tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post7024985472891615117..comments2024-03-29T02:08:32.148-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: RULESDan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-10215557853868722562009-01-01T21:26:00.000-08:002009-01-01T21:26:00.000-08:00DanI know you find some kind of value in continuin...Dan<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-76928087525713350092008-12-31T09:27:00.000-08:002008-12-31T09:27:00.000-08:00Dan,I'm ok with iced tea as well, as long as i...Dan,<br><br>I'm ok with iced tea as well, as long as it's not sweet.<br><br>CraigCraighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-69104350205921299212008-12-31T09:24:00.000-08:002008-12-31T09:24:00.000-08:00Dan,And on that note, I'll take a few days off...Dan,<br><br>And on that note, I'll take a few days off from this.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-85167597194687999422008-12-31T06:44:00.000-08:002008-12-31T06:44:00.000-08:00Craig also said:If only we had hours and some cold...Craig also said:<br><br><i>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><br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Nonetheless, traditions - good and bad - are not the word of God. They are our traditions and we ought not confuse the two.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-90300091595590016492008-12-31T06:40:00.000-08:002008-12-31T06:40:00.000-08:00Yes, Alan, thanks for the note.Craig said:The fact...Yes, Alan, thanks for the note.<br><br>Craig said:<br><br><i>The fact that you acknowledge a correct answer undercuts your argument. There either is a correct answer or it's all just opinion.</i><br><br>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.<br><br>So, no, acknowledging there is a correct answer in no way undercuts my position.<br><br>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.<br><br>So, unless you have another letter from God that specifically supersedes my letter from God, I'm correct and you're wrong. Sorry.<br><br>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.<br><br>We both have <i>opinions</i> 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.<br><br>That is my point.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-14854489487669822732008-12-30T20:41:00.000-08:002008-12-30T20:41:00.000-08:00Ah yes, Gagnon. The guy who says that premarital ...Ah yes, Gagnon. The guy who says that premarital heterosexual sex is better than a committed monogamous gay relationship.<br><br>Yeah, let's all turn to him for relationship advice.<br><br>So now Craig is back to the juridical vs. moral law argument, which, as I already stated was simply moving the goal posts.Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-67102451154060354972008-12-30T19:11:00.000-08:002008-12-30T19:11:00.000-08:00Dan,If only we had hours and some cold beers, it c...Dan,<br><br>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.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-13751365063198144682008-12-30T15:21:00.000-08:002008-12-30T15:21:00.000-08:00Craig said:The difference is Theocracy-New Covenan...Craig said:<br><br><i>The difference is Theocracy-New Covenant. We are not living under the Israeli theocracy anymore, therefore while the principles remain, the immeadiate consequences differ</i><br><br>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).<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-206558332897535482008-12-30T14:36:00.000-08:002008-12-30T14:36:00.000-08:00Dan,A partial list of unanswered questions.Further...Dan,<br><br>A partial list of unanswered questions.<br><br>Further, in what field of endevour (science comes to mind) is an argument from science ever considered persuasive?<br><br>Further still, if you consider an argument from silence persuasive then, the converse argument is at least equally valid.<br><br>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)<br><br>How do you reach that opinion? <br><br>If the same person wrote the whole sentance/passage how could they move from clarity to murk so quickly? <br><br>What are your preconceptions when you look at this verse?<br><br> Can you provide any support for you opinion that the verse doesn't say what it seems to say, beyond your opinion?<br><br>I really don't expect an answer. Just wanted to be thorough.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-5009316586798126922008-12-30T13:47:00.000-08:002008-12-30T13:47:00.000-08:00Alan said:I can't make an affirmative case tha...Alan said:<br><br><i>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.</i><br><br>You wear glasses???!Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-56046903231955793902008-12-30T13:46:00.000-08:002008-12-30T13:46:00.000-08:00Be nice, Alan. At least he's communicating.Cra...Be nice, Alan. At least he's communicating.<br><br>Craig said:<br><br><i>and I know you will not answer questions you don't want to. So why?</i><br><br>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.<br><br>Craig also said:<br><br><i>You continue to trot out commands that were time and place specific as though they were binding today</i><br><br>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? <br><br>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."?<br><br>On what bases are you changing the rules?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-37704697901098876332008-12-30T13:35:00.000-08:002008-12-30T13:35:00.000-08:00It's OK, Dan, I can't make an affirmative ...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.<br><br>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.Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-91070570603184146192008-12-30T12:57:00.000-08:002008-12-30T12:57:00.000-08:00Dan,The reason it appears to be going nowhere, is ...Dan,<br><br>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?<br><br>With that said I'll take a shot at your last assertion.<br><br>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.<br><br>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. <br><br>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.<br><br>If I am accosted by armed children in N. Minneapolis, I will defend myself killing my assailants if necessary.<br><br>If a child rapes and murders another child or children in a state with the death panalty I can live with that.<br><br>If a child straps explosives to his body and is attempting to kill innocent people and can be stopped by killing him/her.<br><br>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?<br><br>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. <br><br>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. <br><br>Kind of like everyday life, now that I think about it.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-65459025160199967002008-12-30T08:28:00.000-08:002008-12-30T08:28:00.000-08:00Another question asked by Craig:I can't resist...Another question asked by Craig:<br><br><i>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".</i><br><br>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).<br><br>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.<br><br>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?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-22162123850022851092008-12-30T08:22:00.000-08:002008-12-30T08:22:00.000-08:00Craig asked:In your mind is there a point at which...Craig asked:<br><br><i>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?</i><br><br>Absolutely. For instance, I think you and those who oppose gay marriage have reasoned yourselves outside of God's will.<br><br>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. <br><br>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.<br><br>Craig also asked:<br><br><i>When someone uses their "God given" reasoning abilities to reach a conclusion that is different from yours, what do you conclude?</i><br><br>That probably one of us is mistaken. Or perhaps both of us. It happens. Again, back to that whole fallible human condition thing.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-51576004321950635032008-12-30T07:51:00.000-08:002008-12-30T07:51:00.000-08:00Craig said:This is obviously going nowhere, so I&#...Craig said:<br><br><i>This is obviously going nowhere, so I'm going to end with this.</i><br><br>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"?<br><br>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). <br><br>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?<br><br>As to this:<br><br><i>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><br><br>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.<br><br>Sorry if it has appeared that way, but it's not what I've written.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-17833196266370207212008-12-30T07:50:00.000-08:002008-12-30T07:50:00.000-08:00Robspierre/Dan,You keep appealing to "God giv...Robspierre/Dan,<br><br>You keep appealing to "God given reason" which raises a couple of questions. <br><br>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?<br><br>When someone uses their "God given" reasoning abilities to reach a conclusion that is different from yours, what do you conclude?Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-66382506598045294082008-12-30T07:25:00.000-08:002008-12-30T07:25:00.000-08:00Dan,This is obviously going nowhere, so I'm go...Dan,<br><br>This is obviously going nowhere, so I'm going to end with this.<br><br>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". <br><br>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? <br><br>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. <br><br>If you look at the context 2 Samuel does not make your case in the least. <br><br>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. <br><br><br><br>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".Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-773252528802957142008-12-29T15:48:00.000-08:002008-12-29T15:48:00.000-08:00Craig also said:Given that then I assume that you ...Craig also said:<br><br><i>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.</i><br><br>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.<br><br>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?<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>And, despite what the bible says at times, we can know that killing children is, without a doubt, a wrong.<br><br>This is my point: That sometimes, we have to let our God-given reasoning outweigh what the Bible <i>seems</i> 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.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-41508428530851974302008-12-29T15:34:00.000-08:002008-12-29T15:34:00.000-08:00Well thanks, Marty, for the Best answer. But in an...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.<br><br>Craig said:<br><br><i>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><br><br>From 2 Samuel 12, God talking to David:<br><br><i>Thus says the LORD God of Israel: "I anointed you king over Israel and... <b>I gave you</b> your master's house and <b>your master's wives</b> 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!"</i><br><br>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?<br><br>And, as you allude to, there are many instances of Godly men having many wives and even concubines.<br><br>Craig also asked:<br><br><i>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?</i><br><br>When the bible says, in Deut 21:<br><br><i>"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><br><br>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. <br><br>So, using my God-given reasoning, I conclude that this must mean something more than mere disrespect, for that does not logically make sense.<br><br>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.<br><br>I am saying <i>I don't know </i> 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>I think clearly and obviously, there is room to doubt about the meaning of "men laying with men."Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-31685519330028313332008-12-29T14:09:00.000-08:002008-12-29T14:09:00.000-08:00"Simply put, the Bible is negative toward sam..."Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it."<br><br>Yes I would agree with that. <br><br>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. <br><br>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?<br><br>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.<br><br>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. <br><br>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.Martyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02908921670853665703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-56028662623562991792008-12-29T10:37:00.000-08:002008-12-29T10:37:00.000-08:00Dan,Let's start with your original premise. U...Dan,<br><br>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?<br><br>Sorry to back track, but I wanted to be clear before I went along.<br><br>Now I'll take a shot at you recent response.<br><br>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.".<br><br>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? <br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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"<br><br>I would oppose "gay marriage" (hearafter "GM") on several grounds.<br><br>1. Marriage is, by definition, between one man/one woman. Therefore whatever commitment two gays make it is definitionally not marriage.<br><br>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)<br><br>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)<br><br>4. Evolution, "GM" is an evolutionary dead end.<br><br>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.<br><br>This is plenty for now, I'll see wher you want to go from here.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-34346734162421324762008-12-29T05:10:00.000-08:002008-12-29T05:10:00.000-08:00That's a good question and one that gets to th...That's a good question and one that gets to the heart of this post, Craig.<br><br>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.<br><br>The Bible SEEMS to suggest that God is okay with slavery. <br><br>The Bible SEEMS to suggest that God is okay with polygamy. <br><br>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!<br><br>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).<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-16386224009395418282008-12-28T21:03:00.000-08:002008-12-28T21:03:00.000-08:00Dan,To quote Walter Wink;"I have long insiste...Dan,<br><br>To quote Walter Wink;<br>"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."<br><br>If a pro homosexual apoligist states that the Bible is negative toward Homosexual sex. Please, give us some reason why you believe otherwise.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17149415942585847184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-18278712099932799192008-12-27T20:05:00.000-08:002008-12-27T20:05:00.000-08:00No, if it was written in 2005, then I have definit...No, if it was written in 2005, then I have definitely not read it. I'll keep an eye out for it.Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.com