Thursday, December 18, 2008

RULES


No Hunting
Originally uploaded by paynehollow
I've been in yet other conversations again about the "clear" OT teaching: "A man shall not lie with a man..." I thought I'd take a few minutes to ponder on this a bit today.

1. I don't know that it is clear at all. Sure, a cursory glance at the passage sounds like it's talking about gay behavior in general, but what use is a cursory glance?

I could go on quite a bit about why I don't think this is clear AT ALL, but let me set that aside for the moment. I'd like to set aside the arguments about what "man lies with man" even means for a minute and presume the traditionalists are correct on this point.

What of it?

2. Let's assume that this passage IS talking homosexuality in general (and that is a huge assumption). What do we do with it then?

a. We need to understand that the entire OT argument against homosexuality is based on two Leviticus verses: "Men should not lay with men" and "Men should not lay with men - if they do, you should kill them." Beyond these two passages, the only other times homosexual behavior even seems to come up are in passages related to rape and prostitution - actions that most of us agree are wrong.

b. So, let's look at that second passage: Men should not lie with men - if they do, they should be killed. From God's pen to our eyes, right? So tell me, WHY is it okay to ignore the second half of that passage? Why do we not think today that it is okay to kill men who lie with men (whatever that means)?

Has God changed? Did God say at some later point in the Bible say, "You know, where I said you ought to kill gay men, perhaps I was being too harsh. I feel bad, now. You know what? Let's NOT kill gay guys, let's just spank them or something..."?

Do you get what I'm saying? WHY is the first half of that passage accepted by some as a universal truth (that they apply to homosexuality in general) BUT the second half of the passage is NOT a universal truth? Says who?

c. The answer is: Says us. All of us. We all agree that it is a horrible WRONG to kill gay people. Not even the most conservative folk (setting aside the nuts out there) think that the second half of that passage ought to be taken literally.

d. So, WHY do we think that passage is not a universal truth? Did God at some point later in the Bible change God's mind? No. Never in the Bible does God say that the rules have changed.

We think that the second half of that passage is not universal simply because it is self-evident. We KNOW that killing gay folk is a crime and horribly wrong. A sin of the worst sort. I don't know of anyone who would disagree with me on this point.

e. And so, it seems to me that the main difference between more conservative "biblical literalists" and more progressive fans of the Bible is that the progressive ones are more than willing to admit that we use our God-given reason and inate morality (God's Law written on our hearts, the bible says) to decide issues and discern good and evil. The more literalistic types, however, are loathe to admit such.

The more conservative answer on this question would probably be more along the lines of simply: "Those punishments were SPECIFIC to the Israel gov't at that time, but the crime indicates a UNIVERSAL problem with homosexuality."

And if you ask them, "Why do you think this? What biblical reasons do you have to back up this assertion?," they have no answer other than (usually), "Well, it's obvious to even morons that this is how it is to be interpreted!!" Or, in other words, because it seems logical, it makes sense to them.

f. And I agree. It IS obvious that we aren't to kill gay folk. Either that was somehow addressing a specific offense at a specific time or people were expressing their own cultural disgust at an unfamiliar behavior (one that they've heard that the "pagans" did in other lands) or whatever reason we want to guess at as to why that law was there, but clearly it is not a universal law that we ought to kill gay folk.

g. And a further difference between the more literalist and the more progressive Christians is that the more progressive are willing to say, "Well, if the SECOND half of that passage was somehow a specific rule for a specific time and place, who are we to say that the FIRST half of the passage is not ALSO talking about a specific offense at a specific time and place? Our God-given reasoning endorses such an interpretation, JUST AS our God-given reason endorses that reasoning for the second half of the passage.

We do this all the time, when we read the Bible. Not every verse that smacks of being NOT of God has some explanation as to its meaning and application. When we read that "God says" to kill disrespectful children or that when we invade a country, we are to kill everyone - including the children and babes, BUT to save the virgin girls so we can make them our wives - when we read passages like that, we don't need a Bible verse to straighten that out for us. CLEARLY, our God-given sense of logic and morality shouts out that such behavior is atrocious and wrong.

The difference between the more conservative and the more progressive Christians is that the more progressive Christians are okay with acknowledging this. Seems to me.

Regardless, just because there are two verses in the Bible that says "men should not lay with men," does not mean that the flat wooden literal interpretation of those lines ought necessarily be taken literally, any more than the line that follows ("if they do, kill 'em"I).

80 comments:

TAO said...

If we read the Bible from beginning to end then do the later chapters trump the earlier chapters because it could be assumed that clarity and further guidance was revealed?

Did the teachings of Jesus add to the word of God or did Jesus represent an attempt by God to clarify where we misunderstood and or misrepresent his earlier laws?

If as it is obivous to most people homosexuality is genetically determined then why would God, as the creator, burden some of us with the DNA that leads to sin? Was this a curse? Is it a test? Why would God test and or curse some of us and not others?

Or maybe whomever devined the laws of the old testament misunderstood. Maybe what the purpose of these words were was to establish a difference between meaningless sex and or purposeless sex: sex just for the sake of sex?

I do not know.

But I do realize when observing all of God's creation, human, animal, plant, and the universe as a whole, I cannot help but realize that everything serves a purpose and from all things come other things. Just the seasons themselves, the changes, the destruction but the rebirth...nothing is wasted and everything is purposeful and in the end one thing always leads to another...and it is never ending.

I cannot help but observe homosexuality in this same picture and I cannot help but believe that from love grows all things, from hatred grows nothing.

It is not for me to understand but rather to accept and enjoy. But in everything there is God and it is beautiful

Alan said...

You're right about the conservative response to these verses, Dan.

It's even written in our Reformed Confessions.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Honestly, I have no problem with breaking down the Law in that fashion. It makes about as much sense as any other scheme one might think of. (One could, I suppose come up with 4 categories, or 8, but we Christians think 3 is a good round number. Yet that number is completely arbitrary and is not stated in the Bible anywhere.)

There is a problem with all this however.

It isn't Biblical.

No where does the Bible state, "Here are these three types of laws, these are the two you don't have to follow any more, but this type you do, and oh, BTW, here's a list of which laws fit into which categories." That doesn't mean that one cannot, if one wants to, interpret the Bible in such a way so as to find support for these 3 categories, and whether we're supposed to follow them or not. (A very narrow interpretation of the story about Peter and the great bedsheet o' food answers the question about ceremonial law. Of course, interpreted more broadly that episode makes all this pretty tricky.) It's still picking and choosing. It's just doing so with some sort of historical rationale. It is merely a not-so-cleverly disguised appeal to tradition.

Folks like some of our far right fundie friends use this notion of the 3 types of law to weasel themselves out of what they call the "shellfish argument." What they're not clever enough to realize is that they've simply moved the goal posts. Their answer to "what about shellfish being an abomination?" is to simply appeal to a different (non-Biblical) authority. They didn't answer the question. So, they're still picking and choosing which laws go into which category, and thus which ones we're supposed to follow (and which we can ignore.)

Where does it specifically say that not stoning your children for insubordination is only a juridical, and not a moral law? After all, "Honor thy father and mother" is certainly a law for the ages, isn't it??

See? Pick and choose.

Notice that "don't have sex with another guy" isn't in the 10 commandments. I guess God just didn't get around to it, or 11 Commandments didn't roll off the tongue as well.

So then, these categories simply give us a rubric to use to try to make those decisions, but in the end, it's still mostly a crap shoot.

But just to be safe, I never ever eat shrimp, or any shellfish.

Anonymous said...

How is gay sex anything but sex for the sake of sex?

I know that the purpose of sex is not just procreation. The Song of Solomon doesn't talk about the baby that will be created. Clearly sex is meant to be enjoyed, but gay sex can never be anything but sex for the sake of sex.

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks for the great deep thoughts, Tao and Alan.

Anonymous: How is straight sex anything but sex for the sake of sex? Your question is rather random. Some folk have sex for the sake of sex. Some folk engage in sexual activity when they love someone. This is true for gay and for straight and everywhere in between and around.

Your assertion "gay sex can never be anything but sex for the sake of sex," is simply not borne out by reality. It sounds as if it is a stereotype based on personal prejudices and not out of knowledge of people - gay and straight - in loving, committed relationships.

Dan Trabue said...

And Alan, I, of course, agree with you. There's nothing inherently wrong with coming up with an explanation ("these passages are more universal in nature, while these other passages are more time and place-specific"). I certainly don't believe that all these OT verses represent universal truths.

But you are right, too, to note that we must by necessity choose extrabiblical criteria for parsing these ideas out, as there is no innate biblical rubric to do so for us. There's nothing wrong with using our God-given reasoning and there's a great deal wrong with refusing to use it.

We may get it wrong because our reasoning is not an objectively perfect judge, but that's just a reality no matter how you look at it.

Dan Trabue said...

Tao, I rather agree with you - in general - that later passages tend to trump older passages. That they offer clearer, more Christ-specific teachings and clarifications.

Which is not to knock the OT - I love the OT. It teaches us about justice, about standing against oppression, about loving our enemies, the marginalized, the poor and the foreigner and otherwise "different."

Still, as I learned in Baptist Sunday School all those years ago, we interpret the individual thru the whole, and the whole thru the teachings of Jesus, the unclear thru the clear. If it sounds like an OT passage says that we ought to sometimes kidnap foreign girls and make them our wives, but Jesus' more clear teaching not to harm the innocent weighs against the OT teaching, I will go with the more clear Jesus teaching over the hard to believe OT teaching.

Alan said...

"There's nothing wrong with using our God-given reasoning and there's a great deal wrong with refusing to use it."

Of course there isn't, because, as I said, that's all we have. If it helps, great. Where it hinders, ignore it.

However (and here's the big however) to pretend that our human reason is somehow God's Truth is nothing less than the original sin of thinking we can be like God. To pretend that our words are God's Word is blasphemy. Those that use this particular scheme in order to make sense of the law don't have a problem until they make their scheme equal (or even raise it above) Scripture. These hypotheses about which law fits in which category are just that: hypotheses. For much of the Law, those hypotheses should be held tenuously at best.

(BTW, the same reasoning pretty much sinks their abortion argument, which can only be supported by the juridical OT law --that we're supposed to be allowed to ignore! -- but that's a whole 'nother thing.)

I'd also note that clearly there are others in the Judeo-Christian tradition who don't think our casual throwing out of two thirds of the Law as "inapplicable" is the right thing to do ... and I'd note that, in this territory, they were here long before we were. ;) I'd also note that a large number of those folks have absolutely no problem with a man laying with a man. ;)

Alan said...

"gay sex can never be anything but sex for the sake of sex,"

I can only assume that anonymous knows that from his/her vast experience with gay sex. (Because, you know, heterosexuals can never never have a completely meaningless hookup.)

When you come out of the closet Mr./Mrs. Anonymous, only then can you begin to have an honest, satisfying, healthy, Godly relationship with another person.

Until then I agree that your self-loathing, closeted, rest-stop Ted Haggard-esqe anonymous sex is indeed nothing but sex for the sake of sex. I hope you'll repent of it.

TAO said...

Dan,

I think you are totally correct when you state that the OT "TEACHES US"

That is exactly what it does, its teaches and forces us to think. Even those who claim to take the bible as the literal word of God do not take all of the bible literally. They pick and choose that which is to be taken literally and that which we keep in the closet and never discuss.

But because it teaches us the bible must be read and reread and thought about alot more than memorized.

Marshall Art said...

Thanks for the invite, Dan,

I can see you've never read the first post at my blog as I had hoped you would. There you would have found explanation for this topic that's quite comprehensive and clear.

Why was stoning a crime for any sin in the OT? Just an arbitrary punishment, I guess, for there are many ways to put someone to death. It could have been drowning or fire. But why kill the sinner? Because the wages of sin is death. Atonement for sin required death. It could be the sinner's life taken, or it could be a scapegoat, like a goat, a lamb, a bird or other livestock. Death and sin go together like mild and cookies, but not as flavorfully. But no sacrifice by human hands is totally pleasing to God. No living thing is untainted or unblemished by this sinful world. A perfect sacrifice was given us in the form of Jesus Christ. It is now HIS death that atones for our sins. Yet, while we no longer kill our kids for their potty mouths, they are still sinning in their less than honorable attitude toward their parents.

In the same way, we do not kill homosexuals for their sin, either, unless you think there's a call for such a punishment in our civil law. I don't know anyone that would run for office on such a platform, and I, for one, would not vote for him. In fact, there are quite a number of sins covered by civil law for which no death of any kind is required. Most such punishments are reserved for crimes where the taking of another life occurred.

I'm surprised the shellfish argument still gets bandied about. Aside from being in a clearly and distinctively different category, categories defined and easily divined by objective study, scholars have determined that the original words we now read as abomination is used differently for each act and not used arbitrarily. I am not expert enough to explain it in more detail, but, as with most things regarding Scripture, it ain't news.

The point is more about how one can say one thing exists or doesn't exist in Scripture, when the truth has been explained so easily. Nothing Scripturally that has been used to support any form of homosexuality actually does. There's a carousel affect of moving from one broken argument to the next in the hope that there's a base uncovered. There isn't one.

For Tao,

"Trump" is not necessarily appropriate. "Clarify" might be better. In fact, "solidify" might be best in that Jesus tended to make things tougher for us. That is, adultery is bad enough, but merely looking with lust at another woman is just as bad. Killing someone is bad enough, but hatred of another is just as bad. No where does He loosen things up except in the realm of our own condemnation of others, where we are to lighten up and consider our own sinfulness and be more forgiving and loving.

It is not "obvious" to most people that homosex is genetically determined, it is "assumed with great hopefulness". There's no proof scientifically, not that it would matter to God. There is none of us that isn't somehow tainted by sin. We can't escape it, only be defended from it by Christ's shed blood. There is likely some biological reason behind any urge, desire, proclivity, inclination or orientation one can imagine. But that never exonerates us from our sins, it only explains why we're compelled to engage in certain sins. If it is in our biology, then that is only proof of the decay that began with Adam's sin and continues to this day.

So we are all tested and similarly burdened by something. Some are lazy, some are mean, some are obsessive, some are materialistic. All with differing degrees of difficulty to overcome by different people.

Dan Trabue said...

I can see you've never read the first post at my blog as I had hoped you would. There you would have found explanation for this topic that's quite comprehensive and clear.

Actually I've read it a couple of times. I read it a second time because I thought you were talking about something else being "comprehensive and clear." I didn't buy the arguments offered as compelling of clear. Sorry.

Dan Trabue said...

As to your attempted defense for it here today, I'm still not buying it as an effective argument. You say:

But why kill the sinner? Because the wages of sin is death. Atonement for sin required death.

If this is the case, why did not ALL sins come with a capital punishment in the OT?

In order to gain much ground on this point and be a bit more convincing, you'd have to provide some verse, passage, compelling reason why we would accept as moral "men shall not lie with men," and yet reject as immoral "if they do, kill 'em."

Why the first half and not the last half?

Dan Trabue said...

Still, thanks for dropping in and offering your thoughts, Marshall. I'd especially find it interesting to know if you agree that we are using our reasoning to weigh this all out?

That is, in your opinion, are WE ALL having to use our God-given reasoning to decide, "Does 'men lay with men' mean all homosexuality or something else? And even if it meant all homosexuality, why would we take the first half of that verse as a universal truth and not the second half?" or is it the case that you think that we're using our own reasoning while you're using something higher and more authoritative than reason?

Alan said...

BTW, the notion that sin gets passed down as a physical sign, like blindness is pretty much destroyed by Jesus's healing of the man born blind.

So, while Original Sin does get passed down, Marshall's expanded interpretation is incorrect, at least according to a Reformed point of view. Perhaps there is another faith tradition that believes people are born with disabilities or other physical traits due to sin, though I am not aware of any such backward view among the orthodoxy of the traditions I'm familiar with.

Dan Trabue said...

True, dat.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I like your breakdown of the verses, Dan, as well as your approach to the entire issue in general.

"Sex for sex' sake"? You know, as soon as some folks think "gay", their mind goes to sex. One does start to wonder. . .

Dan Trabue said...

True, dat.

Dan Trabue said...

Ya never hear two folk talking...

"You know what I hear? I hear he's straight!"

"gasp! What a pervert!"

As if "heterosexual" automatically means engaged in deviant sexual follies. And yet, it generally seems to be a given assumption by many on the Right for the more homosexual amongst us.

Perhaps these folk on the Right just like imagining what MIGHT be happening in OPBs (other people's bedrooms) so they can get their knickers in a knot. It just about seems that way, anyway.

Marshall Art said...

Yeah, yeah, homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with sex. It was merely a clerical error that put the word "sexuality" in homsexuality.

And why would anyone call a heterosexual a pervert if he was not known to engage in perverted sex acts? Yet, homosex behavior is perverse in that the tools made for intercourse are used in a manner for which they were not designed. And before we get to hear claims that heteros engage in some of the same activity, hetero sexual behavior is not defined nor dependent upon such acts for the enjoyment (within the traditional marital arrangement) or procreative aspects of sex.

"I didn't buy the arguments offered as compelling of clear. Sorry."

Don't apologize to me. It is not me against whom you sin. And in the face of the arguments presented in my first post, you have to deny the logic and truth of their words in order to make your statement. There's not a hole to be found or you would have pointed it out.

"If this is the case, why did not ALL sins come with a capital punishment in the OT?"

As I said, they do. Some don't require that the sinner be put to death, but death is still required for atonement. Why God chose to take the sinner's life for one infraction and be satisfied with an animal sacrifice for another is something you'd have to ask Him. Smart money says it has something to do with His sense of justice. Perhaps you'd like to correct Him.

But again, you are mixing the sin with the punishment for it. It has been explained how Jesus now provides atonement for our sins. But His sacrifice didn't change what constituted as sinful, unholy life. Thus, Geoffrey is just blowing smoke up your skirt when he praises your interpretations. The real breakdown happened when you went from believing the truth for the wrong reasons to believing a lie for the wrong reasons.

"...or is it the case that you think that we're using our own reasoning while you're using something higher and more authoritative than reason?"

No. I don't think your using your reasoning properly or for the right reasons. You merely think you do because you can't make the connection between God's Will and this particular behavior. That's OK. There are a ton of Christians who struggle in the same way about fornication and adultery. Some people just can't believe that God would waste His time with sexual issues. Well, that's just a human wishing God was different than what He is. Cramped my style on more than one occasion, but it is what it is. It is looked upon as a benign activity, doesn't hurt anyone (we know this is very often untrue), as if we're just rolling through a stop sign at 3:00 in the morning. Doesn't work that way, nor is there anything that suggests it does without the attendant mental gymnastics.

Marshall Art said...

Alan,

Some clarification is in order. I wasn't using inherited sin as an explanation for anything. What I meant to say was that because of the first sin, that being Adam's, all that was perfect, God's creation, was tainted by that rebellion against God. Now, everything must die. Nothing is perfect and everything decays, mutates at will, falls short on a variety of levels. Until Adam sinned, there would have been no death, no sickness, no deformities, no nothing. There would have been no nastiness from other people, provided other people were in the plan even if Adam didn't sin. Everything would have been according to His Plan. Once Adam chose to sin, it all changed and all our imperfections are a result of that. Keep in mind that I don't mean perfect in the manner that God is perfect. Only that we are exposed to tons of manifestations of our imperfections since Adam sinned. Thus, for one to possess a biological anomoly can be said to have it's origin in Adam's sin. I kinda think this is indeed an orthodox viewpoint regarding why the world is as it is. Certainly flows nicely from the whole ejection from Eden thing.

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks for the responses, Marshall. While I disagree with many of your conclusions, I appreciate your answers.

A few notes. You said:

Yeah, yeah, homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

Did I say that homosexuality had nothing to do with sex? No. What I said was that homosexuality has no more to do with sex than heterosexuality.

What I was objecting to was the oft-made on the Right suggestion that because someone is gay, there's an automatic presumption of perversion. For one thing, gay folk can be celibate just as straight folk can.

So, just because I hear someone is straight, I - and most folk, I'd suggest - don't jump to the conclusion that they are engaged in sexual activity all the time. Those on the Right would have more credibility if they would denounce those who are always on the attack fantasizing what MIGHT be happening anytime they hear the word "gay" mentioned.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall also said:

And in the face of the arguments presented in my first post, you have to deny the logic and truth of their words in order to make your statement.

You might have to help me out here, Marshall. WHAT arguments did you present? By my reading, you offered:

1. That sinning requires a death penalty all the time - not necessarily in this world, but that sinning requires SOME death to atone for it. ANY sin.

2. You then suggested that just because we don't kill disrespectful kids as the OT commands, does not mean that it is right to be disrespectful and just because we don't kill "men who lay with men" - as commanded in the OT - does not mean it's right for men to lay with men.

3. And you then offered this: "The point is more about how one can say one thing exists or doesn't exist in Scripture, when the truth has been explained so easily."

So, I'm not entirely clear what "logic and truth" you have offered that needs rebutting. My question was: BIBLICALLY WHY is it a universal moral good for children to NOT be disrespectful and yet it is NOT a universal moral good (just the opposite!!) to kill disrespectful children? I don't think your answer deals with that question.

Instead, your answer deals with the atonement theory of justification, which is not really in question here. What is in question is the nature of the activity described as "men lying with men."

WHY is THAT part of the verse Universal and the "kill 'em" part not? WHY should we heed the first half of the passage as morally relevant today but reject the second half as a crime of the worst sort? Did God change God's mind about what is just treatment for disrespectful children and "men who lay with men"? What logic, what biblical reasoning would you have for rejecting one and embracing the other?

For the record, I happen to agree with you that the first half of "children should not be disrespectful" as morally applicable today and reject the second half "kill 'em" as immoral. We agree on that point.

But the reason that I accept the first half and reject the second half has to do with, at least partially, using my God-given reasoning. CLEARLY it is wrong to kill children, even if they are disrespectful.

Why is it wrong? Because it is wrong to kill. It is wrong to kill children. Because we are to protect the innocent, defend children, for a whole variety of reasons, some biblical and some just plain intuitively logical.

For many of those same reasons, I reject both the first half and the second half of "men lying with men" passage. I reject the first half insofar as I don't think that it is talking about homosexuality in general - I reject that interpretation as the only or most logical and appropriate interpretation of what the OT is saying in those two verses. AND EVEN IF it could be proven that it was talking about homosexuality in general (and it can't be proven), well, there are many things that the Bible SEEMS to be talking about that are not moral. So just because a given passage SEEMS to be endorsing something does not mean that we ought to presume that is what it is endorsing.

When I get a chance, I will at least one more time do a run down of where all the holes are in the skimpy logic used to oppose gay marriage from a biblical point of view. But I believe that addresses your few points.

Alan said...

" I kinda think this is indeed an orthodox viewpoint regarding why the world is as it is. "

No, it isn't. Not really.

Again, as with our previous conversation about salvation by grace alone, your view is not orthodox. Like that discussion, your view starts out orthodox and then veers off.

The OT, of course, in several places, connects physical disability (blindness, lameness, even diseases such as leprosy) to a person's sin (or the sin of their fathers.)

However, Jesus forever broke the tie between sin and disability. It is clear from the NT that God creates us exactly how he wanted to create us. (And in this, it reflects back to the OT too, we are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made.) Disability is a challenge, not only for the person born with a disability or a disease. But Jesus also makes it clear that it is also a test or challenge for each of us, to show particular charity to those with disabilities and diseases.

That, Marshall, is orthodox. Now, as I said, I'm no expert on other faith traditions. Perhaps the Methodists or Baptists or Catholics have a different conception of the relationship between sin and disability. But Reformed Christians have understood this clearly for several centuries now.

Yes, we all sin. Yes the world is fallen. That doesn't mean blind people are born blind because of sin, either their own or the sins for their parents. It isn't a sign of the Devil, nor is it a sign of demonic possession either.

Now I don't actually care if your view is orthodox or not, nor do I actually care what your view is anyway. I just continue to be annoyed, frankly, at those who label their views "orthodox" when they clearly are not.

But don't take my word for it. I would suggest reading Calvin's Institutes. He is particularly good in his discussions regarding the tension between total depravity and the fact that we are made in the Imago Dei -- the image of God. It is often easy to focus so much on the total depravity part, that we forget that we are, each and every one of us, made in the image of God, and that is something which even Original Sin cannot completely corrupt.

Marty said...

"It is clear from the NT that God creates us exactly how he wanted to create us. (And in this, it reflects back to the OT too, we are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made.)"

Amen to that.

Times are changing Alan, there is no doubt. The Methodist church of which I am a member hasn't totally arrived yet, but progress is being made and there were glimmers of hope at the General Conference this year, some setbacks too, but much to be hopeful for as well. My pastor is involved in "Breaking the Silence" which is part of the Reconciling Ministries in the Texas Annual Conference.

I pray for the day when we can all say "No exceptions!".

Alan said...

Yeah, my denomination PCUSA is pretty far from being accepting: no LGBT ordination (this is a bigger deal for us than other denominations because we ordain our elders and deacons too), no gay marriage, etc., etc., etc. But all that too will change eventually.

Unfortunately, churches are following, not leading on these issues. But, given the demographics of the mainline, change will happen as it always does ... one funeral at a time.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I would echo Alan's point about disability not being punishment for sin, but an opportunity for love. I would amplify it, using the example of Jesus healing the man blind from birth by saying that this love is a love that does not say anything about who we are, but is a love that glorifies God.

Of course, what this has to do with being gay is irrelevant, unless one considers one's sexual orientation a disability.

Marty said...

Well it could be considered a disability Geoffrey in that they don't have access to everything, like marriage or health insurance for a partner or even the right to visit their dying partner in the hospital, etc.

Being married to a deaf man and having 8 deaf people in my family, I know a lot about folks with disabilities and how they have had to struggle over the years just to gain access to services that persons without disabilites enjoy and take for granted.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I guess what I meant by "disability" was not how society hobbles a gay man, a same-sex couple, or the transgendered. I guess I meant that, to my mind, there is nothing "dis" about their "abilities". The word doesn't apply. Comparing a blind man or woman to a gay man or lesbian is a category error.

Anyway, that is off the subject, I think. To me it is, anyway. I think Alan was bringing up the issue to point out that Marshall was attempting to claim certain orthodox ground that he simply doesn't occupy.

Marshall Art said...

I wouldn't want to go near a target range when any of you are present. You miss the mark so consistently.

Dan,

By "first post", I was referring to my first post on my blog, which, by this time, you said you've "looked at" a second time.

"Did I say that homosexuality had nothing to do with sex?"

Unless you are reading only your comments and those directly addressed to you, you certainly read where someone else suggested that. I do often respond to multiple comments to save time, even if it begun with one name at the outset. Sorry for the confusion.

"What I was objecting to was the oft-made on the Right suggestion that because someone is gay, there's an automatic presumption of perversion."

Yet they are perverting the intended use of their God-given equipment. That makes it a perversion. It's unfortunate that this word generates such harm to the feelings of the overly-sensitive, but it's an accurate and appropriate use of the word. We cannot get at the truth if one side has limited use of the dictionary. You'll just have to accept that my motives are not hateful, despite what Geoffrey likes to believe.

I know they can be celibate, but just like unmarried heteros, this is appropriate and they are to be applauded, particularly if the reason for the celibacy is to please God. No one's suggesting that they are constantly engaged in sexual activity, but that when they do, they are engaging in sinful activity as taught in the Bible. But, their self-image is based on the form of sex in which they choose to engage.

"Why is it wrong? Because it is wrong to kill."

No. It is wrong to murder. There is a distinct difference. I jumped to this part because all that came before it was too silly. It is clear why the sin is still a sin and the punishment is no longer required for us to administer. So it is NOT because "it is wrong to kill" that the punishment or means of atonement has been changed. Not in the least. The one death that could hope to perfectly pay for sin has occurred and nothing else can do the job. THAT is why we don't put to death any of the people for whom death was required in Lev 20.

"I reject the first half insofar as I don't think that it is talking about homosexuality in general"

Feelings. Whoa, whoa, whoa feelings.

"I reject that interpretation as the only or most logical and appropriate interpretation of what the OT is saying in those two verses."

Fine. Provide Scriptural support that it doesn't. That's the problem, there isn't any. There is only subjective self-serving interpretations that stretch credulity. Again, it's understandable since no one wants to be in the wrong, but we're talking about God's Will and what's considered by HIM to be acceptable.

Marshall Art said...

Alan,

"Again, as with our previous conversation about salvation by grace alone, your view is not orthodox."

I believe it is indeed. I'm not saying that Alan has one leg because his father stole a candy bar, I'm saying Alan has one leg because Adam ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Had he not done so, and were he still to procreate, there would be no disabilities or imperfections in our physical world. His sin brought about all the suffering we now experience, not your father's sin. Otherwise, why is it believed that when Christ raises us from the dead in the end times, that we will be raised up sanctified and without our imperfections? Christ was beaten to a bloody pulp but rose perfect except for the marks of his nailing for proof. He will raise us up in a similar manner and I believe that is an orthodox belief.

"It is clear from the NT that God creates us exactly how he wanted to create us."

How so? Where does it say this and how do you believe it means orientation is not a problem? Don't forget, he made Hitler and Gacy and Idi Amin and Courtney Love.

"Yes, we all sin. Yes the world is fallen. That doesn't mean blind people are born blind because of sin..."

Yes. It does. Not theirs or their parents, but sin, the sin of Adam that brought about all suffering. Totally orthodox. How that may have been distorted by some is irrelevant.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Times are indeed changing within the Body of Christ, but not always for the better. Indeed, there is much that is for the worse. Too many, particularly amongst "Reformed Christians" are changing to what they'd like God to be, rather than how He is.

There is this misunderstanding regarding "exceptions". No true Christian church closes their doors to sinners of any kind, though they may turn them out for continued infractions by an unrepentant sinner. This is what is supposed to happen. But, for example, the UCC's propaganda that other churches might restrict entrance to a homosexual is a complete lie. Not that some idiots don't act this way, but that it is a general practice by Christians who aren't UCC. But the UCC is out in front proclaiming the sin isn't a sin and by supporting the agenda, and chose to tarnish the reptuations of other denominations. All are welcome at Christ's table, but on God's terms, not their own.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

The "condition" has been removed from the category not by science, but by activism. Yet, it can be called a disability in the sense that those who wish to be like everyone else have difficulty in overcoming their orientation. But all things are possible through Christ.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Some thoughts.

First, from Marshall: "Yet they are perverting the intended use of their God-given equipment."

Intended use? God-given equipment? Sine the male penis doubles as an excretory organ and external reproductive organ, it seems that "intended use" is a tad murky. Also, since this very narrow understanding of what constitutes proper sexual behavior would eliminate not just sexual activity between two consenting adults of the same gender, but sex without reproduction as the goal, oral sex, and masturbation, it seems to me that's a pretty broad brush with which to paint things. A sexual ethic that reduces human sexuality to its barest biological and physical minimum - a reductionist ethic, in other words - is far too myopic indeed.

As far as the whole "God-given use", unless you wish to claim the physical pleasure human beings receive from sexual activity is somehow diabolical in origin, I suggest that you need to consider that as part of the God-given equipment as well.

Part of the God-given equipment also in need of consideration is that most important sexual organ - the human brain. If I know myself to be attracted only to women, not just physically but romantically, it would be kind of silly for me to go around having sex with men, telling them I loved them, etc. even though a whole bunch of my friends were doing the same thing. I would be uncomfortable, unhappy, and be struggling with all sorts of issues.

Yet, we are doing this very thing to gay men, lesbians, and other sexual minorities when we demand they conform their behavior to that of others. If you are warped enough to consider same-sex attraction in the same category as pedophilia/pederasty, bestiality, etc., then I suggest the problem might not be with the gay folk, but you. As long as people continually link perfectly normal, adult sexual behavior with the kind of criminal deviance listed above, it will be impossible to deal, not with sexual minorities, but those whose blindness and bigotry refuses to grant them full human agency simply because they love slightly differently than other people.

One final note. I have noticed the dance has reached the "repeat" stage, as both Dan and Alan find themselves repeating to Marshall their main points, which he has either ignored or misunderstood, and repeating that he is wrong in certain fundamentals, even as he continues to insist he is right and prove it by . . . insisting he is right.

Monk-in-Training said...

Along with the whole 'kill them if they do it' concept that men laying with men there is another issue I would like to mention.

A couple of verses away from the 'gay' verse, we find Leviticus 18:19 & 20:18 which forbids a husband from having sex with his wife during her menstrual period. Doing this is also considered abominations, punishable by death.

If we read the Bible literally, then there are a lot of married, straight people who have ventured into this prohibited zone!

Why is no one preaching against that? Why are there no constitutional amendments against it? How is it that that is not morally reprehensible and a threat to the traditional family? Why aren't men provided with secondary wives so they don't get uncomfortable while one wife is indisposed?

Seriously, we are going to need a bigger pile of rocks...

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

You can't seem to stay away from this topic, can you, Dan? :-) After my long series on the topic, I needed a break from the hate mail. Which is why, after I put the completed series into a special page with other popular series, I closed comments.

Marty said...

"Seriously, we are going to need a bigger pile of rocks..."

Yep, that would in fact, be the case.

Dan I appreciate your insights. Always have, always will.

Have a wonderful and blessed Christmas.

Alan said...

"Totally orthodox. How that may have been distorted by some is irrelevant."

Well, Marshall, as you often ask, prove it. Provide some evidence.

I have provided mine, in the form of inviting you to read the Institutes. You have not provided any information which details the ways in which my reading of the Institutes is flawed on this topic. Please do so. Your opinion doesn't make it so.

Or, perhaps you can provide some evidence, from some well-known and highly regarded historical church figure (eg. Calvin? Wesley? Aquinas, etc.) from your faith tradition, whatever that is.

Or perhaps you can provide a link to some orthodox historical creed, confession or catechism (eg 2nd Helvetic Confession, Westminster Confession, etc.) to support your notion of what is, or is not orthodox on this topic.

Or perhapss you can provide examples of Biblical scholarship which contradicts my example of the story of Jesus and the man born blind.

I have given my opinion, with support on the orthodox understanding of disability. Your only response has been "No it isn't." Contradiction is not argument.

Just to be clear I have no problem with your having a different opinion than mine, whether you have any basis for that opinion or not. I just find it annoying when people claim to be "orthodox" when it isn't clear that they even know what the orthodox teaching on a particular topic is, as is the case here. Here I am trying to tell you what the orthodox view has historically been, as you seem confused on the matter.

And since we're talking evidence, and I know that a requirement for real, verifiable evidence is something that you and I share, MA, I have to wonder about this statement, "Yet, it can be called a disability in the sense that those who wish to be like everyone else have difficulty in overcoming their orientation."

Please provide verifiable, peer-reviewed, double-blind studies published in professional journals, which demonstrate statistically significant, beneficial results for the sorts of "change" therapies to which you refer. That is, I'm only asking for the very same sort of evidence I would require for myself before I popped some pill into my mouth meant to prevent acid reflux or athlete's foot. It is also exactly the same sort of evidence that I use daily in my own work, and the same sort of evidence I provide when I publish in professional journals, and it the same level of evidence that I require in my work as a peer reviewer for several professional journals. So then, it is no more, nor less evidence than I require for myself either in my personal or my professional life.

"Too many, particularly amongst "Reformed Christians" are changing to what they'd like God to be, rather than how He is. "

BTW, I'd just point out that these days, even the Baptists are trying to pretend they're Calvinists, so little jibes like that are not only unhelpful, they're also wrong. LOL

"There is only subjective self-serving interpretations that stretch credulity."

Frankly, pot meet kettle, MA.

Edwin Drood said...

Leviticus had a purpose and it was to preserve the Jews, set them apart so they could deliver the Savior. Codes of conduct for civilization and also health codes (amazing since no one even knew what a microbe was) Homosexuality was condemned in Leviticus for health reasons, just like pork and shellfish. The effects of homosexuality on society probability had something to do with it also.

Unless your a Jew living thousands of years ago, you shouldn't use Leviticus as everyday instructions. Today it serves as proof there is a Judeo-Christian God as the health codes mentioned are 1000s of years ahead of their time.

Paul's writings replace Lev. with instructions and definitions (not laws) for the New Testament Church. Paul never said to kill gay people; he did warn they wouldn't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That is the reason why the true Christian church preaches against homosexuality and has no desire to kill gay people.

Craig said...

First, a couple of Dan quotes.

"I offer only my humble opinion of what the Bible says"

"I'll have to be honest here and say that just about any thoughts I have about the nature of God is my opinion. I can't "measure" or "weigh" God or even directly ask God's opinion and tell you objectively, "Yes, this is God's view on this subject."

Dan,

Thank you for your opinion on this topic. But, as you have clearly pointed out, it is no more than one man's opinion.

Marshall Art said...

Alan,

I offer the few links below to show that what I suggested is an orthodox view of the sin/suffering connection. The problem I have with the Jesus and the blind guy episode is that the question was whether or not the blind guy or his father sinned to cause his blindness. I don’t have a problem with how Jesus answered the question, but it’s not quite the same question as the one I ask regarding all suffering, deformity or disease. It is all a symptom of the world corrupted by sin. That would be sin in general as opposed to a specific sinful act as a specific cause for a specific malady or condition.

The Garden of Eden was a perfect place where no suffering took place. When Adam sinned, he and the wife were cast out of the perfect place into the imperfect world where pain and suffering, deformity and mutation, take place.

We may be having a disagreement with the term “orthodox”. But the concept is not a new one, but a very old and accepted, if not always properly explained concept.

this, this, and this

Marshall Art said...

Hmmm. Apparently only my last link works. It took too long to do it wrong, I'll not try again for now.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

"Intended use?"

Yes.

"God-given equipment?"

Where'd you get yours?

"Sine the male penis doubles as an excretory organ and external reproductive organ, it seems that "intended use" is a tad murky."

Murky? You add ONE more function and now you're confused about the intended use of the organ? Do I really have to spell out, while in a discussion of human sexuality, I'm only referring to its sexual function?

"...this very narrow understanding of what constitutes proper sexual behavior..."

Once again, that would be "biological functional intention of the male sexual organ". I can't think of a more specific way to say what was already so obvious.

"A sexual ethic that reduces human sexuality to its barest biological and physical minimum - a reductionist ethic, in other words - is far too myopic indeed."

I did not put forth an ethic, but merely described biological function of sexual organs. But for the record, my ethic matches Biblical teaching in that I know that only sex between a man and his wife, that is, a traditional marriage, is not prohibited. So no, you're NOT supposed to play with yourself, unless its part of the festivities between a man and his wife.

"...unless you wish to claim the physical pleasure human beings receive from sexual activity is somehow diabolical in origin,"

Where the hell did this come from? The pleasure is a function of the act. Imagine how often we'd want to do it if it didn't feel good. As it is meant for procreation, we'd likely have died out thousands of years ago. If it feels good, they'll do it and the species will go on. It's diabolical what people will do to experience it in whatever way they think will enhance it, despite what God's Will on the issue is.

"Yet, we are doing this very thing to gay men, lesbians, and other sexual minorities when we demand they conform their behavior to that of others."

For the record, I support leaving them the hell alone if we don't have to change our culture on their behalf. But the fact is, we are only hoping that they conform their behavior to God's Will.

"If you are warped enough to consider same-sex attraction in the same category as pedophilia/pederasty, bestiality, etc., then I suggest the problem might not be with the gay folk, but you."

That's the same way the Bible categorizes it, so it's not wrong for anyone else to do so. It's not a matter of whether the act of doin' one's partner is the same as the act of doin' one's goat, it's simply that they are both on the same list of prohibited sexual behaviors or practices. So sue God.

"One final note."

What followed this was Geoffrey's certification on what constitutes the right perspective on the issue. What has happened, Geoffrey, is that we continue to do the dance until they, or you, provide something to prove anything. I insist I'm right, and I am, because I've not been proven wrong. There's been nothing I haven't fully understood without clearly asking for clarifications. There's simply been, of late, aspersions cast on my knowledge, my opinions, the people I use as sources, without any level of counter argument to go along with it.

Alan said...

"We may be having a disagreement with the term “orthodox”."

LOL.

Well, I can certainly agree with you there!

Um MA, You do know that when I refer to Christian orthodoxy I'm not referring to the Eastern Orthodox church, right? Because that's what your link went to. ROFL.

Sorry to laugh, but I think even you should find that pretty funny. :)

Take care and Happy Holidays.

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks for your comments everyone. You're going faster than I can keep up. A few quick responses:

Craig said:

Thank you for your opinion on this topic. But, as you have clearly pointed out, it is no more than one man's opinion.

Absolutely. Do you have something more substantive than one man's opinion on the topic of gay marriage and what is meant by "men laying with men should be killed" or "If a man lies in sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period, both of them shall be cut off from their people"?

Does your pastor preach against "menstrual sex" with the same vigor and regularity as gay marriage? If so, why? If not, why not? Does he/she have more than his/her opinion on the matter?

Brother, like it or not, all we have is our opinions about the Bible. There is not a Divine Study Guide that explains specifically what each line means, we have to use our own God-given reasoning to figure out our opinion on a given passage.

Dan Trabue said...

Alan, Marty, Monk, Geoffrey, Michael, thanks for the support and comments. Excellent points made, all.

You're right, Monk, I can't recall EVER hearing a sermon preaching about the horrors and abomination of "menstrual sex." Where's the millions of dollars and hours being spent in fighting THAT cause?

Could there be a bit of hypocrisy in the choice of which OT passages to take sorta literally?

And Geoffrey, like you, I am wondering which Spiritual Health Guidebook Marshall uses in which he has proof positive of the "intended use" of various body parts. Let's see, is there a verse in Song of Solomon talking about intended use? Or maybe in Leviticus?

Marshall, the point is: SAYS WHO? Yes, I know YOU THINK that "men laying with men" means all homosexual activity, I know YOU THINK that there is only ONE (or possibly two) "intended uses" of penii, I know YOU THINK that gay marriage is wrong, I know YOU THINK that it's okay to take "men lying with men," to mean all homosexual activity but "kill 'em" is NOT to be taken literally, but what I'm asking is, SAYS WHO?

Where's your proof? What chapter and verse do you cite to support your positions?

I don't believe that you're getting what we're saying: The Bible says "men lay with men = bad, kill 'em." Point blank. It says, "Menstrual sex = bad, kick them out." Point blank. It says, "disrespectful children = bad. Kill 'em." Point blank.

What verses do you have that say it's NOW okay to have menstrual sex? That it's now okay NOT to kill disrespectful children or "men who lay with men."? Based upon what?

I know you have said that it is your opinion that OT punishments no longer are to be enforced, but why? Says who? Chapter. Verse.

You're asking us to just throw out some direct commands, I'm asking you, why?

Craig said...

Dan,

There is much that could be said, but time constraints mean that I can only answer your question.

"Does your pastor preach against "menstrual sex" with the same vigor and regularity as gay marriage? If so, why? If not, why not? Does he/she have more than his/her opinion on the matter?"

To the best of my knowledge my pastor has not preached much on either topic specifically. I will throw out his general approach to these topics is as follows.

He starts from the following. First, God's ideal/plan/design for healthy human sexual relationships is between one man and one woman. Second, we are all sinners(especially in this area of life).

The fact that we all sin against God's ideal is not nearly as important as the form our sin takes (in the area of sexuality) we all fail to measure up to the standard in some way. This becomes more obvious when we consider the way Jesus clarified the standard (if you even look at a woman, you have committed adultery with her in your heart). This raises the question then, how do a bunch of broken people relate to each other in these areas. In theory, it should be easier if we can all start as sinners trying to be reconciled to God, and work from there.

That's enough for now, there is a lot to do over the next few days. I'll try to check back and see where this goes.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, I'm not suggesting that we're not sinners. I'm questioning the traditional view that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin in and of itself. It is your opinion (I'm guessing) that the Bible teaches any and all homosexuality is a sin.

I'm thinking that the Bible is silent on the notion of gay marriage and, not having any good reason to oppose it and being a believer in the benefits of marriage, I support wholeheartedly the notion of marriage for any couple in a healthy committed relationship.

It's not sin itself I'm questioning, just the nature of this particular action. I don't think the Bible is talking about all homosexuality in that passage and even if it were (which I don't think it is), that in and of itself does not mean that GOD thinks all homosexuality is a sin.

After all, I would hope that you and I both agree that God does not want us to kill gay people (even though it is quite clearly commanded in the Bible - or at least the killing part; again, I don't think it "clearly" condemns homosexuality, at all) or disrespectful children and we probably agree that God doesn't really care whether or not we engage in sexual activity during a woman's period.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Dan, to you and your lovely family (which you posted in a previous post), a very Merry Christmas, a most enjoyable day to all. God's rich blessings be enjoyed.

"Menstrual sex"? As soon as I find a sermon on the topic, I'll let someone know. Kind of doubt it, though.

As for intended use, Marshall, I was not being flippant. As for the "source" - you called the sexual organs "God given" - I fail to see the relevance. God also gave me an appendix, which does nothing, and a gall bladder which I had to have removed because it was malfunctioning, producing stones so large they could have clogged the bile duct, and caused pancreatitis and killed me (although a side benefit of that surgery was discovering the joys of Vicodin . . .). the "natural" use of the male penis, at least, is to urinate, i.e., expel waste, and to serve as the conduit for the ejaculation of spermatazoa at the climax of sexual arousal. You seem to have an issue with one particular form of the process by which some achieve that climax, thinking it "unnatural". Yet, if it were "unnatural" it would, it seems to me, be impossible to perform, because human beings are a part of nature. Maybe you just mean you think it's icky what gay folk get up in the privacy of their own homes. I really don't know what you mean by changing our entire culture; if you really want to leave them alone, I would suggest you begin by stop being part of a chorus that insists (a) they are blind to some greater moral and natural force against which they struggle; and (b) they are out to change the culture.

Anyway, those are the most controversial statements I will make this 24th of December.

Edwin Drood said...

What is the point of all this? Is Lev. the Word of God?

Craig said...

Dan,

I can't believe you want to go back down this path, but I'll go a little way.

Dan, given the fact that the only places the Bible mentions homosexuality (or more specifically, describes the behavior we have termed homosexuality), it is referred to in a negative way. It is not unreasonable to believe that the Bible (read God) takes a dim view of this behavior. Further since any sexual behavior beyond marriage is, at best, tolerated, at worst, condemned. It seems reasonable to deduce that there is an ideal for human sexuality, and we can determine what it is. Given your contention, it would seem that the burden is on you to provide something besides "it's my opinion" to bolster your assertion.

While the Bible may be silent on "gay marriage", it is most vocal on marriage. No where is there any indication that marriage is intended to be anything other than male/female. Further, in what field of endevour (science comes to mind) is an argument from science ever considered persuasive?
Further still, if you consider an argument from silence persuasive then, the converse argument is at least equally valid.

But you have re framed the discussion. No where in your original post is the discussion about "gay marriage". It is about what should happen to people who participate in a certain activity. I would agree that (in theory) performing the acts (and I am including any thing outside of the Biblical ideal here) in question in a committed, monogamous, long term relationship, is "better" than the rampant sexual promiscuity we see in our culture. But better is not best, and why settle for better, when best is achievable?

I would agree, that at this point in history we are not to kill people who engage in homosexual activity. No one (with the exception of the Phelps inbreeds out in Topeka) is advocating this. To paraphrase one of your previous arguments, I am not prepared to say with any degree of certainty that God was wrong when he established the law that was operative during the Theocracy. If you want to feel free. I'll pass.

In closing, so I can finish making my hot fudge sauce. Please provide some support for your your opinion. (Marshall has done a pretty good job, I'm not going to add to this by repeating)

Having said that, let's take a break for a couple of days.

Merry Christmas to all.

Dan Trabue said...

Thanks Geoffrey, good points. And a merry christmas to you.

Yes, Edwin, I think Leviticus is part of the Bible. That doesn't mean that I think that when it says "kill disrespectful children" or "kidnap the virgin girls of places you invade - after killing the rest of the inhabitants - so that you can make them your wives" represent God's Will in any meaningful way whatsoever.

My point is that we have to use our God-given reasoning ability to sort our way through the rights and wrongs of life, including the rights and wrongs of the Bible.

I suppose in a more complete description, the 66 books of the Bible are what the church has traditionally considered to be God's revelation to us. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God - John saves that description for Jesus. The Word of God, in a more complete sense, is every Word that God says, what God wants.

Here are a few snippets of how "Word of God" is used in the Bible (this is sorta off-topic, but I find it to be an amusing trajectory, so I'll chase this rabbit for a minute):

After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

So the word of God spread.

When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God...

When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues.

For the word of God is living and active.


Mainly a new testament thing. So, the "Word of God," as used in the Bible tends to be a shortcut phrase as a way of identifying the gospel being preached (which, in the Bible, tends to look a good bit different than it often does today). That works for me.

So, in that sense, I'm not sure that suggesting that we ought to kill disrespectful children or "men who lay with men," IS the "Word of God," at least in the sense that the Bible uses that term.

And that would be my controversial statement of this Christmas eve.

Dan Trabue said...

And thanks to you, too, Craig. Merry Christmas.

Craig said...

Dan

Aquick note from the video booth before services 3 and 4.

Have you read N.T. Wright's book on the authority of scripture? I think it gives some great insight on the relationship between the NT and OT as well as does a nice job of defining terms as well. I really think part of the problem is some confusion of definitions.

And that would be my relatively non controversial ststement this Christmas Eve.

Dan Trabue said...

As a matter of fact, I believe I have read that - back in the day. I don't recall one single word of it right now, though.

As I have noted in various places before: I was a conservative's conservative for the first nearly 30 years of my life, including the first nearly 20 years of my Christian life. I only read the Bible and conservative/traditional writings: Oswald Chambers, CS Lewis, Packard, Dobson, NT Wright, Ravenhill, Wesley, etc, etc, so I have read and am pretty familiar with many of the traditional voices.

My memory is such that I don't recall much of what was written (or perhaps that is more due to my intellectual acumen or perhaps the lack of compelling arguments in some of the writings?), but I have read much of it. If you have something in particular you'd like to reference, I'd be glad to check it out.

Craig said...

Dan,

I'm not sure of the time frame of your enlightenment, but The Last Word was written in 2005. Not only that, but I'm not sure many would lump Wright in with your group or refer to him as conservative or traditional. However, the reason I ask is, it does a really good job of dealing with what the authority of scripture means. Sometimes it seems you put forth a kind on simplistic view of what that means (or what you assume others think it means). Wright does a really nice job of addressing/defining what the authority of scripture means.

One of the ways he explains it it by seeing the "meta narritive" as a play in five acts. Creation, Israel, Incarnation, Church, End Times (I'm not sure I've got the terms exactly correct, but close). His contention is that we are living in act 4 right now and this part is being written and acted. The problem is we must stay in context with the earlier acts.

His other illustration is that of a jazz combo. The muscians start with a written score (key signature/time signature etc), but at some point there is a section where improvisation can take place. But even within the improv. the musicians can't stray beyond the parameters of key, style etc.

These are great illustrations of much of what we see in the church today. Maybe it's worth another shot.

Dan Trabue said...

No, if it was written in 2005, then I have definitely not read it. I'll keep an eye out for it.

Craig said...

Dan,

To quote Walter Wink;
"I have long insisted that the issue is one of hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it."

If a pro homosexual apoligist states that the Bible is negative toward Homosexual sex. Please, give us some reason why you believe otherwise.

Dan Trabue said...

That's a good question and one that gets to the heart of this post, Craig.

Simply put, I believe in gay marriage because I am interested in God's Will and not merely what a few verses in the Bible (a handful or less) SEEM to be saying.

The Bible SEEMS to suggest that God is okay with slavery.

The Bible SEEMS to suggest that God is okay with polygamy.

The Bible SEEMS to suggest that God is okay with slaughtering the children of your enemies - but that you should spare the virgin girls so you can take them as your wives!

The Bible SEEMS to suggest that God wants us to kill disrespectful children (actually, it doesn't SEEM to suggest that, it comes right out and commands it).

But just because the Bible seems to suggest things and it may be difficult or impossible to find other Bible verses that repudiate such behavior, does not mean that slavery or infanticide or kidnapping virgins to make them your wife or slavery are good things or that homosexuality is wrong.

I believe in gay marriage because I take the more clear passages in the Bible to illuminate the more obscure. Yes, there are about 3-6 verses in the Bible that SEEM to suggest that homosexuality in general is wrong. BUT, there are more verses that suggest that marriage between loving adults is a good thing (although the Bible is all over the map on marriage, too, but that's another conversation). And so, I fall on the side of wholesome committed relationships for gay and straight.

Tell me this: OTHER than the traditional take on homosexuality, what logical reason would you have for opposing gay marriage? That is, using your God-given reasoning, what reason could you come up with for opposing gay marriage?

Craig said...

Dan,

Let's start with your original premise. Unless I am mistaken you seem to be saying that the first part of the verse "thou shalt not lie with..." is unclear and SEEMS to say something that in your opinion it doesn't say. You follow that by saying that the second part "kill them" is very clear and unambiguous. How do you reach that opinion? If the same person wrote the whole sentance/passage how could they move from clarity to murk so quickly? What are your preconceptions when you look at this verse? Can you provide any support for you opinion that the verse doesn't say what it seems to say, beyond your opinion?

Sorry to back track, but I wanted to be clear before I went along.

Now I'll take a shot at you recent response.

If we are to agree with Walter Wink (as well as several other "gay marriage" apologists I could quote), then we must go with the premise that "the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it.".

Given that then I assume that you would agree that other sexual practices that the Bible is negative toward become ok if we wrap them in the cloak of marrage. For example is it Biblicaly OK to rape your spouse? If you marry your goat (corpse, child, relative etc.) does that make it all good. Obviously not, so why is homosexual behavior special?

Further, your arguemnet states that the Bible seems to support certain things. I can only assume that you mean that those who use the Bible to support slavery etc. in our present covenental relationship with God are msiinterpreting scripture. (this statement also presumes that you believe that there is a correct Biblical position on these issues, which undercuts your earlier contention that all we have is opinion) If so, then the solution is not to use misinterpretation to justify adding additional things to the problem is appropriate Biblical interpretation.

Finally, I'll ask one more time, please show me anywhere the Bible commends (as opposed to tolerates or condemns) any type of union or marriage other than one man one woman. The Bible clearly lays down an ideal for human sexual/family relationships, and stays consistant from Genesis to Christ to Paul. For you to argue otherwise, means you need to demonstrate that there is something beyond silence that informs your opinion.

Finally, (although your original post was not about "gay marriage") I will answer your question. Also, what my opinion on "gay marriage" is, ho no real intrinsic value to this discussion. Your original premise seems to be an attempt to Biblically justify homosexual behavior. What is gained by making this leap to my opinion of "gay marriage"

I would oppose "gay marriage" (hearafter "GM") on several grounds.

1. Marriage is, by definition, between one man/one woman. Therefore whatever commitment two gays make it is definitionally not marriage.

2. Until someone can demonstrate that the behavior underlying the "GM" (homosexual sex) is not a sin, I cannot see how putting a tux on it makes it unsinful. (bear in mind that I would include all sins of a sexual nature in this to some degree or another)

3. At least part of the Biblical (certainly OT) function of Marriage is to perpetuate the species. In "GM"'s that is right out. It could also be argued that the best situation for raising a child is a parent of each gender. (I am aware of, and acknowlege, the exceptions, but I am talking about optimum)

4. Evolution, "GM" is an evolutionary dead end.

5. While I oppose "GM", I have no objection to making sure that people in committed long term relationships having the same access to the legal "advantages" of marriage. Although I would not limit this to homosexuals.

This is plenty for now, I'll see wher you want to go from here.

Marty said...

"Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it."

Yes I would agree with that.

But what type of same-sex behavior is the Bible talking about? All same-sex behavior or certain types of same-sex behavior? The Bible is also VERY negative toward certain opposite-sex behavior.

I really don't see the big deal here. There is SO MUCH in the Bible that we don't adhere to any more. We can make all kinds of excuses and quote Scriptures to back up why why we no longer observe this or that. So what?

Really... we can get so bogged down with the letter that we can't see the word. When we can't see the word, then we miss the sentence, and ultimately the entire book.

I'm for marriage. Period. Same-sex or opposite-sex. I don't worry about what the Bible says, because I'm not sure what was meant back then anyway.

So I'll just let God take care of it. His grace is certainly big enough to cover all that I don't understand and his love was so great that he said "whosoever believes". It's just that simple for me. A no-brainer.

Dan Trabue said...

Well thanks, Marty, for the Best answer. But in an effort to be fair to Craig, let me try to address some of his questions/points.

Craig said:

Finally, I'll ask one more time, please show me anywhere the Bible commends (as opposed to tolerates or condemns) any type of union or marriage other than one man one woman.

From 2 Samuel 12, God talking to David:

Thus says the LORD God of Israel: "I anointed you king over Israel and... I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more!"

God gave David his many wives, according to God. So, that would seem to me to be an endorsement of polygamy. Or do you suppose that God does things contrary to God's will?

And, as you allude to, there are many instances of Godly men having many wives and even concubines.

Craig also asked:

Unless I am mistaken you seem to be saying that the first part of the verse "thou shalt not lie with..." is unclear and SEEMS to say something that in your opinion it doesn't say. You follow that by saying that the second part "kill them" is very clear and unambiguous. How do you reach that opinion?

When the bible says, in Deut 21:

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders ...Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

I have to pause. Kill children for being disrespectful? Well, wouldn't that kill off ALL our children at some point?? Surely, this passage can't indicate that God wants us to kill all disrespectful children.

So, using my God-given reasoning, I conclude that this must mean something more than mere disrespect, for that does not logically make sense.

Similarly, when I hear the bible say, "men laying with men is wrong. Kill 'em," I'm thinking the same thing. Kill two men (let's assume this is talking about some form of homosexuality) for merely expressing their love for one another?? This must be talking about something more serious than mere gay marriage.

I am saying I don't know exactly what is meant by "disrespectful children" or "men laying with men," but my God-given reasoning tells me that there must be something else afoot here.

Again, it is because I'm interested in God's Will more than what the bible seems to say - especially in cases where there is room for doubt about the meaning.

I think clearly and obviously, there is room to doubt about the meaning of "men laying with men."

Dan Trabue said...

Craig also said:

Given that then I assume that you would agree that other sexual practices that the Bible is negative toward become ok if we wrap them in the cloak of marrage. For example is it Biblicaly OK to rape your spouse? If you marry your goat... does that make it all good.

No, but logically and morally - apart from the Bible - we KNOW that rape is wrong. It harms someone. Marrying a goat (corpse, etc) is WRONG because it harms an innocent. So these things are WRONG because they cause harm.

That is what I'm asking, aside from preconceived notions that homosexuality in general is wrong, what logical reason can you give for opposing gay marriage?

You go on to make other attempts to address this, but in each case, you fail. Yes, one function of sex is propagation of the species. BUT, that is only one function of sexuality. We don't condemn all sexual actions between married couples - even those that don't lead to children - because sexuality itself is a good thing, in the proper context. It builds intimacy in a healthy relationship and that is a moral good. So, your arguments about propagation are failed arguments to oppose gay marriage.

So, you see, you have no logical reasons for opposing gay marriage, only biblical ones based on 3-6 obscure passages. And we both can agree that we don't think every action condemned in the Bible is wrong, and every action condoned in the Bible is right, so the mere supposition that because it appears (to some) that the Bible condemns homosexuality is not reason enough to presume homosexuality is wrong.

After all, as noted already, if we look to the Bible alone for a position on slavery, we'd be hard-pressed to come out against it as the blatant moral wrong that it is.

We'd have to say (as Christians, in fact said similarly), "in every instance of slavery mentioned in the Bible, not once is it condemned." But no, despite what the Bible says, we can know - thanks to God's Law written upon our hearts, thanks to our God-given reasoning ability, that slavery is without a doubt, wrong.

And, despite what the bible says at times, we can know that killing children is, without a doubt, a wrong.

This is my point: That sometimes, we have to let our God-given reasoning outweigh what the Bible seems to say - especially in matters where Jesus is silent and the bible is not absolutely clear and where we can give no logical reason to oppose a given action.

Craig said...

Dan,

This is obviously going nowhere, so I'm going to end with this.

You asked me for my opinion (as well as establishing arbitray limits on what reasons I was able to use to support my opinion)as to my opposition to "GM", I gave you my opinion, your response is that my opinion "fails". You establish an arbitrary limit on what reasons you will accept for "gm" being wrong, based on nothing but your preconceptions. You then either ignore or misstate my "reasons". I was unaware that an opinion could "fail".

You have consistantly misstated my take on the Biblical case for homosexuality being a sin(by assuming that my entire case is based on 2 verses that you claim you can't understand). You continue to move the target, by moving from what the Bible says about homosexuality to "gm". Your entire conclusion rests on the logical fallacy of an arguement from silence. You have yet to provide one positive Biblical example for either homosexual practice or "gm". You say you don't know what certain phrases mean, yet you appearantly have made no effort to find out. You choose to ignore (or at least not address) what the Bible does say about marriage. You make sweeping generalizations about what we agree on with no logical support for your statement. You assume that those who used the Bible to support slavery were correct in their interpretation. While ignoring the fact that the moral force of the abolition movement was Biblical. You hold others to a different standard of "proof" than you hold yourself to. You appeal to some logical and moral system that is not Biblical, where did this system come from?

Finally, you keep appealing to your "God-given reasoning". Yet, your "God given reasoning" in this case is based on silence. You have decided that your "God given reasoning" is right, and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, based on silence. I mean, even the folks who agree with you on "gm" admit that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior. Yet you continue to place your reason above all.

If you look at the context 2 Samuel does not make your case in the least.

In your exhaustive exegesis of the Deut 21 passage, you left out the most important part. V. 20 makes it obvious that the "child" in question is of an age that we would consider him an adult. Further the context makes it clear that this is to take place within the community for the health and purity of the community. You make it sould as though the passage indicates that it is fine to kill a 3 year old who doesn't obey.



I can't resist this one last question. You assert that "we can know that killing children is, without a doubt, a wrong." Could you please demonstrate that there are in fact no circumstances ever under which killing a child would not be "a wrong".

Craig said...

Robspierre/Dan,

You keep appealing to "God given reason" which raises a couple of questions.

In your mind is there a point at which you can reason your way outside of God's will (or boundaries)? If so what is that point? If not, why not?

When someone uses their "God given" reasoning abilities to reach a conclusion that is different from yours, what do you conclude?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig said:

This is obviously going nowhere, so I'm going to end with this.

You are, of course, free to go, but I'd like you to know I appreciate your participation in this discussion. I am curious, though: Why do you feel this is "obviously going nowhere"?

It is going somewhere for me. It helps me understand your position (which I understand fairly well already, having held something pretty close to it for years - but still, it always helps to understand another's position more when we talk things over).

Also, it helps me better describe my position - to understand where I'm failing to communicate and to think through how better to get my idea across. So, this is a very helpful process for me, I wonder why it feels less so for you?

As to this:

You have consistantly misstated my take on the Biblical case for homosexuality being a sin(by assuming that my entire case is based on 2 verses that you claim you can't understand).

I don't know that I have EVER stated what your take on the Biblical case for homosexuality is, have I? I have certainly not assumed that your entire case is based on the two OT passages that appear to deal with it. At least nowhere in anything that I have written have I suggested that.

Sorry if it has appeared that way, but it's not what I've written.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig asked:

In your mind is there a point at which you can reason your way outside of God's will (or boundaries)? If so what is that point? If not, why not?

Absolutely. For instance, I think you and those who oppose gay marriage have reasoned yourselves outside of God's will.

What is that point? Well, now, that's the question, isn't it? We have the bible which, while it doesn't assert itself to be God's Word, nor has God ever referred to it as God's Word, the church has accepted it as God's revelation to us and it is absolutely beneficial for teaching and instruction.

But it is not an infallible document (I don't know how a document could possibly be infallible) and, even if it was, WE are not infallible in our understanding/reasoning. And so, we all muddle through the best we can seeking to discern the Will of God - who is impossibly beyond our complete understanding and there we are back to our fallible understanding.

Craig also asked:

When someone uses their "God given" reasoning abilities to reach a conclusion that is different from yours, what do you conclude?

That probably one of us is mistaken. Or perhaps both of us. It happens. Again, back to that whole fallible human condition thing.

Dan Trabue said...

Another question asked by Craig:

I can't resist this one last question. You assert that "we can know that killing children is, without a doubt, a wrong." Could you please demonstrate that there are in fact no circumstances ever under which killing a child would not be "a wrong".

No. When I say that, I suppose I mean that most of we in the human family will readily agree that it is wrong to kill children. Most of humanity would agree, I'm sure, that it is wrong to deliberately slaughter each man, woman and boy child in a city that we are attacking (sparing the girl virgins for ourselves to make them our wives).

I think we can make a logical case for not doing so: The children of my enemy have not harmed me, therefore, I have no reason to harm them. The children of my enemy are innocent of any crimes, therefore it is wrong to punish them. That sort of thing.

I suppose you would agree, so what is your point in asking? That is: EVEN THOUGH the Bible has places where God commands the slaughter of each man, woman and child, we can nonetheless know that it would be wrong for us to do so. You agree, no?

Craig said...

Dan,

The reason it appears to be going nowhere, is we are just rehashing earlier conversations. I believe I adequately expressed my frustrations earlier, and I know you will not answer questions you don't want to. So why?

With that said I'll take a shot at your last assertion.

Yes most of us in the human family would agree that it is wrong to kill children. Yet, millions are killed everyday while the denomination of which I am a member supports and subsidizes the the abortion industry. Peter Singer, a darling of the left supports and uses his position in academia to further the cause of infantacide. Many "christians" support Planned Parenthood, an orginization which in keeping with the worldview of it's founder decimates the black population. I don't hear much weeping and gnashing of teeth from you or those on your side over these childern.

Yet you get worked up over one verse which you have edited in order to make a point the verse itself, doesn't make. Which calls into question the validity of your Biblical interpretation skills, or the effort you put in. You continue to trot out commands that were time and place specific as though they were binding today, and "interpret" them with a wooden literalism that would embarass a fundie.

You appear to be saying that under no circumstances should anyone evr kill a child. Well here are a few where I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

If I am accosted by armed children in N. Minneapolis, I will defend myself killing my assailants if necessary.

If a child rapes and murders another child or children in a state with the death panalty I can live with that.

If a child straps explosives to his body and is attempting to kill innocent people and can be stopped by killing him/her.

What about the situational ethics crap they taught us in school. If there are 4 people in a sinking lifeboat is the child automatically exempt from being thrown out?

Dan, you may think you understand me, and that's great. I think you "understand" what your prejudices think I am, and that's fine too. The bottom line for me is, you are unable to make an affirmative case that your opinion on homosexuality and "gm" is Biblical.

To your final question, if God spoke to me personally and commanded me to do something I probably would. If I didn't then I would be prepared for consequences.

Kind of like everyday life, now that I think about it.

Alan said...

It's OK, Dan, I can't make an affirmative case that having an appendectomy, owning a cat, or wearing glasses is Biblical either, but that hasn't stopped me from doing all three.

Craig's is the sort of argument one expects to see in a high school debate class. It's a bit embarrassing to see it coming from an adult.

Dan Trabue said...

Be nice, Alan. At least he's communicating.

Craig said:

and I know you will not answer questions you don't want to. So why?

What questions of yours have I not answered? I've attempted to answer each question that you've offered, or at least as much as I've had time to answer. Have I missed one that you especially want answered? By all means, ask away.

Craig also said:

You continue to trot out commands that were time and place specific as though they were binding today

And THIS is one of the things I'm getting at: SAYS WHO? On what basis are you saying that those commands (kill disrespectful children, kill "men who lay with men") are time and place specific?

Where are the Bible passages where God says, "You know what, forget those earlier commands to kill disrespectful children - those were JUST intended for Israel in 3000 BC up until about 2044 BC."?

On what bases are you changing the rules?

Dan Trabue said...

Alan said:

I can't make an affirmative case that having an appendectomy, owning a cat, or wearing glasses is Biblical either, but that hasn't stopped me from doing all three.

You wear glasses???!

Craig said...

Dan,

A partial list of unanswered questions.

Further, in what field of endevour (science comes to mind) is an argument from science ever considered persuasive?

Further still, if you consider an argument from silence persuasive then, the converse argument is at least equally valid.

Finally, I'll ask one more time, please show me anywhere the Bible commends (as opposed to tolerates or condemns) any type of union or marriage other than one man one woman. (I'll give you partial credit since you gave me an instance where God tolerates an alternative to one man one woman)

How do you reach that opinion?

If the same person wrote the whole sentance/passage how could they move from clarity to murk so quickly?

What are your preconceptions when you look at this verse?

Can you provide any support for you opinion that the verse doesn't say what it seems to say, beyond your opinion?

I really don't expect an answer. Just wanted to be thorough.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig said:

The difference is Theocracy-New Covenant. We are not living under the Israeli theocracy anymore, therefore while the principles remain, the immeadiate consequences differ

And this is an example of you using your God-given reasoning abilities to come to a conclusion on which the Bible is silent. The Bible never once says that it is okay to ignore God's command ("IF a child is disrespectful, kill 'em") - not the first part nor the second part. That whole command is (apparently) from God and never does the Bible say it's okay to ignore the first part or the second part. Same for other commands ("If a woman is menstruating, don't have sex. If someone does this, banish them from the community..." for instance).

However, you have reasoned (at least partially correctly) that such a command is not a permanent command for all times and all people in all places. Circumstances change. You acknowledge that the SECOND half of that command is not a permanent, universal rule. I agree.

But you do so based on your reasoning, not because the Bible tells you so. The last word the Bible has on the matter is, "If a child is disobedient, kill 'em." We have to reason away (rightly) the "kill 'em" part.

But what reason would we have for keeping the first half of these commands? Well, sometimes, they still make logical sense. That is, we DO recognize that disrespectful children are not a good thing. We DO recognize that bestiality is harmful. Our own God-given reasoning can tell us that.

BUT, not every "first half" of such commands are universal. It is okay to have sex when women are menstruating, for instance. And, it is good and blessed, I'm thinking, for folk to get married - gay or straight. There is no logical reason for thinking otherwise, as we've already covered. THE ONLY reason to assume that gay marriage is a bad thing is because traditionally, we have taken the five-ish verses that SEEM to be talking about some form of homosexuality and assume that it means ALL instances of homosexuality - even loving, committed ones.

But, if we have no logical reason for thinking such, why ought we presume that a human tradition (not God's Word) based on five non-definitive passages means something we can't otherwise defend?

Craig said...

Dan,

If only we had hours and some cold beers, it could be interesting. I don't have time to run through all this tonight. I do want to focus on one thing. The fact that you acknowledge a correct answer undercuts your argument. There either is a correct answer or it's all just opinion.

Alan said...

Ah yes, Gagnon. The guy who says that premarital heterosexual sex is better than a committed monogamous gay relationship.

Yeah, let's all turn to him for relationship advice.

So now Craig is back to the juridical vs. moral law argument, which, as I already stated was simply moving the goal posts.

Dan Trabue said...

Yes, Alan, thanks for the note.

Craig said:

The fact that you acknowledge a correct answer undercuts your argument. There either is a correct answer or it's all just opinion.

Undercuts my argument, how? I have never argued that there is no right answer. Clearly, I think very strongly that there IS one right answer and you don't have it.

So, no, acknowledging there is a correct answer in no way undercuts my position.

What my argument is saying, though, is that we have no authoritative, objective way to discern the Right Answer on any number of topics. Oh, wait, I just received a personal, handwritten letter from God telling me that I am, indeed, correct in supposing that marriage (gay or straight) is indeed a good and blessed thing.

So, unless you have another letter from God that specifically supersedes my letter from God, I'm correct and you're wrong. Sorry.

Of course, I have no such letter from God, nor do you. We have to muddle through the best we can striving to discern the good and right and avoid the bad and wrong. There IS a correct answer (or possibly correct answers) and God knows what it is. But you don't. Nor do I. Not with 100% perfect knowledge.

We both have opinions as to what is right and THAT has been my argument. Unless you're God (and nothing personal, but clearly you're not), you don't have perfect knowledge of right and wrong.

That is my point.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig also said:

If only we had hours and some cold beers, it could be interesting. I don't have time to run through all this tonight.

Fair enough. Time constrains us all. I could point out here that I could not join you in a beer, however, since I'm a tea-totaller.

And why don't I drink? Well, because that's how I was raised by my traditional conservative church families. Drinking is wrong, you know. The Bible tells us so.

Ask any number of Baptists and other southern evangelicals and they will tell you the same thing with 100% confidence - drinking alcohol is wrong, nay, an abomination! For the Bible tells us so.

Of course, the Bible doesn't tell us that, at all. Rather, that's their interpretation of a handful of verses in the Bible that have come to be held as God's Holy Word - Thou shalt not drink alcohol. Period.

Our traditions are powerful things and at some point, our traditions become so strong that we presume them to carry the same weight as if they were spake from God's own mouth.

Nonetheless, traditions - good and bad - are not the word of God. They are our traditions and we ought not confuse the two.

Craig said...

Dan,

And on that note, I'll take a few days off from this.

Craig said...

Dan,

I'm ok with iced tea as well, as long as it's not sweet.

Craig

Craig said...

Dan

I know you find some kind of value in continuing this conversation, and on some level so do I. I’ve spent some time researching and looking at stuff over the last day or so, and am beginning to doubt the value. I would like to share some of my frustrations with you and see where it goes from there.

First, as I have done some looking, it has become obvious that the preponderance of Judeo-Christian scholarship and Biblical interpretation over the last 2+ centuries has consistently concluded that the position of the Bible holds that homosexual practice is a sin. Even “gm” advocates admit this. You obviously disagree with this position. There have even been some relatively recent attempts to give this position some scholarly backing. Where this becomes difficult is the fact that you wipe away 2,000+ years by dismissing it as “tradition”. In most endeavors this kind of long term consensus would be given some degree of weight, but not here. Not only do you cavalierly dismiss this but, by labeling it as “tradition” you imply that this is simply a position that some folks made up out of whole cloth. Further, you imply that simply being “tradition” invalidates the position. Given this it seems pointless to provide links or cut/paste quotes, since they will be summarily dismissed.

Second, you have set an unreasonable standard of “proof”. In most endeavors the burden of proof falls on those who wish to change the status quo, except here. Not only that but you keep suggesting that only some sort of signed letter from God will provide you with an acceptable level of “proof”. While at the same time offering only “scripture is silent” or “scripture seems ambiguous to me” as your reasoning. Since this is obviously an unrealistic standard, and you “God-given reasoning” finds the plain text lacking in clarity, I can only continue to suggest that you spend the time determining what the text actually says, not what it seems to say.

Third, your analogies (slavery, disobedient child) both fail on several levels. The failure of the slavery analogy is your willingness to assume that in a contest between the text of scripture, and one bad interpretation of scripture that the fault lies with scripture. I have already pointed out how the other analogy fails, and don’t see any reason to do so again. Since you keep throwing these out with no discussion of the merits of the analogies allowed, it seems a dead end to go further down this road.

In summary, it seems as though you have, through defining the terms of the discussion, made significant disagreement difficult. I enjoy our exchanges and will certainly continue to comment on your blog as long as I am welcome. While we have gotten sideways a couple of times, I think we have managed to stay pretty civil, and I’d like to continue that if possible. As with many of these “conversations” I tend to think they would be much more pleasant, enjoyable, and productive in person. Thanks for your time and responses, I’m sure we’ll cross paths down the road. Have a great 2009.