice because it left her high and dry financially speaking, which fits in very well contextually with all of Jesus' teachings along these lines, but is getting us afield from the question at hand a little.
I simply in good faith and honestly do not see this passage to be focusing at all on the gender questions of who's getting married but rather on the ideal of marriage and life-long commitments.
Dan, textually, it appears that "for this reason" connects our being created male and female (cause) and the moral obligation of man to become one flesh with his wife (effect). That's why the phrase sits between those two claims.
The phrase is part of what Christ quoted from Genesis 2, and He claims that God said, "For this reason," etc. It points back to the "therefore" that concludes Genesis 2 and the narrative of the creation of woman as man's companion.
For NOT getting a divorce. That was "for what reason."
Replace the phrase, and it seems to me that you create a non sequitur.
"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'for not getting a divorce a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
Avoiding divorce is the reason people should get married?
If that's your position, I would ask you the same questions I asked Alan. Do you think Matthew 19 teaches anything about why we were created male and female? If so, what does it teach?
"Alan, do you think Matthew 19 teaches anything about why we were created male and female? If so, what does it teach?"
Nope. The question was basically, "What do you think about divorce between men and women?" And Jesus's answer was about divorce. That's the take home message. Now he does use the example of heterosexual marriage, since that was the question he was asked, but he never says, "This is the only option". In fact, he goes so far as to say that there is at least one other option for people who are afraid of his teachings on divorce (nor does he say these are the only two options: marriage or being a eunuch.)
Of course, nothing he says is wrong, regarding men and women, obviously. Most men and women are indeed made to get married, to each other. But there are exceptions. Since he doesn't say anything about anyone else we can't argue 1) he meant to exclude LGBT folks, or that 2) he's addressing gay marriage in a positive light. Either one would be an argument from silence. What is the universal teaching here is that for everyone who gets married is that marriage is for life, with the one exception of adultery.
I hope we're both as dismayed at the current state of marriage and the ease of divorce. I think this is an important verse that reminds us Christians to take these vows much more seriously than the culture at large.
Dan wrote, "I simply in good faith and honestly do not see this passage to be focusing at all on the gender questions of who's getting married but rather on the ideal of marriage and life-long commitments."
Yup. Same here. This is another one of those "You have heard it said, but..." sorts of situations we often read, in which Jesus takes a common understanding at the time (Moses said you can get divorced if you want...) and reinterprets it. Thus the point is about divorce. That was the question, that's the second question (But Moses said...), that's what he references (Moses permitted you...), and that's his answer to the question. You're one flesh now, you can't get divorced! Though he uses the description of heterosexual marriage, there is nothing in his words that indicates he's being proscriptive, not descriptive.
There you have it. Two genuine Christians who are concerned about marriage, concerned about what the Bible says and determined to follow God by God's grace the best we can who do not honestly think that the point of the passage in question is the gender of the marriage partners but about the condition of marriage.
And we have another Christian (and friends) who think that this same passage - while dealing with divorce - ALSO offers a principle about the gender of marriage partners. No doubt this group of Christians also is sincere and seeking God's will.
We disagree upon the meaning of that passage.
What now?
BTW, I wouldn't get too hung up on the "for this reason" phrase. Various translations render it differently.
Some render it so that "for this reason" refers to why a man leaves his parents. He leaves them "for this reason" of getting married (NASB, NLT)
The KJV says, "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh" Notice the colon. What's the reason a man leaves his mom and dad? To become one flesh with his wife. That doesn't mean that people were made male and female to get married.
The ESV says, "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh."
I did a quick (not exhaustive) study of several commentaries and they emphasize the divorce point here.
In any event, I didn't see anything in my albeit quick survey that implied that the "for this reason" meant that God made people male and female "for the reason" of being married in the sense that Bubba is saying, ie. gender roles. I'm not saying that such commentary doesn't exist and that isn't how some folks interpret it. I'm saying that plenty of other folks interpret it differently, so that it isn't just Dan and I and no one else.
This is one of the things I find fascinating about studying the Word. I think we'd all agree that there are plenty of difficult and confusing verses in Scripture that we'd all expect to be trouble. Yet here's a verse that to me seems crystal clear, and yet people still can't agree on what it means. I guess if understanding the Bible were easy, everyone would do it. :) These situations remind me how much there is to learn from the Word, even from those parts we find easy or familiar.
BTW, when I say "commentaries" I'm referring to standard Bible commentaries such as John Gills commentary, John Darby's commentary, etc. I'm not talking about specifically pro-inclusion commentaries, which I haven't even consulted in my answers in this thread. (Just to head off that objection before it begins.)
Sorry for the multiple posts, but I don't always think in a very linear manner. :)
I wonder, Bubba, what you think of the position that some take on gay marriage in which they believe the ideal for men and women is heterosexual marriage for those that are called into such an estate (and that may even include some LGBT folks. For example, I know several folks who are gay, but have for one reason or another, decided to remain in their straight marriage and they're happy and healthy, though obviously their marriage is different from the norm in that there is no sexual component involved.) But for those that are not able to take that on, gay marriage is better than just living together with no commitment and no respect for the permanence of, shall we say, "one flesh" relationships (as I think we both agree these verses clearly speak to.)
As the Apostle Paul might say, "It's better to marry than to burn..." :)
Understand, I'm not advocating nor defending that position) nor am I arguing that is something you should consider. I simply curious and just wonder what your thoughts might be.
I think sometimes we can become so dogmatic about scripture that we lose the broader lessons that are intended. Which in this case is that marriage in it's ideal state is for life.
I suppose the argument could be made that the ideal marriage is between a man and a woman. But real life is not ideal. Divorce happens, even among the most devout Christians.
People are born gay. People are born deaf. People are born blind. People have disease and mental illness. We live in an imperfect world.
It seems terribly cruel to me to deny a couple marriage because they are not the ideal. Less than perfect if you will. Cracked vessels.
We are all cracked vessels in one way or another. How can anyone of us cast the first stone? So because they are not ideal they should be castrated and locked into a life without intimacy, companionship and love?
No, a thousand times no.
Ugh. I just read my comment again. Sounds like I think gays, the blind, the deaf, the mentally ill and diseased among are are all cracked up.
Didn't mean it that way. Sheesh. I need to stop before I dig myself in deeper.
Although certainly each and every one of my gay and lesbian pals ARE ideal in nearly every way one could hope, I'd say, Marty.
(I'll have to admit to cringing a bit here, Miss Marty, at the suggestion that SOUNDS like saying that those who are gay or straight or well or disabled, etc are "less than ideal" because of their sexuality or health or lack thereof...)
Oh! I see you self-corrected... Of course you did, and you know why? You are so very near the ideal woman, Miss Marty and beloved in God's sight!
Wow. blogger cuts off comments after 200 and starts another section. I didn't know that!
Wow. Lots of stuff. Let me be clear. I think of all of us who have engaged in this debate, Bubba has shown the most civility. He has been very determined to stick to the point, hence his constant restating of questions and points If those points were answered clearly, concisely and without fear, they would not be asked again and the discussion could move forward.
For my part, I can take any crap anyone wants to throw my way. Alan only thinks he's clever, and Dan apparently agrees. Doesn't matter. I'm not Bubba nor is he me. Don't lump anyone with anyone else if you've got a problem. From this point, Bubba can defend himself as I believe him more than capable of doing so.
I wish to reiterate that snark is not so easily understood in this medium. I assume Alan is snarky most times because he's a wise ass. Not a problem. I can deal. Just to clarify, I did not read Alan's voluminous list of rules for debate. Perhaps later when I need a good sleep. (OOH! snarky)
However, I maintain that Alan has NOT defended his position with Scripture because he refuses to undestand the point Bubba makes about the importance of the constantly repeated passage. It only leaves room for other pairings if one is seeking to justify those other pairings. I'm not going to pretend that by saying one doesn't interpret it so, means that said interpretation is worth a crap. It isn't. If you feel that's a slight on your beliefs, too bad as Alan would say. The truth might hurt, but there it is.
All in all, I'm having a great time with this discussion, even if Alan is getting the vapors. No anger or bitterness here, whatsoever. But there is a sadness that you folks on the other side can't seem to understand what is so plain, and insist on scraping the barrel in order to justify your position. It makes for a challenging exercise on this side, but it doesn't do much for your false teachings.
I also want to say that I haven't read Alan's offering and don't see that I'll have much chance to do so in the immediate future. Perhaps you haven't had an easy time reading it yourself, Al, if you can't give a quick synopsis to support your position. That's OK. You'd probably misinterpret that as well.
But let's be clear on one thing. This situation regarding homosexuality is not so much different than a host of other forbidden behaviors. Heteros deal with their own urges and impulses as well. There of course, are even those urges that have nothing to do with sexuality. And for every urge or desire, there's a dude (or dudette) that seeks some way to justify it for themselves. I asked Dan earlier to provide an example of some forbidden behavior for which one might not be held accountable if he felt sincerely that he has justification. As you know, some felt Biblical justification for slavery and member of the Klan still do. I feel confident that Dan does NOT feel they are likely to escape God's wrath. Would that be a correct assumption? If so, how can you say that if they are as sincere in their beliefs about blacks as you are about homosexual behavior? This goes to the point Dan made regarding damnation for sins for which the sinner was ignorant.
But once again, I'm still on vacation and insist that this has been a grand debate, though you guys have still not made your case. Insisting you have doesn't count.
Finally, for Marty, all things are possible in Christ. How can it be said that one cannot find intimacy in the manner God desires and still claim to have faith? There have been too many who have changed their lives for Christ to say otherwise, and that includes people who are hetero and living sinful lives. Instead, perhaps we should all just take the easy way out and pretend we have found justification and God's blessing for all manner of behaviors for which we feel compelled.
Dan, this appears to be a Blogger issue, but the comments on the blogspot page for this blog entry -- here -- haven't added any comments past No. 200, Marty's about digging herself deeper with her comments.
I have an awful lot to write in response and haven't had the time to do it. So, one thing, as quickly as I can.
Alan:
I did a quick (not exhaustive) study of several commentaries and they emphasize the divorce point here....
...BTW, when I say "commentaries" I'm referring to standard Bible commentaries such as John Gills commentary, John Darby's commentary, etc. I'm not talking about specifically pro-inclusion commentaries, which I haven't even consulted in my answers in this thread. (Just to head off that objection before it begins.)
Let me be clear, I think any commentary or other study of Matthew 19:1-12 should not ignore its teaching on divorce because that is the main topic at hand. I just don't think that, because divorce is the main topic, divorce is the only subject about which conclusions can be drawn from this passage.
You mention John Gill in particular, but in his comment on 19:4 Gill seemed to think that there are implications in Matthew 19, not just about divorce, but about polygamy as well:
This [passage Jesus cites] may be read in (Genesis 1:27) and from thence this sense of things collected; that God, who in the beginning of time, or of the creation, as Mark expresses it, made all things, the heavens, and the earth, and all that is therein, and particularly "man", as the Vulgate Latin, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel supply it here, made the first parents of mankind, male and female; not male and females, but one male, and one female; first, one male, and then, of him one female, who, upon her creation, was brought and married to him; so that in this original constitution, no provision was made for divorce, or polygamy. [emphasis mine]
Gills saw that God made one male and one female, and from that he concluded that the original plan was monogamy.
Since he did that, I'm not sure what's objectionable in noting that God made one male and one female, and then concluding that the original plan was heterosexual monogamy.
Post a Comment