I've lately been in another discussion on marriage equity at another blog. This time, I've taken up the POSITIVE biblical and rational case for marriage as it relates to hetero- and homosexuality. I re-post them here.
First, I review the FIVE VERSES in the whole Bible that seem to touch on homosexuality and point out why those discussions, as interesting as they might be, are moot in this discussion. That is followed by the rational, biblical defense of marriage equity for all...
1. THREE verses/passages in the WHOLE BIBLE seem to say fairly clearly that some form of homosexuality is wrong: Levititcus 18, Lev. 20 and Romans 1. The hunch from my side – given the obvious context – is that these THREE PASSAGES are all speaking specifically of some form of pagan ritualistic sex practices, NOT any and all homosexual practices.
The hunch from the other side – given that this is how they’ve traditionally interpreted it – is that it IS speaking of any and all forms of homosexuality.
2. TWO additional verses (in the WHOLE BIBLE) refer to Paul’s made up word of “arsenokoitai” – literally “man-bed.” The hunch from my side of the fence is that, frankly, we don’t know WHAT Paul is referencing in these two passages. There was a Greek word for homosexual, so it does not appear to be referencing any and all forms of homosexuality, but we just don’t know what it is referencing. We have ideas, but just can't know for sure.
The hunch from the other side is that it IS referencing any and all forms of homosexuality.
3. The point is - and it's a HUGE POINT - I can NOT prove my hunch is the ONE TRUE, APPROVED-BY-GOD-ALMIGHTY (tm) interpretation of these passages. And THEY can NOT prove THEIR hunch, either. We could go around all day talking about the various reasons why we think yes or no, but at the end of the day, I can’t prove that MY HUNCHES on these five verses are correct AND, NEITHER CAN THEY.
Neither side can “prove” our hunches on the interpretation of these passages is “right.”
4. So, is that the end of the topic, then? An unsatisfying, “we can’t tell”?
I don’t think so.
On the POSITIVE side of the defense of marriage rights for all, we see that the Bible tells us...
“Finally, friends, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
The Bible tells us...
“But the fruit of the Spirit [of God] is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.”
While we can’t say authoritatively WHAT God’s opinion is about gay marriage, since God hasn’t told any of us; while we can’t prove definitively that these five verses in the whole Bible are speaking negatively of ALL homosexual practices or just certain ones, we can say with GREAT confidence that those things that are good, true, faithful, forgiving, gracious, loving, pure, etc ARE good things.
And, carrying on, we can say with great confidence that a healthy marriage – one in which two individuals LOVE each other, RESPECT each other, are FAITHFUL, MERCIFUL, GRACIOUS, KIND to each other – that these things ARE GOOD THINGS.
Where is the rational argument against two adults being monogamous, loving and faithful to one another? Would it be better to be polyamorous and unfaithful to each other? No! There is no sound rational argument against commitment, love and fidelity that I have ever heard.
At the very least, it would seem the anti-gay marriage crowd would have to concede that marriage between all folk is a MUCH BETTER solution than licentiousness and polyamory. EVEN IF you are of the tribe that thinks homosexual practices in any form are a moral wrong, it would seem you’d have to concede that marriage would at least be a step in the right direction.
And just a reminder: The topic here is NOT Dan Trabue. It would seem wise, respectful and adult to stick to the topic. It would seem obviously moral to refrain from slander which we KNOW is wrong in your defense of your position on marriage equity, which is what the question is.
I point that out because almost without fail, the ad hom attacks come, instead of rational defenses on the topic at hand. I welcome the one and will reject, point out and/or mock the other.
It almost makes you wonder if they know they have no rational defense for their position so they MUST stoop to attempts at character assassination?
Friday, April 29, 2011
Whatsoever Things are Lovely
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
156 comments:
My position on gay marriage is different. Whether or not a particular set of religious beliefs supports or does not support such an institution is up to those particular groups working out of their traditions. The matter, to me, is not whether or not various religious groups should or should not endorse same-sex unions.
Rather, the question is one of legality. Marriage is, primarily, a legal institution, not a religious one. That the state chooses to recognize some relationships as legitimate and others as not; some relationships entitle a pair to certain legal perquisites while others do not is a violation of the core of our country - equality before the law.
None of the states that have legalized same-sex unions has done so in such a manner as to offend the religious practices or sensibilities of those denominations that oppose them, which is all to the good. I would find such a move abhorrent and oppose it strenuously.
You want to oppose gay marriage on Biblical grounds? OK, that's fine with me. On the other hand, denying equal legal status to same-sex couples is blatant discrimination, pure and simple. I see no reason - quite literally, no rational set of arguments - that supports denying two men or two women going before a judge or magistrate or other representative of the state and becoming legally bound to one another.
At the very least, it would seem the anti-gay marriage crowd would have to concede that marriage between all folk is a MUCH BETTER solution than licentiousness and polyamory.
False dichotomy, unless you believe licentiousness and polyamory and the only other option to marriage. Chastity in single-ness is much better. If one believes that homosexual practices are a moral wrong, affirming such behavior culturally is not something that person would consider "MUCH BETTER".
EVEN IF you are of the tribe that thinks homosexual practices in any form are a moral wrong, it would seem you’d have to concede that marriage would at least be a step in the right direction.
Only if you buy into the false dichotomy, and if you wish to make people more comfortable in their sin.
I also disagree with Geoff. The Bible specifically set up marriage as an institution. Governments have taken it upon themselves to promote this institution, because a strong family unit is conducive to a strong nation. But it is primarily religious.
Geoff also says, "On the other hand, denying equal legal status to same-sex couples is blatant discrimination, pure and simple." Is it discrimination to keep siblings or first cousins from marrying? Is it discrimination to disallow polygamous marriages? We already have discrimination in this area. Marriage is currently one man and one woman. Remove one discrimination and you leave no argument to hold back any other discrimination.
That argument only works, Geoffrey, if you redefine the term "marriage" to mean something it has never meant in all of human history. (Other applications of the term, such as, for example, the marriage of two ideas, are metaphorical.)
Thus, there is no "discrimination" in the state's non-support or refusal to license other unions that do not meet the definition as it has always been understood. The law has been equally applies to all who meet the criteria of what constitutes a legal marriage, which also includes age, not marrying family members, etc.
Nor does the state have any obligation to bow to a new definition insisted upon by such a tiny minority of the population. The notion of discrimination or unequal application of the law is a fantasy put forth by a small few who want things their own way regardless of the beliefs, feelings and/or position of the vast majority or the impact their proposal will or might have on society/culture in whole.
Doug...
Only if you buy into the false dichotomy, and if you wish to make people more comfortable in their sin.
No false dichotomy. A comparative analysis.
I happen to be a tea-totaller and a fan of sobriety. If I have an acquaintance who is wanting to imbibe, I'd much rather see them do so in moderation rather than to excess. My belief in sobriety for myself does not keep me from respecting at least moderation for their lives.
I'm a believer in walking as opposed to driving. Nonetheless, if I've an acquaintance who REALLY wants to drive, I'd much rather see them drive in moderation than to excess.
Smoking, the same way.
One can believe a behavior is unhealthy and still respect and honor the one who intends to engage in it for engaging in the behavior at least in moderation.
That is my point: EVEN IF you are of the tribe that thinks homosexual loving (smoking, speeding, drinking, driving...) is an unhealthy activity, you should reasonably be able to think that engaging in the negative behavior in smaller or more responsible quantities/manner is better than not. Seems to me.
Doug, are you opposed to smoking pot? Do you think it an unhealthy practice? IF so, and you have a friend who says he doesn't really want to stop smoking, but he'll do it in moderation, will you believe that to be a relative good or will you condemn that moderated activity, too?
Doug...
The Bible specifically set up marriage as an institution.
Chapter and verse.
What do you mean by "institution?"
Art: "That argument only works, Geoffrey, if you redefine the term "marriage" to mean something it has never meant in all of human history."
If you are referring to me calling marriage a legal rather than religious institution, the evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite. If this were not the case, civil marriage - a couple married by a representative of the state - would not be possible.
As a secular state, the matter is one of laws, not religion or morality. As I say, you don't think your religious beliefs support gay marriage, OK, make sure your religious group sticks to its principles. Marriage is the state regulating reproduction, and in countries that continue to recognize primogeniture (which the US does not, which robs the whole notion of illegitimacy in the US of any substantive meaning, a totally different subject), property transfer.
Of the matter were "simply" religious or "moral", why would the state have any laws about marriage at all, and just allow churches to marry couples without any interference whatsoever? Since time immemorial, check out any civilization, the state has a vital interest in regulating reproduction. Some are quite strict, up to and including restricting marital copulation to particular days or times of the year, sometimes needing the consent of community elders.
As it stands in the US right now, the chief benefit married couples receive is in the form of tax breaks and the recognition of primary relationships for legal, medical, and other vital services. Again, the church has nothing to say about this, the state everything, which, yet again, disproves your entire argument (evidence, you know).
The state discriminates against certain couples for the sole reason that they are the same gender. There is no reason rooted in our core constitutional principles for such discrimination.
If you want to continue to discuss marriage as a religious institution and opposition to gay marriage as a moral position, I can't stop you. I also don't care.
Returning to Doug's...
Only if you buy into the false dichotomy, and if you wish to make people more comfortable in their sin.
Not only can I respect it when people I know engage in a behavior I disagree with, but do so in a more responsible, moderate manner, I also don't feel the need to tell them, "I think you're wrong!" and certainly not, "You can't be part of my church and engage in that behavior!!"
You're convinced that smoking cigarettes is a good thing? Well, good for you. I won't go around offering my opinions about your behavior, although I will ask you do so in a responsible manner (ie, not around me, since your smoking affects me).
The difference with marriage equity is that NO ONE is harmed if Bob and Sam are married. In fact, people are healthier in committed, faithful, healthy relationships than outside of them and society is healthier, too, I'd posit. I can't imagine any defense that could claim otherwise.
But even if I thought Bob/Sam's open homosexuality wasn't healthy for them (albeit lacking any evidence for it beyond my hunch), what business is it of mine? They're adults. In the church, they're fellow Christians responsible to God for their behavior.
Presumably they're happier in the marriage, it's not hurting me, it's not making me want to "go gay..." why worry about other people's sin when there's no effect from it on you or anyone else?
I know that line of reasoning is a slippery slope. I know that there comes a point where we ARE responsible to one another, where we ARE to be our brother's keeper and get involved.
But the case of marriage equity, where there's no apparent harm, I think that EVEN IF you have the hunch that it's wrong, it's beyond reasonable to nitpick over that. I would think that the time to get involved in someone else's sin (or supposed sin) is when they run the risk of getting seriously hurt or hurting others. Think suicide. Think drunk driving.
But faithful, loving, committed behavior? Not in the same category at all.
I think Dan makes a powerful argument, rooted in the basics of the faith - of grace, of God's love being manifest in human relationships, of sexual minorities as beloved children of God and as such offered the opportunity to live and love more fully as God has created them to be - that is a marvelous counter to the proof-texting of the tiny number of verses in the Bible that address, or seem to address, same-sex behavior (Dan is absolutely right that, being silent on the subject of same-sex marriage itself, it is impossible to get any definitive answer on that subject from the text of the Bible).
There are good arguments on the other side as well, and I would never deny that. All the same, since even the indefensible Defense of Marriage Act addresses the matter in legal rather than religious or moral terms, I think the merits of any religious or moral argument are quite beside the point. As I say, if your church or denomination does not support gay marriage, no law in the US will force it to perform such an act. That does not mean, however, that such a view point, not shared - admittedly and obviously - by everyone, should have the force of law.
Barring evidence of demonstrable harm to any individual or group, and with the many benefits to society as Dan has noted, I fail to see any convincing arguments for continuing the discriminatory practice of denying same-sex couples the same freedoms as straight couples.
I am just now leaving for the weekend, but I will just note that in Genesis 2:24, marriage is defined and set up, and later, used to demonstrate the relationship between God and the Church.
More later.
I'll look forward to it, Doug. The problem I'm seeing with calling marriage an "institution" set up or "defined" by God as being "One Willing Adult Male, One Willing Adult Female" and only that is that I think that is over-stepping good biblical exegesis.
Yes, the Bible DOES say...
for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
But does that say or even suggest that "God is setting up an institution?" That God "has defined marriage?" Does it even say "One man, one woman?" or "ONLY one man and ONLY one woman?"
No, it simply doesn't.
Have a good weekend, Doug. Hopefully, you're someplace where the weather is beautiful and you'll have a chance to enjoy it.
Thanks, George. I get your point about "only five," and maybe I can rephrase that some other way. What I'm trying to get across is the ethereal nature of any discussion of homosexuality in the Bible. It's just not a topic covered in any depth at all in the Bible.
Perhaps if I said, "the Bible only TOUCHES ON homosexuality five times, and even then, it's not an in-depth analysis of the issue, but just oblique references that vaguely speak negatively of SOME FORM of homosexuality, but not significantly..." or something of that nature? I don't know. I'll think on it.
I like the picture. Does the arrangement have some significance?
This is something our artsy pastor and/or our dear Sue created at the beginning of Lent. Each Sunday during Lent, we were invited to place a little pebble in one of the small black "holders" you see - they're quarter-sized pieces of clay that had a thumb sized indentation. The placing of the stones along the labyrinth was to remind us of the Walk to Jerusalem that Jesus was traveling.
Then, the last Sunday before Easter, we were invited to take a stone with us, to carry in our pockets, (or put in our shoe?) to be an everyday reminder of His last week.
Then, on Easter Sunday, they had placed these little flowers in the black dots, celebrating His resurrection.
I thought it was a beautiful reminder.
Dan,
It's one thing when those who are more conservative than you disagree with your positions. It's another entirely when those who support GM disagree with your positions.
"As an atheist, I really do not want Christians to be able to whimsically pick and chose which doctrines they agree or disagree with. The bible comes out firmly against homosexuality, and I consider this to be a fundamental liability to the faith. Just as I want to be able to keep Christians scrambling to explain away God’s apathy toward slavery, I want to continue to question how you can argue against homosexuality from any place other than scripture. I also want to be able to expose the logical flaw of affirming the Bible and being progressive."
http://outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/this-just-in-christian-takes-right-side-of-argument-for-all-the-wrong-reasons/
Ohmigoodness! George supports General Motors?!!
Dan,
Amusing.
I'm flattered that my post is used to perpetuate intolerance. I almost regret writing it, since it has been linked to six times by Christian bloggers. I stand by my remarks, but I'll refute them for the sake of the discussion.
>>"As an atheist, I really do not want Christians to be able to whimsically pick and chose which doctrines they agree or disagree with."
At the end of the day, what I want Christians to be able to do has no merit. Also, Dan doesn't completely do this. He has an exegetical argument that is no more contorted than other arguments Christians regularly poffer under questioning. I argue that all these explanations are lacking, including Dan's, but I don't think he needs to be singled out.
>> "The bible comes out firmly against homosexuality, and I consider this to be a fundamental liability to the faith. Just as I want to be able to keep Christians scrambling to explain away God’s apathy toward slavery, I want to continue to question how you can argue against homosexuality from any place other than scripture."
Dan does not really prevent me to argue that anti-gay agendas can only be logically defended based on an a priori acceptance of Biblical subjective morality. Just as I believe that Hell can only be argued scripturally, I also think universalism can only be argued scripturally. Opposing positions can be argued biblically, and often are. Like Calvinism and Armenianism.
>> "I also want to be able to expose the logical flaw of affirming the Bible and being progressive."
I will concede that there are some progressive (and ultra-progressive by Bronze Age standards) themes in the Bible. If we exorcise Pauline misogyny, some ridiculous Levitical Laws, and pretty much all of Deuteronomy, there is a generally progressive bent to scripture. Dan argues eloquently that the Bible is far more progressive than we give credit for, assuming that the truth was hidden from the Church for 1500 or so years.
My words from that post should stand as a caution and nothing more. It is not a reproof, but a warning; you better have a well formed argument before claiming that 1500 years of theology is wrong on any issue.
Honestly, I hope Dan is correct in his exegesis, but my hope won't make it so.
If only I had faith the size of a mustard seed.....
With all due respect to George, getting advice about reading Scripture from an atheist makes as much sense as getting marital counseling from a priest.
And Craig commending George's word is blatant hypocrisy given that I feel reasonably sure Craig would be unlikely to take an atheists opinion on Scripture seriously himself.
Really Craig, if using the words of an atheist the best Scriptural argument you can come up with, that would go a long way toward explaining why we disagree so much.
Geoffrey,
You said:
"On the other hand, denying equal legal status to same-sex couples is blatant discrimination, pure and simple."
To which I responded:
"That argument only works, Geoffrey, if you redefine the term "marriage" to mean something it has never meant in all of human history."
One must redefine the word in order to legitimately make your argument. The word has never meant anything other than one man marrying one woman. Indeed, even in polygamous situations, the definition was still in play: one man, one woman, even if the man married multiple wives, I believe (I may be wrong here, but don't think so) that with each wife, a man with more than one had taken each woman as his wife, each woman taking the man, but not the woman taking the other women as spouses. Thus, the definition was not ignored, except for the requirement we have for fidelity to one woman for life.
So, one man, one woman, not related to each other and being of legal age are among the legal requirements. If you meet these requirements, you can marry. If not, you can't. Anyone not meeting these requirements are those against whom a claim of discrimination might be leveled definitionally. But it is not bigotry or injustice. If so, then anyone not able to be, say, a cop because they didn't meet the requirements for that job could also claim discrimination. Or someone not meeting the age requirement for Social Security benefits could do so as well.
But in terms of bigotry because two of the same sex wish to marry each other, or that the law isn't being equally applied, the charge is clearly false because of how the word "marriage" is defined and how it has ALWAYS been so. This is the main problem with Judge Walker's opinion in claiming Prop 8 is unConstitutional. He doesn't use the actual definition of the word "marriage", but makes up his own. It has never meant merely the union of two consenting "people", but of one man and one woman.
From freedictionary.com, specifically the legal dictionary: "Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit."
Changing that from a man and a woman to two men changes not a whit the understanding of marriage as a legal contract supported and recognized by the state.
Again, this is what marriage is - a legal contract between two consenting adults, regulated and favored by the state. Changing the gender of the contract partners does nothing to alter the basic premises of marriage itself, or the legal obligations and privileges that come from joining in such a contract.
This is not to argue that marriage does not mean anything at all. It is only to show what marriage is, and that altering the gender of one of the partners involved in a marriage contract alter nothing else about the status of marriage.
continuing....
"Marriage is the state regulating reproduction..."
This also is not accurate. The licensing of marriage, as well as any tax benefits and the like, are not a regulating of reproduction, but an encouragement of the proper and most ideal circumstances under which unions which result in reproduction occur. That is, reproduction takes place regardless of the legal status of the parent's union. But the state recognizes the benefit of the biological family unit staying together as we now know it. It makes sense for the state to encourage a man and woman to become legally one unit for all the advantages it provides the child, each other and ultimately, as a result, the state itself.
(BTW, it doesn't matter how other countries handle marriage. We don't live there.)
"The state discriminates against certain couples for the sole reason that they are the same gender."
The state discriminates against others for the sole reason that they are siblings, or parent and child, or multiple people or because one or both is nine years old. The state has every right to decide for itself what it will or won't support, as long as it supplies that support equally. It does so now.
Thus, this statement "There is no reason rooted in our core constitutional principles for such discrimination." doesn't even work in this discussion. It is meaningless as applied in such a manner. What's more, moral considerations for what becomes secular law is indeed rooted in the principles of every founder of this nation. That you don't care supports my opinion that you support immorality.
"Changing that from a man and a woman to two men changes not a whit the understanding of marriage as a legal contract supported and recognized by the state."
Duh, yes it does. It changes the understanding of the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman to the union of any two people. What about this obvious fact is so difficult for you to grasp? From there, it then MUST change the definition of family which has ALSO always meant a husband/father and a wife/mother and whatever children they produce (or don't produce). With these changes comes the ramifications of these changes from education to legal contracts. So a marked change on the culture, even if one favors this lunacy, cannot help but take place.
Art, marriage is precisely the state - any state, civilization, controlling legal body, anywhere human beings have lived - regulating the family unit for a variety of purposes, usually having to do with social cohesion, the disposition of property, and other matters.
In the United States, the states regulate marriage in a variety of ways, limiting the contract to two individuals (plural marriage is unconstitutional), limited to couples who are not consanguinous, and, of course, between two persons of the same gender (although several states now permit same-sex marriage). In all these cases, the matter is not moral, even less religious. It is legislative, which is to say legal. The changing of a single term in the general legal definition of marriage I presented above does not in any way alter the general character of "marriage" as a legal contract between two consenting, non-consanguinous adults who enjoy particular benefits and incur particular obligations by entering in to this contract. That is the question that confronts us in the gay marriage debate. Not one of morals, or religion, or anything else.
As I stated in my very first comment, if you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, there is absolutely nothing in any current or proposed law that would force a religious institution to perform or otherwise endorse such an institution; any proposal to do so would be unconstitutional and I would oppose it. As a matter of law, however, within even the typical legal definition as I presented above, it is clearly discriminatory, as the benefits and responsibilities that married couples incur as a result of the marriage contract are withheld from same-sex couples for one reason only - because they are the same gender. It is ethically and legally discriminatory and logically tautological, therefore meaningless.
"...of sexual minorities as beloved children of God and as such offered the opportunity to live and love more fully as God has created them to be..."
What of violent people? People who anger easily over every little thing? Did God not create them to be so? A closer comparison: What of sexually promiscuous heterosexuals? Did not God create them to be so?
God did not create any of to be violent, sexually promiscuous, homosexual. He created us to be obedient servants of Him, living as He taught us to live through His commandments and Christ's teachings about them. We are all born with our shortcomings and desires that conflict with what God created us to be. You wish to put forth the notion that any or all of those shortcomings is what He created us to be? You can't even come close to supporting that Scripturally.
"(Dan is absolutely right that, being silent on the subject of same-sex marriage itself, it is impossible to get any definitive answer on that subject from the text of the Bible)."
Only if you wish to wallow in the same intellectual dishonesty. If there were only one verse condemning the behavior, say Lev 18:22, which speaks of the behavior itself, and only itself, without ANY regard to the context in which it might take place, that there is nothing whatsoever that can be used to counter it should be all the "definitive answer" an honest Christian should need. If all I have is "don't do it", then to do it at all is rebellion. At the very least, prudence so dictates abstinence. You guys see silence as a window of opportunity to suppose that your manifestation of the behavior hopefully is acceptable to Him. That's not serving Him, that's serving the self.
consanguinous
Who are you trying to impress? Why not just say "incestuous". Ten dollar words won't make up for ten cent understanding.
"In all these cases, the matter is not moral..."
That's a matter of opinion. That there is a moral factor in the maintaining of the family unit as it has long been understood as it relates to the impact on the culture can be argued later, but it does exist. Morality in law is always a factor with the question being "who's". There is indeed a moral good that benefits the culture as the traditional understanding is maintained.
As to how such a change impacts the culture, there is no doubt it would be negative as a clashing of rights, one already protected and the other imagined, cannot help but occur. Already we have seen this as activists go out of their way to test the boundaries. A New Mexico photographer forced to defend herself, at her own cost, against a lesbian couple who sought the photog's services to record what the photog refused due to her religious beliefs. Landlords also suffer these legal attacks, where their living their faith must be suppressed for the satisfaction of immoral behavior. Parents must contend with public schools forcing this new and corrupt "morality" upon their kids agaisnt their will, as if it is the place of kindergarden and elementary schools to even delve into this topic.
There is no "clash of rights" involved in the marriage debate, except that a class of individuals is denied the equal opportunity fully to enjoy the legal benefits others enjoy for no reason other than their sexual preference.
Once upon a time, it was believed that civilization would collapse because white human beings and black human beings reproduced. Because white children listened to the music of black young adults. Race was a qualitative difference, the blurring of which had dire consequences for all America. There are those who continue to believe this to be the case. Holding this belief, fully and passionately, does not make it any less bigoted, and giving it the force of law does not make it any less discriminatory.
While I was out enjoying a pleasant day yesterday, some of you all carried on without me. I'll try to jump back in, at least a bit.
George...
Honestly, I hope Dan is correct in his exegesis, but my hope won't make it so.
Thanks for your thoughts and comments. I find my exegesis at least as reasonable as the other side's (to which I clung for ~20 years).
At the end of the day, though, I stand confidently behind my assertion that fidelity, commitment, love, respect, support, family and community are objectively good values in any marriage, gay or straight, and have yet to see anything approaching a rational argument against these things.
Marshall and Geoffrey have been holding a parallel discussion not exactly related to this post, but marginally related. Fair enough.
Marshall does touch on my actual comments, when Geoffrey says...
Dan is absolutely right that, being silent on the subject of same-sex marriage itself, it is impossible to get any definitive answer on that subject from the text of the Bible)."
And Marshall responds...
Only if you wish to wallow in the same intellectual dishonesty.
So, Marshall, the burden is on you now. PROVE objectively that Lev 18, Lev 20 and Rom 1 are all speaking of ALL homosexual practices and not merely, as the context suggests, pagan rituals.
Lacking any objective proof, though, the comment stands.
My reasons for holding what you call a parallel discussion, Dan, are clear enough, I think. There are good arguments on both sides on what should be a proper Christian stand on gay marriage. At this point, I think the preponderance of the evidence lies with those who, by working with texts within a particular doctrinal setting - relying on a previous commitment to the Trinity, the doctrine of divine love and grace, the New Creation to see in a union between two individuals of the same gender no qualitative, material distinction. All the same, ignoring particular texts that condemn sexual practices between persons of the same gender does a certain violence to the text of the Bible, both in letter and spirit.
Currently, only two Christian denominations allow same-sex unions to be recognized by church officials, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship (calling the latter "Christian" is, to some, a bit of a stretch, BTW). We in the United Methodist Church are struggling far more with the place of sexual minorities in the pulpit and the larger church membership (thanks to a ruling by our Supreme Judicial Council a few years back that a local pastor can expel from membership a person who is LGBT). Personally, I think the "religious" or "theological" issues need to be done within the context of each denomination's history and traditions.
Peace and goodwill. After church today, and after Lisa gets back from teaching confirmation class, we've got another afternoon working on the yard planned. Enjoy.
Dan,
I've been following this thread with some degree of detached interest and the discussion raises some questions.
What is it you hope to accomplish with this post?
Are you suggesting that the state recognize some sort of marriage arrangement beyond Marshall and Geoffry's definition?
Are you suggesting that this state recognition be based on your restatement of some very common treatments of the relevant scriptural passages?
Are you suggesting that the Church should change it's definition of marriage? More to the point do you think that there is room for different bodies to reach different conclusions on this question?
I will agree that from a human perspective that I agree with you and Richard Mouw. If we are to view human sexuality as a continuum then a committed monogamous relationship (in whatever arrangement of gender) is better than an uncommitted promiscuous series of relationships. Given that, aren't we as believers called to more than simply better?
"There is no "clash of rights" involved in the marriage debate..."
This is patently dishonest as I have already presented a few examples of this clash. If the state grants the demands of this miniscule minority, the religious freedoms of the majority cannot help but be impacted. As an American, I have the freedom to both practice my faith as I see fit AND associate with whom I choose without gov't interference. There have already been legal actions taken against people who prefer not to honor particular requests of homosexual consumers, both in rentals of living spaces and commercial spaces for the promotion of or celebration of homosexual concerns. Kids in schools are forbidden to promote their pro-Christian messages of God's will for human sexuality against the onslaught of pro-homosexual propaganda. So we see already threats to Constitutionally protected rights of speech, religion and association just to satiate the demands of this tiny group of morally corrupt individuals. To pretend this isn't so, or that the difficulties suffered by pro-traditional Christians/Americans are just is heinously dishonest.
much more later
Marshall...
If the state grants the demands of this miniscule minority, the religious freedoms of the majority cannot help but be impacted.
The last polls I saw placed the "miniscule minority" at somewhere around half the population.
And what religious freedoms will be impacted? Churches can still marry who they wish, as they can now.
Like Dan, I fail to see how anyone's constitutional rights will be violated by legalizing same-sex marriage.
Please. An example. Which church has been forced to conduct a same-sex marriage ceremony against its principles and practices? How would your rights to continue to hold gay people in contempt and as less than fully human be effected by the legalization of gay marriage? Would you be forced to marry a man against your will? The statement is mindless nonsense.
There you go with the dishonesty again.
First of all (and this doesn't count toward the above statement), the miniscule minority to which I was referring was the miniscule minority who self-identify as homosexual.
Second of all (and this does count), religious freedom isn't only about place of worship and/or denomination. It is about living according to one's faith. If I rent rooms, homes or apartments, I am still a Christian who would prefer no one sin on my property. To be forced to rent to homosexuals or unmarried couples would be to force me to allow sinful behavior within my boundaries. Now, this is not to say that as one in such a business I would make extreme efforts to expose such (or any) behavior from amongst my renters. But once wrongly recognized by the state as equal to normal, God-intended marriage, I could not, for example, put in my ads "homosexuals need not apply". I could not publicly deny them without suffering some legal ramification, just as the New Mexican photographer was forced to defend herself against the lesbians who couldn't just go find another photographer. To say that true Christians wouldn't be impacted negatively is a lie.
Thus, to insist that because a church wouldn't be forced to change their practices, thus religious freedom is intact is disingenuous to an extreme. And that's assuming that down the road churches will remain free from activist interferences, which cannot be predicted.
Thirdly, I hold in contempt any who would sin freely while proclaiming no sin is being committed and more so those who should know better than to tolerate such blatant lying. I think less of those who accuse me of holding sinners as less than human simply because of their sinfulness while holding the unborn as less than human or less worthy of the same right to life as the rest of us. Talk about slander and bearing false witness!
So I've given two examples of rights being compromised (religious expression and speech) and here's the right of association being compromised---employment. As a Christian, I could be risking legal action if some member of this miniscule minority wished to have their partner covered under my insurance plan, or if one of them decided that he doesn't just want a husband, he wants to be a real wife to him and begins to dress as one, or a host of variations that would be an expression of such sexual perversions. It's already impacted the freakin' military, for pete's sake. There's no limit to who could be forced to alter their lives for the sake of deviancy legitimized by law. You guys simply pretend the idea has no merit despite this sort of thing already happening all over the country in one form or another.
So there is no failure to see how rights will be violated, there is only refusal to see, just as there is the refusal to see God's intention by virtue of the creation of two sexes designed each for the other.
"So, Marshall, the burden is on you now. PROVE objectively that Lev 18, Lev 20 and Rom 1 are all speaking of ALL homosexual practices and not merely, as the context suggests, pagan rituals."
There is no suggestion that it should be taken any other way. That's nonsense that you and other enablers lay over the text without justification. Lev 18:3 does not suggest HOW the behavior manifested, or in what context it took place, nor do the other instances in the chapter where God says not to follow the example of the pagans. Verse 22 simply says not to engage in the behavior. Furthermore, to suggest that verse 3 indicates some sort of ritual-related manifestation would have to also be applied to every other verse prohibiting sexual behaviors. That is, doing your mother would be fine as long as you weren't paying her as a temple prostitute.
There's no burden on me to prove that God was speaking of the behavior in general when there's no textual support that He was referring to any specific manifestation of the behavior. That's just pro-homsexual crap that is totally baseless. You, nor anyone else, has proven that or even proven that it is a possible interpretation. You just say it. You (meaning enablers in general0 have tried to suggest that ancient people didn't even know about "committed, monogomous" homosexual relationships, going so far as to say they didn't even exist. There are plenty of examples to the contrary and for an immoral place like Canaan, every form of sexual immorality must be assumed to have taken place before one can pretend to suggest otherwise, as the text, specifically verse 24, suggests that these behavioral prohibitions were due to their practice in Canaan. It says merely "lying with a man as one would a woman", not doing so with a shrine prostitute or if done as part of a pagan ritual. That's just a cheap and childish "I ate a cookie before dinner, not cake" form of interpretation.
Thus, the meaning that ALL forms are wrong is not a "hunch" at all, but a direct understanding of plain language of the text. You impose mystery on clear teaching in order to justify your position and find a window of opportunity, permission as it were, for your preferred sin (whether you engage in it or not doesn't not matter if you support engagement by others, which you do).
furthermore...
So to say we can't say authoritatively what God's position on homosexual marriage would be is ridiculous and immaturity personified. If the behavior that denotes homosexuality is prohibited, and it clearly is, then to suggest that He would approve of any manifestation of it is willfully and consciously dishonest. Whether forced or consentual is irrelevant as there is no support for the notion that the Bible ever makes any differentiation.
Indeed:
"On the POSITIVE side of the defense of marriage rights for all, we see that the Bible tells us..."
...nothing that would suggest it ever means a definition beyond one man and one woman. Thus, "marriage rights for all" can only mean those who meet the criteria of the definition, which is one man and one woman.
Dan's lame argument reminds me of the Cosby bit where he is delegated the task of making breakfast for the kids. Not wanting to go through the trouble, he finds cake in the fridge and reasons that since it is made up of milk, eggs, wheat, etc, it is just as good as the standard breakfast. Dan does this with "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control". It is every bit as dishonest as Bill was with his breakfast choice. It's not what Camille had in mind for breakfast, and definitely not what God had in mind for marriage.
"Where is the rational argument against two adults being monogamous, loving and faithful to one another? Would it be better to be polyamorous and unfaithful to each other? No! There is no sound rational argument against commitment, love and fidelity that I have ever heard."
If they are man and woman, there is no argument. But the argument isn't bewteen monogomy or licentiousness. It's against the behavior of homosexual sex. A union defined by that behavior cannot be blessed since the underlying behavior that defines it is sinful. Whether consentual or forced is besides the point if the mere behavior is sinful, which it clearly is.
What you attempt to do in this argument is akin to saying that pain-free makes murder OK, whereas pain and suffering makes it wrong. No. The behavior of murder is wrong regardless of the manner in which it is committed, and the same goes for homosexual sex.
Frankly, no one on the right side of this issue (my side) even thinks in terms of a homosexual marriage being forced. We work under the assumption that homosexuals intend to have a similar relationship in their "marriage" as normal people. So the "loving and committed" thing is smoke and irrelevancy. It's meaningless to the argument/debate. It's a given. But the fact is that it doesn't matter in the least. There's simply nothing Biblically that would justify the position that God would ever "bless" such a union.
carrying on....
"It almost makes you wonder if they know they have no rational defense for their position so they MUST stoop to attempts at character assassination?"
You mean like:
"How would your rights to continue to hold gay people in contempt and as less than fully human..."?
The truth is that there has never been a rational defense FOR homosexual marriage and all honest and supported defenses of traditional marriage are dismissed as irrational in a most irrational manner.
You keep writing "traditional marriage" without even noticing that, even in the Bible, at least among a certain class of men, polygamy was the norm. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob - multiple wives or sexual partners. David, Solomon, the other kings of Israel - polygamous. Polygamy is common in many parts of the world, Muslim and otherwise. How do you make a case for a single couple in the face of evidence, both Biblical and otherwise, that polyamory is arguably just as common, and just as Biblically (as well as legally) defensible?
So not only do you support discrimination against gays in marriage, you support discrimination against them in housing as well. What about employment? In schools?
Your true colors are showing.
Sorry about coming into the argument late. It's been a busy season.
What I have always wondered about is why Lev. 18:22 is so passionately fought over, yet no one mentions the last part of Lev. 19:19... "nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff." Only a chapter away, same context, but one is a sin, yet the other is fashionable?
Or how about Lev. 20:9... "For every one who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death." How did any of us survive to adulthood?
Or Lev. 20:10... "If a man commites adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death."
I could go on all day, but I hope you see my point. These other Divine Laws are given in the same context as Lev. 18:22, but no one seems to care about them.
I wonder why?
Don't forget Leviticus 19:18!
Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
How primitive.
I think the point, anonymous, is that we can't take each and every line from the text of a 2000 year old book - even the Bible - as a literal point by point guideline for establishing rules of morality in a modern and different context.
"You keep writing "traditional marriage" without even noticing that, even in the Bible, at least among a certain class of men, polygamy was the norm."
There's a big difference between "norm" and God's will and intention. He tolerated all sorts of things that were not in line with His Big Plan, as Jesus Himself states when speaking about divorce. So there was no Godly sanctioning of polygamous unions, but only a toleration of it, later to be dismissed by Christ as outside the game plan.
More to the point, as I said earlier, polygamous marriages still featured one man and one woman, with the man repeating the process without divorcing previous wives. It's still man and woman, not man and man, and not the second, third and fourth wives being married to the first. Each subsequent wife was only married to the man, not to the other wives. (This is my understanding of how it worked without anyone showing evidence to the contrary) What's more, it was never the norm in this country.
what's more....
"So not only do you support discrimination against gays in marriage, you support discrimination against them in housing as well. What about employment? In schools?
Your true colors are showing."
There is no current discrimination against homosexuals marrying now. They want to call a union of two men (or two women) a marriage and it doesn't meet the definition. That's not discrimination simply because we disagree about changing or maintaining the true definition of the word and institution it represents. It is, however, childishness for those who don't fit the definition to pout and demand the definition be changed to suit their perverted alternative lifestyle.
As to housing, it must first be recalled that some of the opposition to the Civil Rights Act was the imposition on private business. To grant voting rights and equal protection of the law was not so big an issue as it was to include private businesses in the act. That is, everyone can vote regardless of race, all the races are equally oblidged to follow the law and all the races are equally entitled to protection of the laws.
But the CRA also forced private businesses to serve everyone regardless of the feelings of the business owner or the owners current patrons. This infringed upon the owners' right to freely associate with whom they choose and remains in effect today. It's what Rand Paul was talking about when people gave him shit about his opinion of the Civil Rights Act.
In other words, if you refused to serve a black dude at your diner, you shouldn't be forced to do so. Being that I am not a bigot, I would then choose to take my business elsewhere. If you could survive being a bigot who won't serve blacks, good for you, but you wouldn't do it on my dime or the coin of many others, thereby limiting your profit potential. If that didn't bother you, then so be it. If it did, you'd bite the bullet and begin serving blacks so as not to be seen as a bigot.
But you would have the gov't go even further than this in demanding that I knowingly provide my products, services or rooms for rent to people who BEHAVE in a manner my Bible clearly and without doubt calls sinful, forcing me to set aside my religious beliefs, my right to freely associate with whomever I choose and my right to speak freely about my beliefs to those proudly engaging in sinful behavior so as not to offend THE SINNER! Yeah. THAT'S what the founders had in mind.
So what we're finding here is that YOUR true colors are showing (not that I haven't been aware of them for quite some time). I don't discriminate against people. I do discriminate against bad behavior and it is not unChristian to do so. You would have me tolerate bad behavior, support bad behavior and worst of all, regard the bad behavior as morally benign when my Lord regards it otherwise. This again shows your support for immorality.
Yet, I do not in any way believe that homosexuals are unworthy of legal protections. But you would put their imaginary rights squarely at odds with my established and Constitutionally protected rights and dare call me bigoted. Well, the law already discriminates against a whole host of behaviors, and that is what we're talking about here. NOT people, but a particular behavior of people.
Marshall...
There's no burden on me to prove that God was speaking of the behavior in general when there's no textual support that He was referring to any specific manifestation of the behavior.
There's no burden for you to "prove" it unless you want to support your argument. If you want me/us to continue to ignore your hunches as irrelevant and whimsical, by all means, don't "prove" what you say.
The thing is, as I have already noted, you can't "prove" your hunch on this position, any more than I can.
Marshall continued...
That's just pro-homsexual crap that is totally baseless. You, nor anyone else, has proven that or even proven that it is a possible interpretation.
?
Do you know what the word "interpretation" means, Marshall? It is one person's take on a passage. I have this take, this interpretation on this passage. It IS, therefore, obviously a possible interpretation, since someone has had it.
The only "impossible" interpretation is one that no one has. You could try to make the case that my interpretation is not reasonable, but the cat's already out of the bag as far as it being "possible."
Marshall...
you would put their imaginary rights squarely at odds with my established and Constitutionally protected rights and dare call me bigoted.
Imaginary? The right to discriminate in housing and businesses is a real right, Marshall, right there in our laws. That you (and folk like Rand Paul, perhaps) would like to UNDO our constitutionally approved laws and remove our constitutionally approved protections does not make it imaginary.
We, the people, have already spoken on this point. Refusing housing or service based on bigotry is not allowed.
You have no right to discriminate - in housing, in employment - against women and minorities. Only gay folk are still unemployable; there are many states where an individual can lose his or her job simply because he or she is gay. That, too, must end.
This is not a protected "right", anymore than it is a protected "right" to refuse to do business with a black man, or sell a house to a single-parent family. Just because you think it violates your rights, the law does not recognize such a thing.
As to your "I don't want sinning in my apartments!" nonsense, your apartments would be empty. Every single one of them. Using the usual understanding of words like "sin" and "human beings", every single human being sins, pretty much all the time. So, you might need to change the wording on your lease.
Excellent point, Geoffrey. If we refuse to service "sinners" then you won't be in business long. No, it's not "sinning" they want to discriminate against, it's just one subset of folk THEY THINK are sinners. THAT is what is discrimination.
Living as Christians means not only understanding oneself as having been redeemed from sin even as we continue to be sinners. It also should - should, mind you, not requires - give us a bit of sympathy and compassion for others, including those who either do not know or refuse to acknowledge the marvelous gift of grace all have received from God in Jesus Christ.
Even if one ascribes to same-sex love the attribute of sin (an odd notion that love can be antithetical to God), one would think a Christian response would be a tad more long-suffering, recognizing in the faults and failures of others one's own equally evil faults and failings.
I'm with Craig. I don't get the point of the post.
How is this different than any other post on the same subject? How are the arguments any different?
Is it because you folks enjoy listening to hateful, blatant bigotry from the usual suspects that you keep poking at this particular hornet's nest?
Such debates are a waste of time. Same-sex marriage will be legalized within about a decade once enough of the old people who oppose it die off. Not because one side persuades the other, but because one side is mostly people over 65. We will simply outlive them, then legalize it.
Why argue about something that is already a done deal in several states and is inevitable everywhere else within 10-15 years?
Let me start, after having been gone all weekend, with a statement of my thoughts on Biblical support for my positions on homosexuality, and one-man-one-woman marriage. In truth, it's not so relevant to my response to Dan, because I was responding to the portion where he begins, "EVEN IF you are of the tribe that thinks homosexual practices in any form are a moral wrong...." I do, and why I do doesn't change his question to me. Nevertheless, I think it prudent to deal with it to hold off, as much as possible, the inevitable questions that would arise.
* Every time homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it is mentioned negatively. There is no instance, as far as I understand, that it's mentioned positively, or even neutrally. You can argue about whether this or that mention refers to a particular contextual situation, but the fact remains that it is always mentioned as a moral wrong.
* Every time marriage is mentioned in the Bible, it is mentioned as heterosexual marriage. The marriages mentioned in the Bible, whether of real people or in a parable, whether as good examples or bad, are always heterosexual. As MA noted, even when polygamy was tolerated, it was always a man with multiple women; he married each individual woman and the women were not married to each other.
It has been noted that 1500 years of Christian thought and theology have gone into this, to which I'd add that thousands of years of Jewish thought has as well. To reduce it to a "hunch" is disingenuous, and ignores all that history. The ideas that homosexuality is not prohibited and thus same-sex marriage is also not prohibited is an extremely modern innovation. Thus to overturn the former thought and replace it with the latter seems to me to require much more that what you yourself refer to as your own "hunch". But indeed, barring any positive Biblical support whatsoever to the topics, you are indeed left with just that. If there is a burden of proof to be overcome, it is you who needs to surmount it, and with far more than just changing cultural mores to back you up.
The Bible affirms heterosexual marriage, many times over. It never even considers same-sex marriage. The Bible condemns homosexuality, not nearly as often, but it's condemnation is 100%. That's why I stand where I stand on these issues.
Dan, getting to your responses...
I happen to be a tea-totaller and a fan of sobriety. If I have an acquaintance who is wanting to imbibe, I'd much rather see them do so in moderation rather than to excess. My belief in sobriety for myself does not keep me from respecting at least moderation for their lives.
Indeed, when the behavior itself is not a sin, but overindulgence is. But am of the tribe where "homosexual practices in any form are a moral wrong", and I am answering your specific question in that context. If something it always a moral wrong, moderation is only right when it is abstinence. Theft, murder and bearing false witness are always a moral wrong, but would you consider moderation in them worth of the same respect?
...why worry about other people's sin when there's no effect from it on you or anyone else?
If they're thieves, I shouldn't care as long as they don't steal from me? If they're drug addicts, I shouldn't care as long as they don't try to sell it to me or my kids? You'll let them die an addict's death and do nothing so long as they don't drive while high? Really?
I believe there are consequences to sin in this world (in addition to the next), even if you don't get caught, or you find a group of people to affirm, or at least not challenge, your sin. Pornography doesn't hurt a marriage, until it does. I believe homosexual acts are a moral wrong, and thus there will be consequences. Some of these consequences have been written off and blamed on the culture. I would disagree, but I know we're not going to change minds here.
The issue is not "marriage equity", it's sin. I see homosexual practices as a moral wrong. And as a moral wrong, to affirm and actively make people comfortable in their sin is itself a sin. The codependent or enabler will have to answer for their actions.
Dan:
With regards to Genesis describing marriage as one man and one woman, you ask,
But does that say or even suggest that "God is setting up an institution?" That God "has defined marriage?" Does it even say "One man, one woman?" or "ONLY one man and ONLY one woman?"
Wow, you really need God to end each thought with the same legalese you'd hear at the end of a car commercial? "This command should not be construed to permit situations such as, but not limited to, marriages of minors (under the age of 18), animals, toasters (including other mechanical and/or electrical objects), and/or siblings. Tax, tag, title and dealer prep extra."
Actually it does say one man, one woman. The description of the man is singular and the description of the woman is as well. The man is male, and the woman is female; they are not of the same gender.
How painfully clear must it be made for you?
Now, do you think the divinely inspired Moses was injecting personal opinion here? Moses is describing the intent of the male/female relationship, and it's not from Moses that the intent sprung; it's from God. I believe God, speaking through Moses, defined marriage right here, pretty darn plainly.
But your whole house of cards rests upon what is not said in the Bible, while simultaneously hand-waving away the relevance of what is positively affirmed.
"But your whole house of cards rests upon what is not said in the Bible, while simultaneously hand-waving away the relevance of what is positively affirmed."
Heh. Gotta love the irony. We've already seen exactly such hand-waving about the rampant polygamy in the Bible (which God, evidently blesses.)
One person's hand-waving is another person's argument and vice-versa, apparently. But of course, we already knew that.
Alan:
Heh. Gotta love the irony. We've already seen exactly such hand-waving about the rampant polygamy in the Bible (which God, evidently blesses.)
I know it's a long thread, but MA already covered this.
Doug wrote about polygamy:
I know it's a long thread, but MA already covered this.
I missed this, so I searched around until I found Marshall's statement on the subject. Perhaps I missed others. Anyway, Marshall wrote:
One must redefine the word in order to legitimately make your argument. The word has never meant anything other than one man marrying one woman. Indeed, even in polygamous situations, the definition was still in play: one man, one woman, even if the man married multiple wives, I believe (I may be wrong here, but don't think so) that with each wife, a man with more than one had taken each woman as his wife, each woman taking the man, but not the woman taking the other women as spouses. Thus, the definition was not ignored, except for the requirement we have for fidelity to one woman for life.
I'm a bit confused by this argument. Are you saying that a marital situation consisting of one husband married to multiple wives is actually monogamy? Or multiple, separate incidents of monogamy?
Further questions:
Would a modern Christian who lived such a lifestyle be considered faithful to what you see as the Biblical definition of marriage as one man and one woman?
Could each wife in the marriage have multiple husbands (as the Denobulans on Star Trek do), provided that each marriage is asserted to be a separate relationship?
Perhaps you've already addressed these issues. As Doug said, it's a long thread.
"I know it's a long thread, but MA already covered this."
Exactly. With a bunch of hand-waving.
Doug, meet my point. My point, meet Doug.
John:
I'm a bit confused by this argument. Are you saying that a marital situation consisting of one husband married to multiple wives is actually monogamy? Or multiple, separate incidents of monogamy?
No, I believe MA was discussing this in relation to same-sex marriage. So no, I don't think it meets the Biblical definition of marriage.
Could each wife in the marriage have multiple husbands (as the Denobulans on Star Trek do), provided that each marriage is asserted to be a separate relationship?
Well, all this is speculation. I would say no, but the point is that every mention of marriage in the Bible is heterosexual, whether monogamous or not. There is no indication that there were homosexual relationships among the wives, nor that they had other husbands.
(And indeed, I can never see John Billingsley in any other role without first thinking, "Hey, it's Dr. Phlox!")
"(And indeed, I can never see John Billingsley in any other role without first thinking, "Hey, it's Dr. Phlox!")"
Indeed. 10 points to John for the obscure Star Trek reference.
Indeed, I was not trying to justify polygamy, which is NOT sanctioned by God anywhere in the Bible, but only tolerated. I was pointing out how even polygamous marriages were heteo marriages and that the wives were not married to each other, but to the husband only. Hope that clears up that question.
Regarding the Civil Rights Act question, we have two problems:
1. This act mistakes the notion of equality as put forth by the founders. That it to say, that they meant for the Constitution to restrain gov't, not the people. The Civil Rights Act does both and that is the reason for at least some of the objections to it. It is one thing for the federal gov't to discriminate against anyone for, say, voting rights or federal jobs, civilian or military. All should be equal under the law.
But a property owner or business owner isn't even the local government, much less the federal gov't. It was wrong to force them to give up their right of freedom of association and force them to serve people with whom they did not want to associate. Any negative impact their personal position had on their profits is their own problem. In the meantime, those like myself who are not bigoted would have increased their business by welcoming all those who were rejected by the bigots. THAT is a more natural, effective and just manner to affect social change.
2. Legal doesn't equate to moral or righteous. That forcing private individuals to alter their business practices to accomodate anyone else is not just in the least. As things stand right now, even with a bigot forced to serve other races, I still will not patronize such a person's business if I know he holds that attitude. If he wants to know why, I'll tell him, and hopefully be a catalyst for a change of his heart. With or without the law, I can make my own choices.
moving on...
Since this thread has devolved into a legal and not a spiritual debate, I thought I might address a few of the problems with the logic of Marshall et al.
The state really has no place legislating theological sin that has no grounding in logic or reason.
I have friends who are Christians who believe alcohol consumption is a sin. Should we all legislate at their whim?
I have friends who believe that believe that working on a Sunday is a sin. What about their rights?
I hear there are those who have a biblically grounded objection to women's rights. What of them?
Almost every single Christian I know believes that practicing Islam or Hinduism is a sin. Does this mean we ought to forbid it?
Our laws are not built on biblical sin, and those areas where they might intersect are predicated on having logical and reasonable grounding. Homosexual marriage does not meet this standard, as we have seen by the overturning of anti-homosexual laws in modern times.
The argument from tradition is equally lacking. At one time only property owning males were allowed to vote, that was tradition. At one time marriage was banned for interracial couples. This too, was tradition. Traditional complacency in the denial of equality does not make it right.
If you don't like homosexual marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. That is your right, a right I have happily exercised. If you have a problem with agreeing with "the lifestyle", too bad; you don't get to tell people what God to worship, what citizens get to vote, whether people are allowed to drink, when people can work and whether two adults who love one another can marry.
I stand by my assertion that homosexuality is unbiblical, but that really has no bearing on the rights and freedoms of human beings.
The argument that I couldn't fill any apartment because all of us are sinners is stupid weak. Obviously, the point is being forced to rent (for example) an apartment to a known sinner, a blatant sinner, one who sins, knows it and does so proudly. I can't know who does what in the privacy of their apartment, but should their immorality be made known, I should not be legally required to ignore my beliefs to satisfy some BS version of diversity or bigotry.
I refer once again to the New Mexican photographer. She did not want to sell her services to record the celebration of an immoral union. She was taken to court. In this situation, there was no question of what was being asked. She believed her participation, even as a business owner, makes her complicit in the sins of the lesbians and her beliefs should be respected on 1st Amendment grounds alone.
Let's look at it another way. Say I was renting a room. I guy comes in to look it over and it's someone I know who is a homosexual. My knowledge of the guy assures me that despite his "orientation", he is a devout Christian who doesn't tow the agenda's line about Biblical disapproval of same-sex sexual practices. He struggles with his desires, but doesn't succomb. I rent him the room because I don't discriminate against what he is.
In the meantime, I have another room and a second guy wants it. I know this guy, too, and he also is a homosexual, but is proud of it and wants to live there with his current "partner". I refuse him, not because of what he is, but because of what he will be doing under my roof.
If you don't like those scenarios, then remove "homosexual" and replace it with "drug dealer", with the first being one who struggles to stay on the straight and narrow. The issue is behavior and discrimination against bad behavior is neither unAmerican or unChristian.
There's no way any of you would tolerate every behavior with which you disagree. You would not be patient and show compassion to the atheist who pimps his young daughters to help pay the rent on the room you've leased to him. The fact that it is illegal is besides the point because I'm talking about right and wrong which is not the same as legal or illegal.
Dan,
I'm well aware what "interpret" means. You aren't doing that by pretending there's some mystery as to whether or not God's prohibition held exceptions. It clearly doesn't since none are listed.
"Is it because you folks enjoy listening to hateful, blatant bigotry from the usual suspects that you keep poking at this particular hornet's nest?"
I never get tired of your hatefulness and bigotry, Alan. It's a good testament against the practice. I hope you get over it someday.
"Why argue about something that is already a done deal in several states and is inevitable everywhere else within 10-15 years?"
Because Dan recognizes that good people who understand the truth of God's prohibition against the practice will not stop standing up for that truth.
"...rampant polygamy in the Bible (which God, evidently blesses.)"
No. He never, ever blesses polygamy.
Dan,
I meant to ask:
What more proof do I need for my position than "Thou shalt not..."? You guys never explain this problem. It is very specifically speaking of a behavior. It is YOU who insists there is some form of it that is not covered by this clear, concise and easily understood mandate. The verse itself is all the proof I need as it leaves no loopholes whatsover. It does not say "Thou shalt not unless..." The behavior itself is an example of one of the things in which God did not want the Hebrews to engage that the Canannites did. Don't do as the Canaanites do? That included lying with men as one would with a woman. It's a closed case into which you force what the text does not include.
"I never get tired of your hatefulness and bigotry, Alan. "
Really? Your response is "I know you are but what am I?" Well played sir. Well played.
"No. He never, ever blesses polygamy."
Well, except for all the times He does.
"homosexual" and replace it with "drug dealer"
Except of course, illegal drug use is .... illegal as is dealing illegal drugs. But explaining a false analogy to the person who made the false analogy in the first place is unlikely to do much good, I suppose.
"Because Dan recognizes that good people who understand the truth of God's prohibition against the practice will not stop standing up for that truth."
Yeah. I'm sure that's the reason.
Marshall wrote:
Indeed, I was not trying to justify polygamy, which is NOT sanctioned by God anywhere in the Bible, but only tolerated. I was pointing out how even polygamous marriages were heteo marriages and that the wives were not married to each other, but to the husband only. Hope that clears up that question.
It does; thank you.
I'm not really sure whether or not there should be anti-discrimination laws. I don't want us to return to the ugliness of Jim Crow. But one could make a plausible argument that, from a propertarian basis, an individual should be able to refuse to enter into a transactional relationship on any basis whatsoever. It's the individual's sovereign property, and his/her absolute right to dispense with it (or not) as s/he wishes.
Anyway, I'll let you Christians sort out the moral issues. So as long as you don't try to use government force to compel your moral positions on other people, I'm not really concerned.
Art, I'm so glad that you are now a constitutional scholar. And John, I laughed at the whole "sovereign property" thing. Try that out in court sometime, but make sure you let me know when to be there so I can laugh when I see the look on the judge's face.
Alan's correct. Same-sex marriage already polls majority support, it will be legalized in most or all states within a decade, perhaps less, and the best solution for those opposing same-sex marriage is not to have one.
Oh, Art, one more thing, on the whole "sin" argument being "weak" - "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." St. Paul wrote that somewhere in some book or other, and lots more like it besides. We just celebrated that whole Easter thing, you know where Jesus died and rose again because of human sin. In October we celebrate Reformation Day, remembering when Martin Luther talked, among other things, about being "simultaneously justified and in sin." So, please, it isn't weak. It is our fundamental theological reality as human beings. You want to pretend you aren't a sinner, go ahead and tell God that. Be my guest.
Marshall...
What more proof do I need for my position than "Thou shalt not..."? You guys never explain this problem.
God saying, "Thou shalt not" would make a strong case. But God has not told you nor me, "Thou shalt not marry unless you're straight male and female." THAT is an extra reading that you find there that others don't. I don't find it reasonable at all to go along with your hunch that those three verses mean ALL gay behavior. You can't prove it any more than I can prove that they aren't referring to all gay behavior.
I've already covered all this, Marshall. I won't repeat it again. IF you can "prove" your hunch, go ahead. Seeing as how you (nor anyone in all of history) HAS or CAN prove your hunch, you'll have to excuse us if we go along with what seems most moral and rational to us.
And that returns me to: Fidelity, commitment, love, respect, family, community, etc, etc... these are ALL good things, gay or straight. Unless you have something to "prove" that these behaviors are not universally good, then as far as I'm concerned, you have nothing significant to say on this point. And given that you are now going so far as defending what seems pretty obviously immoral behavior (ie, legalized discrimination), you have even less credibility than before.
Proof? Offer it.
None? Move on. I'm quite familiar with your hunches by now, Marshall. No need to repeat them ad nauseum.
John...
I'm not really sure whether or not there should be anti-discrimination laws. I don't want us to return to the ugliness of Jim Crow.
I know this is off topic, but if you don't want to return to Jim Crow days, with black and white water fountains, "white only" restaurants, "no gays allowed here," "Christian and Jews only - NO Muslims..." etc, then what, if not criminalizing it?
For my part, I think that matter is settled. The American people got it right.
Marshall...
The argument that I couldn't fill any apartment because all of us are sinners is stupid weak. Obviously, the point is being forced to rent (for example) an apartment to a known sinner, a blatant sinner, one who sins, knows it and does so proudly.
I know Geoffrey has already dismantled this silliness, but really, Marshall, WHO ELSE IS THERE but "known sinners?"
Dan wrote:
I know this is off topic, but if you don't want to return to Jim Crow days, with black and white water fountains, "white only" restaurants, "no gays allowed here," "Christian and Jews only - NO Muslims..." etc, then what, if not criminalizing it?
I guess criminalizing it is the only answer. The downside is that it diminishes the right of people to choose who they do or don't want to do business with. That is, it reduces their freedom to do what they want with their own property. That's not an insignificant cost.
""I never get tired of your hatefulness and bigotry, Alan. "
Really? Your response is "I know you are but what am I?" Well played sir. Well played."
The difference being that you display your hatefulness with every response of yours to my comments. But you only have baseless allegations regarding me. My support for Biblical truth regarding the sinfulness of homsexual behavior is not hatefulness toward the homosexual anymore than standing against theft indicates hate for the thief. Very poorly played on your part.
""No. He never, ever blesses polygamy."
Well, except for all the times He does."
Name one.
""homosexual" and replace it with "drug dealer"
Except of course, illegal drug use is .... illegal as is dealing illegal drugs."
Typical. You hide behind legalism. I was speaking of bad behavior which isn't defined by the law of man, but the Will of God.
Geoffrey,
"Art, I'm so glad that you are now a constitutional scholar. And John, I laughed at the whole "sovereign property" thing. Try that out in court sometime, but make sure you let me know when to be there so I can laugh when I see the look on the judge's face."
Here's a helpful hint: Before posting a smug comment, pause and consider that you've probably once again missed the point.
One needn't be a scholar to understand the basic idea of the Constitution's limiting what the federal gov't can do. To insure that all races are treated the same by the governmental agencies, since skin color has no more bearing on anything than does eye or hair color, is in line with the intention of the founders. But to force one man to do business with everyone regardless of the man's feelings is not.
I don't know how any business would survive with a segregation attitude, but why should you care? It seems it would be pretty simple to eliminate such a place from your choices of businesses to patronize, wouldn't it? It certainly would for me. If some schmuck wants to refuse service to blacks, that's his problem.
But in the realm of behaviors, that's a truly different story. Look at Alan's orientation. He's oriented toward snark and hatefulness toward those with whom he disagrees. Why should I be forced to do business with an unrepentant ass? There's certainly no law against being an ass and Alan takes full advantage. So since it is not illegal for him to be an ass, it must be moral (based on his notion regarding drug dealers).
But the fact is, if Alan walked into my place of business and acted like himself, I'm fairly certain I could throw him out for being an ass. I would not have to do business with him based on his behavior that I find objectionable and sinful. I have that right, but YOU jokers wish to limit that right and force me to tolerate other behaviors. You infringe upon my right of free association, not to mention living my faith by not enabling bad behavior by providing a place where homosexuals will likely engage in their perverse and sinful behavior. How very American and Christian of you.
"Oh, Art, one more thing, on the whole "sin" argument being "weak""
Oh, Geoff, one more thing: when you learn how to get the point, I'll give praise on account of it.
Here's the point that you so expertly missed:
What was "weak" was your "since we're all sinners, you couldn't rent a room to anyone" argument. Try to follow. If someone's sinful behavior is exposed to me, if it is somehow made known that sinful behavior was being perpetrated in my home, on my property, I expect that I have the right to banish the perpetrator from my property, especially if the perp insists on engaging in the behavior. What's more, I have the right to determine the limits of tolerance for any behavior on my property as it belongs to me alone.
Out of time. I'll get to the other foolish responses later.
"You hide behind legalism."
Hide? Behind the law?
Since it is exactly the law we're talking about here in this comment thread, perhaps you're responding to whatever comment thread is going on in your mind.
Do try to keep up, won't you?
"The difference being that you display your hatefulness with every response of yours to my comments."
So now you've switched to "I'm rubber, you're glue"?
Take nap, MA, then have some cookies and milk. You'll feel better.
"How very American and Christian of you."
Actually that is the one correct thing you've said in this entire exchange.
More proof that a broken clock is right twice a day, I s'pose.
Dan: I think the point, anonymous, is that we can't take each and every line from the text of a 2000 year old book - even the Bible - as a literal point by point guideline for establishing rules of morality in a modern and different context.
Here is my point, which I think still addresses Dan's original post. How do you decide which laws to keep and which to throw out? Everyone is arguing about homosexuality, but we aren't stoning disobedient children; we aren't trying to pass laws against fortune tellers; we aren't forbidding the wearing of 50/50 blend fabrics. Yet these also are addressed in God's Law.
So let's throw out Leviticus - after all, it's old.
Jesus never addressed homosexuality (food for thought), but he did clearly say that if you marry a divorced woman you are committing adultery. Why aren't we just as concerned about divorce? When was the last time a church threatened to split over differing views of divorce? Would those of you who won't rent property to a homosexual couple rent to an adulterous couple?
Friends, I would ask each of you - are you consistent in your beliefs and interpretations of the Scriptures? Should we keep all the laws? Keep none of the laws? Keep only what Jesus said? Keep only what the New Testament writers say?
And where does God's grace and forgiveness fit in to the question?
For me, it comes down to what we say in the (UMC) Communion liturgy: "Hear the Good news: Christ died for us while we were yet sinners; that proves God's love toward us. In the name of Jesus Christ, your sins are forgiven."
Captain Dave,
I can tell you that in Reformed denominations, the traditional formula for deciding which laws to observe and which to "throw out" (for lack of a better phrase) was clarified in the Westminster Confession, Chapter XIX. (These ideas arose well before 1646, but Westminster is probably the clearest and most succinct statement.)
The idea is this: There are 3 kinds of laws in the OT 1) Ceremonial laws pertaining to Hebraic religious custom, 2) Juridical laws pertaining to the ancient nation of Israel, and 3) moral laws.
The ceremonial laws only applied to the Jews, the juridical laws only applied to the nation-state of ancient Israel, but the moral laws apply to everyone forever.
Now as any honest Christian is forced to admit, this 3-part categorization of the Law cannot be found anywhere in Scripture. (Yes, we do have Peter's dream about clean and unclean food, and other statements by Jesus that ceremonial cleanliness laws have been abrogated, but that's it.) Any honest Christian is also forced to admit that there is no list anywhere in Scripture that says, "Here are the ceremonial laws, here are the juridical laws, and here are the moral laws." Finally, any honest Christian must also admit that our notion of chapters and verses is also an invention not present in the original text and an inappropriate way to try to categorize these laws. So both the formula and which laws get put on which list are entirely human constructs.
That's all well and good as long as everyone realizes that this is all comes down to fallible human interpretation. In other words, everyone (and I mean everyone) picks and choses which of their favorite laws should be followed, and which should be ignored. (For example, there's no reason to believe either usury or gluttony should be only ceremonial or juridical, but how many rich fat fundamentalists can we name?) The problems arise when some people refuse to even be aware that they are always and forever interpreting the Bible (they can do nothing else). So, they pick and chose without admitting it.
So, as modern folk we end up with weird lists in which touching the skin of a dead pig is a ceremonial law, but homosexual activity is a moral law, even though there is a juridical penalty attached to it (death.) And the fundies follow the first half of the verse, but (well, some of them) not the second.
I would add that there can be a moral law (#3) which applies "to everyone forever" that also has a juridical penalty (#2) that applies "the nation-state of ancient Israel". I don't think that the 3 categories are mutually exclusive.
Well, Doug, I was summarizing the Westminster Confession, which clearly lays out the moral laws:
"This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man....
"Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws,....
"To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now,..."
That is, the 10 Commandments summarize the moral law for those Reformed Christians who ascribe to the Westminster Confession (eg. Presbyterians, Congregationalists and other Calvinists.)
I'm sure individuals, like Doug, and other denominations have come up with their own particular formulations, but I was simply summarizing traditional, orthodox Reformed theology.
To address once again the question of doing business with sinners, I would once again point to the situation with the New Mexican photographer rather than devise a plan for exposing potential sinning of rental applicants.
In this case, there was no doubt of what was being asked of the photographer. She was supposed to participate in the celebration of sin, that is, the lesbian marital celebration. After refusing, the lesbians, rather than merely seek out another photographer willing to set aside righteousness for a buck, sought to either force the photog or squeeze a monetary penalty out of her for daring to live according to her faith. If this type of thing happens now (and it does in various forms nationwide), it certainly won't improve with a nationwide acceptance of homosexual marriage. This is called using gov't and law to force someone's "morality" upon everyone else. Lefties claim to abhor this practice, yet live it all the while.
Dan,
You have NEVER filled the gaping holes of your position and Biblical interpretations. That's why I press on.
"Thou shalt not..." should, for an honest Christian, cover pretty much anything related to the behavior being prohibited, unless there is some later clarification or change in Sripture. There isn't for Lev 18:22 anywhere. Thus, as it doesn't speak of anything about the context in which the behavior takes place (and again, verse 3 does NOT do this or it would apply to every sexual situation mentioned in the chapter), it is absolutely ludicrous to pretend that God would bless a union that results in that prohibited behavior. And worse, to believe that He would because those engaging in the behavior are doing it in a loving way is about as childish an argument as one can imagine. To paraphrase Geoff, I would love to see the look on the Judge's face when you run that line on Him!
Marshall...
You have NEVER filled the gaping holes of your position and Biblical interpretations. That's why I press on.
Brother, I GET that you disagree with me and don't find my hunches reasonable. JUST AS I disagree with you and don't find your hunches reasonable. My point here is that YOU CAN'T "prove" your hunches to me so you may as well press on somewhere else.
I remain convinced that fidelity, love, respect, family, community, commitment, etc, that these are good values for all people everywhere. You have another hunch.
You're welcome to it, but I think you'd have a hard time making that case in a reasonable fashion, just as you're having a hard time making it here.
In the meantime, seriously, I suggest you spend more time thinking about...
whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
I don't think the character traits you're hanging on to are serving you well.
And so, I repeat:
Proof? Offer it.
None? Move on. I'm quite familiar with your hunches by now, Marshall. No need to repeat them ad nauseum.
I remain convinced that fidelity, love, respect, family, community, commitment, etc, that these are good values for all people everywhere. You have another hunch.
Dan, this is an extremely disingenuous paraphrasing of MA's point. He said specifically...
...it is absolutely ludicrous to pretend that God would bless a union that results in that prohibited behavior. And worse, to believe that He would because those engaging in the behavior are doing it in a loving way is about as childish an argument as one can imagine.
So he is most certainly not denying that those attributes are good. You accuse him of what he is not saying, and use that accusation to ignore his actual point.
Which is, that, as good and lovely as these are, their presence cannot be used to "bless a union that results in that prohibited behavior". The line "But I love this person" does not automatically say anything about that union, from a moral point of view. So, regardless of what the prohibited behavior entails (fill in your own blank), it's still prohibited.
Step away from the macro and the cut/paste clipboard, and really read what's being said.
I must have missed the part of the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution that specifies that doing business with sinners is unconstitutional.
(And of course, since everyone's a sinner, it seems ... Oh forget it. It isn't like MA believes he's a sinner himself....)
"Lefties claim to abhor this practice,"
You know MA knows he's lost when he starts just making junk up out of no where.
This lefty doesn't "abhor" this practice at all, BTW. I rather enjoy forcing my morality on others by having laws that make murder, theft, rape, and perjury illegal, for example.
But there's quite a bit of difference between "forcing" that morality on someone and legalizing gay marriage, which doesn't *force* anyone to do anything anywhere. You can vote No against gay marriage all you want, MA. No one is forcing you to vote Yes. And when you lose, you will have to do absolutely nothing.
However, since you're clearly so in love with your straw men, Marshall, why don't you marry them?
(BTW, slightly off topic, but not really... Can anyone explain to me the fundie obsession with teh gays forcing them to do things? The common phrases "forcing their morality" or "forcing their lifestyle down our throats", for example. Someone should commission a study. Freud would have a field day.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doug inaccurately summarized Dan's point as, "'But I love this person' does not automatically say anything about that union, from a moral point of view."
And then Doug, with his usual lack of irony wrote, "You accuse him of what he is not saying, and use that accusation to ignore his actual point."
Heh. Nice one Doug. Seriously, do you guys take classes in hilarious unintended irony or is it a natural gift? ;)
Art, you keep bringing up the case of the New Mexico photographer. First of all, it was a civil suit, not a criminal trial. The full text of the court's decision can be found here (.pdf). The case revolved around whether or not Elaine Photography had violated Section 28-1-7(F) of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA). The law states in this particular section that is is unlawful discriminatory practice for "any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities or accommodations or goods to any person because of . . . sexual orientation." The law defines "public accommodation" as "any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations, or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private." The court went to find that (a) Elaine Photography was a "public accommodation" under the definition of the law; that (b) the couple in questions had proved by a preponderance of the direct evidence, stated in the detailed findings of fact in the first section of the opinion, that discrimination had, indeed, taken place; therefore (c) Elaine Photography was liable for (civil) damages under the terms of NMHRA.
That's it. It's a photography studio. While the owners had an unwritten agreement between themselves that they would not provide their services to same-sex couples, they had no statement in their articles under which they were incorporated as a Limited Liability Corporation in the state of New Mexico to that effect, nor enjoyed any prima facie protection under the Federal Constitution or state constitution protections for free religious expression to practice discriminatory business practices.
It helps to actually read a court's decision. Since we are a nation of laws, one can learn a lot by doing this.
I'd also point out that in NM, gay marriages aren't even legally recognized, so that was a legal case solely about illegal discrimination, it didn't have anything to do with legalized same sex marriage.
Marshall: "...it is absolutely ludicrous to pretend that God would bless a union that results in that prohibited behavior. And worse, to believe that He would because those engaging in the behavior are doing it in a loving way is about as childish an argument as one can imagine."
So again, Marshall, would you extend this statement to include marrying a divorced woman? That it is ludicrous to think God would bless such a union clearly based on prohibited behavior?
Only time now for this:
whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
True, honest, just, pure, lovely, good report to whom? God or Dan? You twist Scripture to make it work for you.
"You twist Scripture to make it work for you."
This from a guy who a while back didn't even realize that the Golden Rule was in the Bible, and after having it pointed out to him that it is, in fact, Matthew 7:12, still criticizes others' knowledge of the Bible.
This from a guy that believes in salvation by works rather than by grace. And who is, we learned recently, also a gnostic.
He's the one talking about twisting Scripture. Well, he should know...he's evidently the expert.
Okay, so apparently either 1) my questions are too stupid to warrant a response (possibly), 2) too deep to warrant a response (I doubt it), or this is some private club that I have accidentally stumbled into. Whatever. Ive tried to engage in the discussion, but have been largely ignored. So I'm done with you. Dan, I wish you, Geoffrey, Marshall and Alan a good, long life arguing your semantics. I'm going back to the real world.
Sorry, Captain Dave, I thought Alan's response was fairly reasonable one. I wasn't ignoring your questions, just busy with life and whatnot.
For my part, to address this...
How do you decide which laws to keep and which to throw out?
It comes down to our own God-given reasoning. We have to sort out what the Bible says using our brains. There's a whole gob of wonderful teachings in the OT and I would never dream of saying we should ignore them because they're old.
On the other hand, there is a whole bog of stuff there that is obviously (to some) addressed to a particular audience at a particular time.
"Kill disrespectful children?" God forbid.
"Don't have sex with animals?" Well, of course not.
The thing is, most conservatives will agree with this. The thing is, they tend to want to hold on to their favorite laws in the OT while ignoring others (Sabbath rules, anyone? Jubilee rules?).
Alan's answer addresses it somewhat. There APPEAR to be different type of rules - ceremonial, universal, circumstantial - but he's also right that this is just a human-made hunch to break them up. The Bible does not give us a guide to say, "These laws are universal, those rules are circumstantial...", etc.
Which is why my point on this post was that "they" can't "prove" their hunch on those three passages that they think condemn any and all homosexuality, any more than I can "prove" my position on them.
Which is why it comes down, for me, to the positive rules for life - love, fidelity, mercy, grace, kindness, commitment... against THESE things, there are no laws.
Which is why my point on this post was that "they" can't "prove" their hunch on those three passages that they think condemn any and all homosexuality, any more than I can "prove" my position on them.
Unless, of course, you ignore the fact I mentioned earlier, that 100% of all mentions of homosexuality in the Bible are negative, and 100% of all mentions of marriage in the Bible are heterosexual. And thousands of years of Christian and Jewish exegesis on the subject.
Other than that, it's supposedly one "hunch" against another. Anything is possible if you can ignore all that.
"Unless, of course, you ignore the fact..."
I like how "the fact" is precisely what we're debating, so clearly it isn't a "fact" to everyone (you keep using that word "fact" I do not think it means what you think it means.)
It is rather amusing to see someone completely miss the entire point of the whole conversation like Doug just has.
Doug, here's a primer: The "fact" that you keep touting is precisely what Dan and Geoffrey are debating with you. So merely quoting it again and stating it as if it truly is a fact is unlikely to do much good.
Unless you ignore that discussion and debate are more than just repeating your opinion as if it were fact. Yeah, if you ignore that, I guess anything is possible. ;)
The facts I have presented:
* 100% of the mentions in the Bible of homosexuality are negative.
If you believe this is not a fact, please present a counter-example. If you have no counter-example, then it is a fact. C'mon, this is about as easy a falsifiable statement as I can make. If there really is a positive statement about homosexuality, I want to know about it.
* 100% of the mentions in the Bible of marriage are heterosexual.
Same as above.
Given this, calling the belief that marriage should be one man and one woman a "hunch" is incredibly disingenuous, especially with Genesis 2:24 to back it up. While not a fact in the truest sense, this conclusion is based on what the Bible does say and does describe.
The best Dan has offered to counter my exegesis with has been "well, did God mean ONLY that?" That's not a counter exegesis; that's looking for loopholes in the fine print. Based on the fact that the totality of Scriptural examples backs up my view, I'd say yes, God meant only that. If you want to call both views "hunches", fine. But what's missing is evidence from what is in the Scriptures to back up your view; positive evidence to support it, not negative evidence based on what's not said.
Sorry, Doug, as I have stated many times, this isn't a topic on which I debate, because such debates are useless.
Suffice it to say that I do not agree with your characterization that the "100%" of verses you're prattling on about actually mention homosexuality in the broadest terms at all.
Nor am I convinced that a bunch of rules that were designed for the Levites (you may have noticed the name of the book in question ... should have been, but obviously was not, a big clue), the ancient Hebrew priestly class are binding on us Christians in 2011.
And, you can explain away the polygamy in the Bible and how that is blessed by God all you want, but your lame rationalizations don't do much to make your case for exclusive monogamy being the only type of marriage blessed in the Bible.
So, the "facts" you purport to show are nothing but your opinions of a few (very few) verses. Since, as an orthodox Reformed Christian, prooftexting is anathema to how we traditionalists read the Bible, I also don't find your eisegesis compelling either. Your little mathematical equation attempts to turn Biblical interpretation into the equivalent of laying pipe, not a method of interpretation that those of us with more traditional leanings find persuasive either.
Dan and others here have already provided tons of evidence to support their position here and in about a bazillion posts over the years. Plus there are any number of other places on the web that will also provide you with more detailed evidence should you choose to google them.
BTW 100% of the Biblical verses about slavery approve of it. So do you, I take it?
"While not a fact in the truest sense"
Or in any sense.
Facts are not the same as opinions. Opinions are not the same as arguments.
Tomatoes exist. That's a fact. That I enjoy tomatoes is an opinion, not an argument. If I were to claim that all people should eat 2 tomatoes a day because they contain lots of antioxidants, that would be an argument.
But claiming that all people should eat 2 tomatoes a day is not a fact.
The *fact* is that the Bible does speak about sexuality, both heterosexual and homosexual. Past that, any application of those verses to our lives and any assessment of the positive or negative ways that the Bible speaks about homosexuality all require interpretation.
So you can keep claiming that your opinions are fact, but no one here is required to believe it.
Sorry, Doug, as I have stated many times, this isn't a topic on which I debate, because such debates are useless.
Yet you have no problem with peppering it with snarky remarks, which is why it's so hard to take you seriously.
Nor am I convinced that a bunch of rules that were designed for the Levites (you may have noticed the name of the book in question ... should have been, but obviously was not, a big clue), the ancient Hebrew priestly class are binding on us Christians in 2011.
(Referencing a previous topic) Careful, sounds like your Bible might be getting smaller. I believe the categorization you mentioned of law in the OT are generally good. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially if the reason is you just don't like the particular laws.
So, the "facts" you purport to show are nothing but your opinions of a few (very few) verses.
Understood and acknowledged regarding homosexuality. Not acknowledged regarding heterosexual-only marriage, especially one very blatant one in Genesis.
Dan and others here have already provided tons of evidence to support their position here and in about a bazillion posts over the years.
Dan's angle, repeated over and over, has been suggesting that "fidelity, love, respect, family, community, commitment, etc, that these are good values for all people everywhere", as true as that is, doesn't negate the sin of something being couched in those values. No one argues his statement, as I've already said, but this says not a whit about the underlying issues of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It's a veneer over it rather than an honest dealing with the subject.
He can repeat it all he wants, but it's still a veneer that anyone could paper over many things to make them sound good. This is not to be confused with answering specific points.
BTW 100% of the Biblical verses about slavery approve of it. So do you, I take it?
Fair point. I'll respond with two points.
* Your statement is outright false; 100% of those verses do not approve of it. In fact, other than references to us giving ourselves to be slaves to God, slavery is presented at a negative, sometimes as a punishment from God Himself. The rest mostly acknowledge it. Actual positive approval is very, very rare, and needs to be taken in light of what other things God permitted at the time that He later reigned in (divorce, for example; something He permitted in the OT, but Jesus clarified that indeed God hates it).
* There is no verse, as far as I know, like Genesis 2:24 that appears to formally confer approval by God of slavery in general. He does, as noted above, use it as a tool of punishment, but that hardly suggests approval of the practice, any more than it suggests approval of the other actions of those nations that practice it.
So, trying to equate these two "100 percents" is really not even close, much like Dan's handling of the two "hunches" he's been trying to equate.
The *fact* is that the Bible does speak about sexuality, both heterosexual and homosexual. Past that, any application of those verses to our lives and any assessment of the positive or negative ways that the Bible speaks about homosexuality all require interpretation.
I have stated as fact that the Bible speaks consistently negatively about homosexuality. This, to me, is rather significant. And that's the fact, along with heterosexual marriage, that remains consistent.
The few verses that do mention it leave little to the imagination as to what's being spoken about (the Apostle Paul notwithstanding). It says "don't". Where there is some question about what is being spoken of (here we pick up Paul), it's still in the context of being wrong. Whatever one's opinion of context or situation, they're always called sin.
If you can refute my "100 percent" claim, showing either homosexuality or same-sex marriage presented in a positive light, then my fact is, indeed, not a fact. Until then, I'll contend it is, and one which you cannot refute with conversations about vegetables.
My opinion about what that says about our lives is backed up by these positive facts that speak directly to the issue.
Doug...
I have stated as fact that the Bible speaks consistently negatively about homosexuality. This, to me, is rather significant.
The Bible DOES speak negatively about SOME FORM of homosexuality in the three places it speaks of it with any degree of clarity.
The Bible ALSO speaks negatively about SOME FORM of heterosexuality in many, many more places. Does that mean that we ought to condemn all heterosexuality?
As to your challenge about this...
* 100% of the mentions in the Bible of homosexuality are negative.
Where you're going off the rails in terms of rational discussion is in stating it in such a way as to suggest that 100% of the time that ALL homosexuality is spoken of, it is negative. That is NOT a fact.
SOME FORM of homosexuality is spoken of in a negative context three times in the Bible.
This is NOT a rational argument against ALL homosexuality. Nor does it counter the presumption that love, fidelity, respect, etc are innately good things in any relationship.
That the Bible does not speak in any form about gay marriage is not any more relevant than that the Bible does not speak about nuclear weapons, pollution or the personal automobile.
Fair enough?
So, to people who've read this now, I will no longer need to address the whole "100% of..." distraction any more. If you repeat that non-argument, it will be just laughed off and ignored (or possibly mocked, because it's already been pointed out as a non-argument, from a biblical and rational point of view).
Try this one on for size:
100% of the times that the Bible speaks of what rape victims should do, it commands that they marry their rapist.
Shall we shout Hallelujah and make this the law of the land today and condemn all those who reject this "law" as false teachers and not Christians?
"Yet you have no problem with peppering it with snarky remarks, which is why it's so hard to take you seriously."
If you can't stand the heat....
"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially if the reason is you just don't like the particular laws."
And somewhere else we were just talking about people mischaracterizing opinions, I believe. Here's exhibit 100,000,000. Funny since you're the one constantly complaining about doing just that. Hypocritical much?
" especially one very blatant one in Genesis."
It never ceases to amaze me how dull some people can be. Two words for you, Doug and let's see if you can follow along: proscriptive vs. descriptive.
So while it is a fact that the Bible does talk about heterosexual sex in Genesis, it never mentions marriage there. Nor does the context show that the verse is meant to be descriptive or proscriptive. That you think it talks about marriage isn't a fact, it is an opinion and an incorrect one, since marriage is never mentioned. That you think it is proscriptive is also an opinion and one that is up for debate, but that isn't a fact either.
"Dan's angle, repeated over and over, has been suggesting that..."
Actually this post is merely one of about a zillion Dan has done on this topic, with comments aplenty. Yes, I suppose if you are Mr. Short Term Memory and only know about this one particular post, I suppose you could be forgiven for not following along. But given that you've also commented on those other post, I assumed you also knew about them. Clearly I was wrong.
"in light of what other things God permitted at the time that He later reigned in ..."
Ah, sorry, I didn't realize you were a dispensationalist. That explains a lot. Those of us who are orthodox believe God doesn't change and didn't change at some point between the old and new testaments. That you ascribe to dispensationalist heresies is sad but not particularly surprising.
"either homosexuality or same-sex marriage presented in a positive light, then my fact is, indeed, not a fact. "
In other words, if I agree to your simplistic interpretation that I have already stated is stupid, and if I agree to engage in fallacious, illogical arguments from silence, then and only then will you accept the evidence. LOL Nicely played, sir. Sorry. Other people you know may be dull enough to fall for such obvious and lame rhetorical gambits, but I'm not.
BTW, Doug, if we're going by percents, as it seems you are -- the Lil' Engineer's Guide to Biblical Interpretation -- I am pretty sure that the vast majority of verses that discuss heterosexual sexuality are some form of "thou shalt nots". And, if we also assume, as you do, that all verses pertaining to heterosexual sex are referring to all instances of heterosexual sex, then I'd say God doesn't much like heterosexual sex.
"This from a guy who a while back didn't even realize that the Golden Rule was in the Bible, and after having it pointed out to him that it is, in fact, Matthew 7:12, still criticizes others' knowledge of the Bible.
This from a guy that believes in salvation by works rather than by grace. And who is, we learned recently, also a gnostic."
None of this is even close to true, not to mention I've corrected each stupid misunderstanding as it happened. (Though I don't think I even questioned the source of the Goden Rule. Can't recall ever doing that at all.) BTW, I'm sure there are tons (hyperbole alert) of things even actual scholars couldn't speak on authoritatively as the Book is so huge. I can say with certainty that I am not a scholar and would not ever claim to know the origin of every saying known to man. What I do know is on the topics on which I do debate, I'm more than well aware of the "truths" the Bible teaches.
The context, if I remember correctly, was your criticism of then-candidate Hillary Clinton's response to a question about the Bible. She said, "The Golden Rule" which you went on for comment after comment saying it wasn't in the Bible. Then when we pointed out that it was, in fact, in the Bible, you continued to rationalize.
As for salvation by works, you've shown that one multiple times here and elsewhere. Though you give good lip service to the notion of salvation by grace alone, you always follow that up with "but..." or "except..."
I have no doubt that it is difficult to remember every specific time where you've been wrong, MA, but I'll give you a hint: all of them.
"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially if the reason is you just don't like the particular laws."
And somewhere else we were just talking about people mischaracterizing opinions, I believe.
Fair point, and I’m guilty as charged. Speaking of which...
"in light of what other things God permitted at the time that He later reigned in ..."
Ah, sorry, I didn't realize you were a dispensationalist. That explains a lot. Those of us who are orthodox believe God doesn't change and didn't change at some point between the old and new testaments.
No, as I said before, God permitted things earlier that He didn’t later. He didn’t change, but as Jesus Himself noted (Matthew 19:7-9), the law given through Moses permitted something because their hearts were hard, and then Jesus said that this was to be reined in with a new commandment. This is akin to permitting or overlooking some behavior in young children that a parent, later on, does not permit in the more mature teen.
"either homosexuality or same-sex marriage presented in a positive light, then my fact is, indeed, not a fact. "
In other words, if I agree to your simplistic interpretation that I have already stated is stupid...
Which doesn’t actually make it that, but anyway...
Other people you know may be dull enough to fall for such obvious and lame rhetorical gambits, but I'm not.
...which is followed by...
-- I am pretty sure that the vast majority of verses that discuss heterosexual sexuality are some form of "thou shalt nots". And, if we also assume, as you do, that all verses pertaining to heterosexual sex are referring to all instances of heterosexual sex, then I'd say God doesn't much like heterosexual sex.
This is a lame rhetorical gambit to equate “all mentions of X are negative” with “some mentions of X are negative”. Apples and oranges. I don't think you understood my point all. But never mind, I'm going to try to explain it to Dan again and we'll see how that goes.
"This is a lame rhetorical gambit to equate “all mentions of X are negative” with “some mentions of X are negative”.
If you don't like that rhetorical gambit, Doug, then why do *you* use it? That you don't understand your own silly and illogical arguments when they are facetiously used back at you, is pretty amusing.
Maybe you should spend a little less time disagreeing with what I write, and a little more time reading your own comments. Since clearly you do not understand what you're writing.
I agree that there is misunderstanding here. I understand your points. You don't understand your own.
Doug...
No, as I said before, God permitted things earlier that He didn’t later. He didn’t change, but as Jesus Himself noted (Matthew 19:7-9), the law given through Moses permitted something because their hearts were hard, and then Jesus said that this was to be reined in with a new commandment. This is akin to permitting or overlooking some behavior in young children that a parent, later on, does not permit in the more mature teen.
I think you're getting around to dealing with my "100% of rape victims" question, but while you're at it, does this mean that you think that God's rules are adaptable, depending upon the society? That God is more "lenient" with more immature societies?
Progressive revelation, is that what you're speaking of here? And, if so, is it your hunch that God DID have a progressive revelation for folk a long time ago, not holding them up to the same standards as God holds us, but that God no longer has a progressive revelation for folk today?
Alan:
"This is a lame rhetorical gambit to equate “all mentions of X are negative” with “some mentions of X are negative”.
If you don't like that rhetorical gambit, Doug, then why do *you* use it? That you don't understand your own silly and illogical arguments when they are facetiously used back at you, is pretty amusing.
No, I'm not equating two things that can't be equated. The terms "all" and "some" are not equivalent. There's no sense arguing with you until we can at least agree on that.
"The terms "all" and "some" are not equivalent. "
Well, I'm glad you recognize that at least.
So why do you insist that a few verses that are forbidding *some* instances of homosexuality are in fact forbidding *all* instances?
Or are you going to now make up some sort of lame rationalization why it is inappropriate to do that in the case of heterosexuality, but it is completely appropriate in the case of homosexuality?
Because, Doug (I assume you're heterosexual) that bit of eisegesis that simply corroborates your own lifestyle would be terribly convenient, wouldn't it?
There are no prohibitions against "hetero" sex in the Bible. There are prohibitions against certain sexual behaviors. The sex between a man and his mother is prohibited despite the fact that it is hetero sex. Sex between a man and another man is prohibited, despite the two being homosexuals. It is the behavior that is prohibited and it is always described in negative terms in every instance it is mentioned. The same for adultery. It's the act that is prohibited and there is no mention of the context in which it occurs.
To that, Dan and others have indeed offered tons of words as evidence of their position. What they continually fail to present is dirt to fill the crater-sized holes of their arguments. For example, if Lev 18:3 supposedly indicates a particular form of same-sex activity is prohibited, then that must follow for all the other prohibitions in Chapter 18. But Dan never speaks on how one could have a "blessed" union with one's mother if they follow Dan's prescription for "fidelity, love, respect, family, community, commitment, etc,".
Dan likes to point to outside sources that speak of Canaanite religious practices, but nothing thus far has even hinted that the prohibited activites of Lev 18 ONLY took place within their religious ritual. Said another way, nothing suggests there existed no "committed, monogomous" homosexual relationships in the Canaanite community. Arguing again from silence, Dan merely assumes this.
Arguments agreeing with Dan's "some form of homosexual practice" angle continue to be no more than equal to a child arguing the details of Mom's prohibition of snacks before dinner, as if she must list every variation of what constitutes forbidden consumption before supper. The child eating crackers before dinner, and only crackers and doing so in a loving manner still breaks Mom's rule.
Once again, "whatsoever things are lovely" must pass the criteria for what GOD considers lovely. Sinful behavior, no matter how nice the participants are whilst engaging in it, isn't "lovely" to God.
"She said, "The Golden Rule" which you went on for comment after comment saying it wasn't in the Bible. Then when we pointed out that it was, in fact, in the Bible, you continued to rationalize."
Kinda like you rationalize prohibited sexual practices?
"As for salvation by works, you've shown that one multiple times here and elsewhere. Though you give good lip service to the notion of salvation by grace alone, you always follow that up with "but..." or "except...""
Never. What I've done is reiterate that faith without works is dead. What I've done is claims of faithfulness does not give license to pick and choose what laws of God to follow or dismiss.
"I have no doubt that it is difficult to remember every specific time where you've been wrong, MA, but I'll give you a hint: all of them."
I'm willing to concede the Hillary bit, though I don't recall the details and don't have faith in your truthfulness in the retelling of the case, but as far as anything else, you wish.
Well, I only got through a couple sentences before MA started talking about having sex with his mother, and then I got bored.
But I'm sure it was all very fascinating.
"Kinda like you rationalize"
OK, MA, are you actually saying that rationalizing is good? *That's* your response?? You rationalize stuff you're too ignorant to know anything about because you think *I* rationalize things too?
So you get your cues about how to act from my behavior, which you clearly hate?
Dude, you are such a fraked up mess it's hard to even think about how to respond.
But thank you for agreeing with me.
"Arguing again from silence, Dan merely assumes this."
Uh... You know that you're actually the one arguing from silence, right? Dan is saying that since it isn't prohibited or even mentioned, one cannot assume prohibition.
You're the one suggesting that X is prohibited because it is never mentioned in the Bible.
I mean, since you used the phrase "argument from silence" I would have assumed that you'd made some effort to actually know what the hell you're talking about but...
... Nah, but why would this be any different than any other time?
Forget it. I'm sure you wouldn't understand that either.
You know, MA, I really wish everyone with your weird views "argued" like you do. We'd have gay marriage by now if all we had to do was convince everyone else how stupid your anti-gay arguments are.
So please, by all means, spread your gospel of hate far and wide! You and Fred Phelps are the bobsy twins of anti-gay stupidity. He's got the media machine and you've got the "arguments".
I'm thinking you two should think about an old Hope-Crosby type road show.
"There are no prohibitions against "hetero" sex in the Bible."
BWAH! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Proving once again that MA has never actually *read* the Bible.
Doug, why don't you spend some time arguing with MA? You two are made for each other.
Dan:
The Bible DOES speak negatively about SOME FORM of homosexuality in the three places it speaks of it with any degree of clarity.
The Bible ALSO speaks negatively about SOME FORM of heterosexuality in many, many more places. Does that mean that we ought to condemn all heterosexuality?
Apples and oranges. The point was not the absolute number, but the lack of any positive mention of homosexuality at all. You, like Alan, are trying to equate this with some negative mentions of heterosexuality, mixed in with many positive and neutral mentions of it. Heck, the Song of Solomon is a whole book celebrating heterosexual sex & marriage.
But zero positive mentions of homosexuality, and zero mentions at all of homosexual marriage, given how much of the Bible deals with sex and marriage, is significant. This is not arguing from silence, as Alan suggests, but arguing from a preponderance of evidence, or a massively disproportionate treatment of the subjects by the Scripture. Even the terms "preponderance" and "disproportionate" are inadequate to describe the fact that there is no positive Scriptural evidence for, or treatment of, your view.
But pointing this out is, to you, laughable. Which is interesting, coming from a guy who has a series of posts recounting just how much of the Bible speaks about economics and how to treat the poor.
This is NOT a rational argument against ALL homosexuality. Nor does it counter the presumption that love, fidelity, respect, etc are innately good things in any relationship.
If some forms of homosexuality are acceptable, then, given how much of the Bible deals with sex, why isn't this even touched on, even neutrally? I would argue that it's because it already set the standard and there's no need to tick off all the things that aren't the standard.
And for the third time, I'm not trying to counter your presumption. Why do you think I must? I agree with your presumption. However,
* Whatever one's position on same-sex marriage, marriage itself is not required for those attributes to be exhibited, so it's a non-sequitur with regards to the topic at hand.
* Keeping your thoughts on good things does not begin to address same-sex marriage, or at least not nearly as directly as Genesis 2:24. You hand-wave away a direct statement of what marriage is because it's not specific enough for you, and replace it with a far less specific verse to back up your argument. You argue for specificity while responding with a generality.
* If the underlying relationship is inherently sinful, for whatever reason you think it could be so, is it rendered not sinful if those attributes are present? I don't think it is. The presence of those attribute are a good thing, but the underlying relationship is still what it is.
Continued...
That the Bible does not speak in any form about gay marriage is not any more relevant than that the Bible does not speak about nuclear weapons, pollution or the personal automobile.
Again, apples and oranges. The Bible does speak specifically about marriage, while it says absolutely nothing even generally about energy sources nor transportation with the associated pollution. Statements about taking care of God's creation could apply to those issues, but also apply to picking up your trash and proper farming techniques. Statements about marriage are … about marriage. Alan said, "So while it is a fact that the Bible does talk about heterosexual sex in Genesis, it never mentions marriage there." But 2:24 uses the word "wife", so yeah, marriage is mentioned pretty specifically. It's defined there, every example of it is heterosexual, it's spoken about extensively (perhaps as extensively as economics), and it gives absolutely no press to anything else.
100% of the times that the Bible speaks of what rape victims should do, it commands that they marry their rapist.
A whole new topic, so I'm not going to get too much into the weeds on this. I will note the difference between this and marriage as a legal construct, though. Marriage, even in a secular sense, has had an agreed upon definition which, nicely, happens to line up with the Bible's definition. With some exceptions (I imagine) it has been thus for thousands upon thousands of years. Countries all over the globe have understood it to be so, as well as understanding how foundation marriage and the family unit is to society. To conservatives, this is the classic example of looking to history for wisdom, and realizing that if it has worked so well for so long, and no other civilizations that may have tried it found it useful or workable, you need an exceptionally good reason to buck that trend. It's not just "we've always done it this way"; it's understanding why it worked and why other things failed. Much like socialism and how it always tends to collapse under its own weight given a couple of generations. Agree or not, we're looking at a really big picture here.
Your example is nothing like that. You're making it sound like I'm trying to legislate the Bible, which I think may be the main source of your misunderstanding with "my tribe". What I am arguing for is that a secular government keep with the definition of marriage that it and other civilizations have always had. That I happen to have a religious reason in addition to that does not mean I want to make every verse into a constitutional amendment. Yanking out a verse from the Old Testament and asking me if I want that also to be a law just shows how severely you misunderstand my motives.
So back to the original question: "EVEN IF you are of the tribe that thinks homosexual practices in any form are a moral wrong, it would seem you'd have to concede that marriage would at least be a step in the right direction." I don't believe it is because I believe the underlying relationship is a moral wrong, and thus redefining marriage to be something other than what civilization over the millennia has generally understood it to be (in addition to the Biblical argument) is not a good thing for society to do.
Side note on the “progressive revelation” thing. I only know what I find in the Bible on this, and as I said, I use the divorce issue as one example. The Pharisees said to Jesus that Moses “commanded” them to just give a notice of divorce. Jesus corrected them that Moses “permitted” them, and only because their hearts were hard. But He left no question that God hates divorce and laid down the commandment that reflects that. So here, God did not change, and Jesus is explaining that the Father let some things slide early on, but no more. A clear line; that was then, and after the Incarnation and the New Testament, this is now.
Polygamy is similar, but it doesn’t have the “permission” part in the OT; just guys who couldn’t follow instructions. Genesis defines marriage, but clearly the patriarchs decided to let the culture win out (which is rather applicable to the post topic). God, though, began to rein them in starting at the top. Deuteronomy 17 talks about the King must not have many wives. Solomon, who didn’t follow this, would be exhibit A in why it was a bad idea. 1 Kings 11 starts out with Solomon’s wives, who came from all over, leading him astray.
In the New Testament, Paul writes to Timothy about the kinds of men who may be allowed to lead the church. In 1 Timothy 3, he says, of two different church positions, that those in those positions must be the husband of one wife. Again, reining in the leadership first. Indeed, we don’t have Jesus saying that God hates polygamy like He hates divorce. (Perhaps because polygamy involves making too many promises, but divorce involves breaking it; much worse, perhaps, in God’s eyes.) But, the standard was set (and not changed) and we find examples of God trying to bring us back to it. So that’s not even “progressive revelation” per se.
So I’m not a “progressive revelation” guy. I’m just noting in the Bible where, in one case, Jesus clears up a misunderstanding of what God really thinks, and in another case, where God set the standard and we have examples of where He keeps trying to pull us back to it. God didn’t change, but Jesus’ words clearly show that man certainly did, and God gave slack to the newbies (which the newbies proceeded to misunderstand).
" it never mentions marriage there." But 2:24 uses the word "wife", so yeah, marriage is mentioned pretty specifically. "
Funny how keen you are to know exactly which words are used when it is convenient for you Doug, and when it isn't you disregard when specific words aren't used.
BTW, can you point me to Adam and Eve's marriage ceremony? God never says they got married, the Bible only says that a man (doesn't say Adam specifically) leaves his parents for his wife (doesn't say Eve specifically.) So, given you newfound law-school methods of Biblical interpretation, please find me chapter and verse of where they got married.
Unless you're now going to argue that even if it isn't in there, one can infer it.
Because if you try that argument, then you realize you lose, right? I mean just how many knots are you going to wrap yourself up in in order to make the Bible say anything you want it to say?
"This is not arguing from silence, as Alan suggests, but arguing from a preponderance of evidence,"
Now we've gone from Doug treating the Bible as if interpretation required only the right engineering formula to interpretation by a first year law student.
Preponderance of evidence? Where do you get this stuff?! LOL
You're arguing from silence, Doug, whether you want to believe it or not. If X isn't in the Bible, then it must be condemned. That's your argument. Period. You're arguing this way so that the Bible will correspond to your particular chosen lifestyle. Whether you choose to admit it, you know it's true.
Well, here's to hoping you never require open heart surgery! You know Doug, there are no positive mentions of open heart surgery in the Bible. Nor positive mentions of aspirin.
Nor are there any mentions of computers. Can't wait to see how you use a computer to refute that one.
How do you drive a car, given that there are no positive mentions of automobiles in the Bible? Meanwhile there are plenty of mentions of riding various animals, including the positive mention of Jesus's entrance into Jerusalem.
Yes, yes... "Apples and Oranges". You say that often enough to open your own fruit stand, but just saying it doesn't make it true. It is *convenient* for you to believe it, which is why you believe it.
Seriously though, "preponderance of evidence" gave me a good laugh.
On the other hand, I am encouraged that you have gone from arguing that all these are simply "facts" to now trying to make an argument that these "facts" even exist in the first place. How changeable you are!
Well, at least you're learning something from our little fun here. ;)
"civilization over the millennia"
Sort of like dental hygiene and sanitary sewers. Doug's against those too, I imagine.
Because civilization over the millennia haven't had them, and there are no positive mentions in the Bible of either one.
Weeee! We can have fun with this all day, given the number of things in the modern world for which there are no positive Biblical mentions.
Aren't arguments from silence fun? Oh, here's one:
God hates clowns!!
Also interesting that Doug translates "not many" to equal "must be one and only one" in Deuteronomy. I suppose it hadn't occurred to Doug that a few wives could also be "not many", and I'm sure he didn't just ignore that because it is convenient for him to do so in order to justify his chosen lifestyle.
Your Bible is getting bigger every day, Doug, with all the stuff you add that isn't there!
;)
"God hates clowns!!"
And to think I'm accused of not recognizing irony.
I used the example of rape-victims being commanded to marry their assailants "100% of the time in the Bible" to point out the problem with making presumptions about what is and isn't found "100% of the time in the Bible" and Doug responded with commentary that I don't quite see the point of...
will note the difference between this and marriage as a legal construct, though. Marriage, even in a secular sense, has had an agreed upon definition which, nicely, happens to line up with the Bible's definition.
? I'm confused as to the point of this. Rape, too, has a legal constructual understanding, too. Rape, "even in the secular sense" has had an agreed upon definition throughout the ages.
What's your point?
MY point is that saying, "Behavior X is condemned 100% of the time in the Bible" is not a wholly valid way of determining what our attitude should be about Behavior X.
Do you agree with THAT point?
Continuing with Doug's explanation...
To conservatives, this is the classic example of looking to history for wisdom, and realizing that if it has worked so well for so long, and no other civilizations that may have tried it found it useful or workable, you need an exceptionally good reason to buck that trend. It's not just "we've always done it this way"; it's understanding why it worked and why other things failed.
Ok. And we HAVE exceptionally good reasons to think that bans on gay marriage are, while traditional, NOT healthy or good. Those reasons include: Promiscuity is not a good thing, but commitment is; Polyamory is not a healthy thing, but a healthy monogamy is; Despising a group, demonizing that group into hidden conclaves is not a good thing, but restoring them to a wholesome, healthy place in the community is.
For starters.
These ARE exceptionally good reasons for support marriage equity for all, exactly BECAUSE marriage is a good thing.
And even though rape victims were commanded 100% of the time to marry their attackers or SOME gay behavior and SOME straight behavior is condemned in the Bible and even though we've traditionally done it this way, these are not sufficient reasons to keep doing it "the way it was done in the Bible." We CAN improve upon our past ways.
Just as we see in the Bible, where OT rules were improved upon in the NT. What once worked (maybe, maybe not!) in a culture 4000 years ago is not a measure for what works today.
Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father-God.
~Jesus
And returning to that same quote from Doug...
realizing that if it has worked so well for so long, and no other civilizations that may have tried it found it useful or workable,
Here, you're begging the question: HAS refusing to have marriage equity for all and demonizing the gay community worked "so well for so long"? I would say that the evidence is clearly not.
And what civilizations have found marriage equity not useful or workable? I think that is a begging of the question, too.
Doug...
You're making it sound like I'm trying to legislate the Bible, which I think may be the main source of your misunderstanding with "my tribe". What I am arguing for is that a secular government keep with the definition of marriage that it and other civilizations have always had.
Then you're not understanding what I've written. I'm not suggesting you're trying to legislate the Bible. I'm pointing out a fairly simple point:
To say, "Behavior X is condemned (or supported) in the Bible 100% of the time" is insufficient support for suggesting, "therefore, we ought not support (or oppose) Behavior X."
THAT is the point of my illustration. Do you agree with THAT point?
Put another way: Do you agree that JUST BECAUSE rape victims are commanded to marry their assailants in the Bible is NOT sufficient reason to say that this is a good idea?
Would you go even further and say, "It would be a HORRIBLE INJUSTICE to require what appears to be advocated in 100% of those passages in the Bible that deal with this topic?"
Doug...
So back to the original question: "EVEN IF you are of the tribe that thinks homosexual practices in any form are a moral wrong, it would seem you'd have to concede that marriage would at least be a step in the right direction." I don't believe it is because I believe the underlying relationship is a moral wrong, and thus redefining marriage to be something other than what civilization over the millennia has generally understood it to be (in addition to the Biblical argument) is not a good thing for society to do.
And so, for the drinker/smoking who says he won't give up drinking/smoking, but I will cut back to moderation and doing so in responsible ways, you would also condemn that?
Or, for the greedy person who says, "'d really like to get myself three different $100,000 sports cars, in addition to my other cars, but to be a bit more moderate, I'll only get ONE $100,000 sports car and give a bit more to charity instead..." you wouldn't consider that a step in the right direction?
You can't see the societal, moral and personal benefits of moderation and more responsibility in behaviors that you disagree with?
It has to be 100% total agreement with your hunches on morality (of non-harmful behaviors) for you to be able to appreciate?
I think, EVEN IF we were talking about a sinful behavior (and I obviously don't, in this case), that taking steps towards moderation is a good thing, honored by God.
As to your "Apples and oranges" sidetracks, Alan's already sufficiently pointed out the problems in your exegesis and eisegesis.
As Alan rightly noted...
The "facts" you purport to show are nothing but your opinions of a few (very few) verses. Since, as an orthodox Reformed Christian, prooftexting is anathema to how we traditionalists read the Bible, I also don't find your eisegesis compelling either.
Well, okay, I'll take a crack at at least one of those comments...
But zero positive mentions of homosexuality, and zero mentions at all of homosexual marriage, given how much of the Bible deals with sex and marriage, is significant.
Significant? Maybe, maybe not. Compelling? No.
There are ZERO positive mentions of other good behaviors, and yet this does not mean that those good behaviors are not good. Do you agree with that?
That is, there are ZERO positive mentions of bicycling instead of driving a car. Does that mean that there are NOT significant positive, moral, health-related reasons to bike instead of driving? No, of course not.
There are ZERO positive mentions of marital counseling, of voting rights for all, of equal opportunity laws in the Bible. Does that mean that these can't be morally good things? No, obviously not.
You agree, I am sure, that the mere absence of positive reference in the Bible is NOT evidence that the unmentioned behavior is a good thing, do you not?
If so, then what is the point? That it is "significant" in THIS particular case? If so, I don't find that argument compelling. WHY is it significant? Because it agrees with cultural prejudices we've held on to for many millennia? I don't find that compelling.
And Doug said...
If some forms of homosexuality are acceptable, then, given how much of the Bible deals with sex, why isn't this even touched on, even neutrally?
You realize, of course, that this sword cuts both ways? IF homosexuality in ANY form was SO bad, why is it never clearly stated so? Why does Jesus not speak to this behavior AT ALL? Three obscure verses do not a compelling case make.
ON THE OTHER HAND, it is CLEAR that fidelity, love, respect, family, community, etc, that these ARE good things. Against such things, there IS NO LAW.
I once held your position Doug. STRONGLY so. I was NOT going to change my mind on it, I could not begin to conceive how I would even possibly CONSIDER changing my mind.
So, why did I change my mind eventually? I honestly and prayerfully looked at the actual Bible on this point and found the support against gay marriage wholly uncompelling. I was un-convinced.
The support that I thought was there is just NOT there, unless you throw on some cultural blinders and preconceptions (or at least for me, that was the only thing holding me to my former position). A dispassionate, rational, prayerful look at the evidence in the Bible convinced me of that.
There are zero positive mentions of democracy in the Bible, but several mentions of monarchy, both positive and negative examples.
Clearly democracy is anti-Biblical.
There are so many examples of crappy logic and reasoning in Dan's (and Alan's) most recent comments that I don't know if I've the time to cover them all. But here goes:
Alan childishly asks
"BTW, can you point me to Adam and Eve's marriage ceremony? God never says they got married, the Bible only says that a man (doesn't say Adam specifically) leaves his parents for his wife (doesn't say Eve specifically.) So, given you newfound law-school methods of Biblical interpretation, please find me chapter and verse of where they got married."
God made Eve specifically for Adam (at the same time making woman specifically for man). What more ceremony do you think God should have had? Maybe a DJ or the Hokey-Pokey? Good argument there, Alan.
"I used the example of rape-victims being commanded to marry their assailants "100% of the time in the Bible" to point out the problem with making presumptions about what is and isn't found "100% of the time in the Bible"..."
Unfortunately, you used the example poorly. Deut 21:10-14 is not a command to rape-victims, but a mitigation of the desire to rape. The captor was required to wait a month before having relations with the captive (though some Jewish commentaries suggest variations to this theme). Like the divorce laws and "eye for an eye", it was a regulation of what was common at the time and not an approval of rape. There's nothing in the five verses that suggest approval of the concept of taking a captive woman for marriage or to satisfy one's lust. Indeed, to do so would contradict the prohibition of marrying outside the faith. Lev 18:22, however, is specific to a specific action and is put forth with no qualifications whatsoever.
"MY point is that saying, "Behavior X is condemned 100% of the time in the Bible" is not a wholly valid way of determining what our attitude should be about Behavior X."
Few statements of yours demonstrate your rebellion as well as the above. If a behavior is never any better than condemned 100% of the time, that it isn't clear to you what your attitude of the behavior should be speaks volumes about your willingness to inject into Scripture meaning the text itself does not provide. Clearly with 100% negative references, honest and reasonable people have no choice but to regard the behavior as sinful and/or prohibited.
"And we HAVE exceptionally good reasons to think that bans on gay marriage are, while traditional, NOT healthy or good."
Two problems here: 1) There is no such thing as "gay marriage", thus there exists no ban upon them. 2) Misuse of the sexual organs is NOT healthy or good.
Worse, your attempts to invent an argument for why sanctioning such unions are better than not is akin to sanctioning any bad behavior. What other behaviors would you liberate from current bans so as not to demonize their practioners into hidden enclaves? All perpetrators of bad behavior act outside the public eye, away from that which would bring attention to them.
furthermore...
"These ARE exceptionally good reasons for support marriage equity for all, exactly BECAUSE marriage is a good thing."
To reiterate, there already IS "marriage equity" for all. The problem is that homosexuals aren't interested in marriage. They're insisting that we view their unions as marriages even though they cannot be described as such definitionally. If a homosexual man would act like a mature man and find a good woman, he can get married just like normal people.
"And even though rape victims were commanded 100% of the time to marry their attackers or SOME gay behavior and SOME straight behavior is condemned in the Bible and even though we've traditionally done it this way, these are not sufficient reasons to keep doing it "the way it was done in the Bible." We CAN improve upon our past ways."
Once again, the rape victim thing is a "Dan-ism", which is a blatant and purposeful corruption of Scripture in order to support other corruptions. Secondly, "SOME FORM" is Dan injecting that which the text does not suggest itself as it clearly refers specifically to the act of sexual relations between members of the same sex itself without regard to the context in which it might take place. Thirdly, not merely "SOME STRAIGHT BEHAVIOR" is prohibited, but a list of sexual activities that are NOT between a man and his lawful wife, whether hetero or homo in nature are prohibited. Fourthly, we do not maintain God's Will because it has always been done that way, but because it is God's Will. That should be perfectly sufficient for anyone who calls himself a Christian and I highly doubt anyone can improve upon His Will.
"Just as we see in the Bible, where OT rules were improved upon in the NT."
They were not "improved upon", they were clarified.
"HAS refusing to have marriage equity for all and demonizing the gay community worked "so well for so long"?"
To reiterate, homosexuals can marry now and always could. Just ask V. Gene Robinson. What's more, they can, in every state of the Union, commit to whomever they want, even others of the same sex, and do so right now. As to demonzing bad behavior, it works incredibly well as long as it continues. Until recent years, homosexuals would never publicize their perversions.
"Do you agree that JUST BECAUSE rape victims are commanded to marry their assailants in the Bible is NOT sufficient reason to say that this is a good idea?"
I would agree that anyone who would even entertain such a thing would have as poor an understanding of the text as you do.
"And so, for the drinker/smoking who says he won't give up drinking/smoking, but I will cut back to moderation and doing so in responsible ways, you would also condemn that?"
Anything that is sinful is not "less sinful" because one does it in moderation or "responsibly". Doing something sinful once is still sinful and requires repentance. "Yeah, I know stealing is wrong, but I only do it once in a while and I clean up after I'm done."
what's more...
"Or, for the greedy person who says, "'d really like to get myself three different $100,000 sports cars, in addition to my other cars, but to be a bit more moderate, I'll only get ONE $100,000 sports car and give a bit more to charity instead..." you wouldn't consider that a step in the right direction?"
Exactly what is sinful, or wrong, with any person, greedy or not, buying whatever he wants with his own money?
"You can't see the societal, moral and personal benefits of moderation and more responsibility in behaviors that you disagree with?"
Silly question. The problem is you WON'T see, you REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE the harm of ignoring CLEARLY STATED prohibitions by the God you claim to serve.
"I think, EVEN IF we were talking about a sinful behavior (and I obviously don't, in this case), that taking steps towards moderation is a good thing, honored by God."
Are you really going with this? That God is pleased when a sinner simply sins a little less than he used do? Because he sins in a more responsible manner? This doesn't suggest backsliding, which is a problem for all of us. This suggests willful rebellion with simply less frequency. What makes you think God would honor THAT? What in Scripture suggests such a thing to you?
"Eisegesis"
I looked this up to be sure of its meaning. This is the perfect word for what you guys do, especially YOU Dan. It is so common in your arguments for your position that you would be justified in legally adding it as a middle name: Dan Eisegesis Trabue. Put it on your business cards. It's the ony way you can make your understanding of the Levitical prohibition to mean "SOME FORM" of homosexual behavior work.
What's more, I don't see that Doug or myself (or Neil or Bubba et al) do any "prooftexting" as the term is understood. In fact, I think we look far more closely at the context of, not only the chapter from which a verse is drawn, but the overriding thematic arc of the the entire Bible than you guys would like to believe. More importantly, ours (collectively, for sure) is far more accurate understanding if the number of unfilled gaping holes is any indication. We have so very few, if any at all. You have yet to fill any of yours, particularly on this subject.
"That is, there are ZERO positive mentions of bicycling instead of driving a car."
You've got to be kidding. You are really going to try to compare bicycling to behaviors God prohibits or favors in Scripture? Really? Is there any material left on the barrel you're scraping?
moving on...
"If so, then what is the point? That it is "significant" in THIS particular case? If so, I don't find that argument compelling. WHY is it significant? Because it agrees with cultural prejudices we've held on to for many millennia? I don't find that compelling."
Except that perhaps cultural prejudices have hung on for many millenia because of the prohibition being in effect for that long. God forbade the behavior, and the "cultural prejudice" was born. It wasn't the other way around.
There are ZERO mentions of homosexual marriage in the Bible because the sexual acts of the homosexual was forbidden. There wouldn't be any such sanctioned or recognized unions to mention. This is such a stupid argument I can't believe you're not embarrassed to express it. To say now that there was simply a cultural prejudice is inane as there is no reason for such a prejudice to exist without God's prohibition (or the obvious understanding that there must be two sexes for a reason). If God's prohibition was for a specific form of the behavior, who would know that better than the people to whom the prohibition was given, a people with a direct link to God Himself, Moses? And if they knew this, and how could they not with Moses there to clarify any misunderstandings, how could there be this cultural prejudice against "loving, committed, monogomous" forms of the behavior?
"IF homosexuality in ANY form was SO bad, why is it never clearly stated so?"
It is. Twice. Lev 18:22 & 20:13. But you engage in eisegesis to create permission.
"Why does Jesus not speak to this behavior AT ALL?"
Because it was not common within the Jewish community. But He did describe what a marriage looks like. It requires one of each sex.
"Three obscure verses do not a compelling case make."
There is nothing the least bit "obscure" about Lev 18:22 or Lev 20:13. It is as plain and clear as can be. Obscure? Do you look up the words YOU use?
"I honestly and prayerfully looked at the actual Bible on this point and found the support against gay marriage wholly uncompelling."
This isn't perfectly accurate now, is it, Dan? If it isn't the whole story, you lie by ommitting the key factors that led you to "see" what doesn't exist. You were prompted by outside influences to understand the text as you now do. Your current beliefs were not exclusively a result of prayer and Biblical study. Is that not true?
"A dispassionate, rational, prayerful look at the evidence in the Bible convinced me of that."
Evidence that you have to date failed to produce for our edification. What you call evidence is your eisegesis and the type of absolute prooftexting that Alan so vehemently rejects as unworthy an "orthodox Reformed Chrisian". I point once again to that Bill Cosby routine as an example of how you've "reasoned" your way to your current beliefs. But the Bible itself offers nothing an honest person can use to support your position, or you would have used it by now.
Marshall, you'r repeatedly saying the same thing over and over is boring. If you have something new to add, add it. No need to report the same reasoning that I have already pointed out I do not find compelling.
But dealing with a couple of points that are new, you said...
If a behavior is never any better than condemned 100% of the time, that it isn't clear to you what your attitude of the behavior should be speaks volumes about your willingness to inject into Scripture meaning the text itself does not provide. Clearly with 100% negative references, honest and reasonable people have no choice but to regard the behavior as sinful and/or prohibited.
So, are you saying that since 100% of the time, rapists are ordered to marry their rape victims (and the rape victims, of course, being women, have to go along with it) that this is what we ought to do today? Really?
If so, you're sick.
I doubt that is what you believe, though.
So, I'm guessing that you AGREE with me that just because some behavior is endorsed 100% of the time in the Bible does not make it a reasonable behavior to endorse today.
Marshall...
They [OT rules] were not "improved upon", they were clarified.
So, changing "an eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek" is a clarification? Do you really thing they were merely misunderstanding "an eye for an eye" and Jesus needed to point out that it meant "turn the other cheek?"
That is a change, Marshall. Not a clarification. Your comrade, Doug, is the one suggesting that God changes God's expectations based on the society. God had one set of expectations for the OT world, but those expectations were moved to a higher standard in the NT world, according to Doug.
You'll need to take this up with him.
Clearly, though, there WERE changes, not clarifications (moving from DON'T each shrimp, to It's okay to eat shrimp is NOT a clarification, it's a change - once again, a dictionary is a wonderful thing).
As to very nearly everything else you've said, choose one of these responses:
1. You're begging the question.
2. Says you.
3. That's a fine hunch, but I don't believe your eisegesis is reasonable.
I know what you think. You have not produced compelling evidence sufficient to change my mind that you are right on this point.
Oh, and as to this silliness...
f it isn't the whole story, you lie by ommitting the key factors that led you to "see" what doesn't exist. You were prompted by outside influences to understand the text as you now do. Your current beliefs were not exclusively a result of prayer and Biblical study. Is that not true?
I've covered this all before many times. Yes, prayer and Bible study. That's all.
I think (putting on my amateur psychoanalyst's hat for a minute) that this fact is what scares and disturbs you the most, so much that you must insist that it's not true, plugging your ears and saying, "nanananana-I-can't-hear-you!" because if someone can just change their mind based on the text and prayer... why, that's just not possible, you seem to think.
And yet, that is what happened.
The world and wisdom is greater than your single collection of hunches, Marshall.
Now you're just lying. I don't know how long it would take me, especially with my current schedule, but as it was relatively recently, I will seek out where you admitted that "Yes, prayer and Bible study. That's all." is not how it happened. Indeed, to even think that Lev 18:3 implies a reference to pagan worship rituals would require outside influence. The verse itself does not suggest any such thing, yet it is your default argument. So what "disturbs" me is your insistence that study of the Bible alone can provide these preferred meanings. Not true meanings or even reasonable meanings, but preferred meanings.
The Bulls are tipping off. Be back later to correct your new goofiness.
I think Art has pretty much said everything I would have said in response, so thanks, guy, for saving me the time.
Dan, you guys get tired of us repeating ourselves because you respond to us with the same questions, requiring the same answers.
The main thing I find incredible is that you keep insisting that I'm arguing from silence, and then asking what I think the Bible says about something modern. I will bow out of this discussion reiterating that, indeed, the Bible is not silent on marriage. It is very vocal about it, and it is very clear about it, too, just as it is vocal and clear about how we should deal with our own economics. Yet you are very convinced about what the Bible says about how we are to treat the poor, but not convinced at all about what it says about marriage.
Indeed, the culture may, over the course of some years from now, change marriage to mean what you want it to mean. But I don't see this as the church purifying the culture, but the culture corrupting the church. You may feel good about yourselves, but that really isn't the point of the church.
And finally, I'd like to leave you with this verse from God's Top Ten. Before He told us to not murder or to not lie or to not steal, He told us to do this:
Honor your father and your mother.
Wow. Well, going out on a limb here, I'm gonna say that I AGREE with honoring your father and mother. So how about that? We agree on something obvious.
Now, where you say...
I think Art has pretty much said everything I would have said in response, so thanks, guy, for saving me the time.
Then you are saying in response to my question:
So, are you saying that since 100% of the time, rapists are ordered to marry their rape victims (and the rape victims, of course, being women, have to go along with it) that this is what we ought to do today? Really?
I KNOW you're not saying you want to implement biblical laws on a modern society, but what I'm asking is about the principle I'm speaking of:
Do you AGREE with me that just because some behavior is endorsed 100% of the time in the Bible does not make it a reasonable behavior to endorse today.
Do you AGREE that something being opposed/supported 100% of the time is an insufficient reason to think it's wrong/right today?
Marshall seemed to suggest that, yes, IF something is supported 100% of the time in the Bible, then it ought to be supported today.
If that's the principle you're advocating, then you WOULD be in support of forcing rape victims to marry their attackers.
Since I'm pretty sure you would find such a suggestion as horrible an idea as I do, then it would appear that you do NOT support the notion that 100% of something in the Bible = always right today.
I can only respond with what I've already said. Zero positive mentions of homosexuality, and zero mentions at all of homosexual marriage, given how much of the Bible deals with sex and marriage, is significant.
All I ask is you give the same consideration of how much the Bible speaks of marriage as you do of how much the Bible speaks of economics.
Rape is NOT supported in the Bible. You purposely distort Scripture once again to make your case, OR, you're really lacking in intelligence.
"So, changing "an eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek" is a clarification? Do you really thing they were merely misunderstanding "an eye for an eye" and Jesus needed to point out that it meant "turn the other cheek?"
First, in order to make this silly attempt work, you have to show how those two commandments are talking about the same thing. I don't think they are specifically, but one thing that ties them together is that loving one's neighbor and/or enemies. The first mitigates revenge to something approaching justice for injuries sustained. THAT replaced retribution that goes way overboard. It limited what one could do in response to sustained harm to no more than the harm sustained. The second one deals with responses to lesser assaults, mainly insults and the like. It is not meant to suggest that one let another beat one to a pulp.
In the same way as "eye for an eye", the admonition for dealing with captive babes was done to mitigate the common practice of raping the women of a conquered foe. This type of thing still exists today. But at that time, there was also the issue of taking a non-Jew for a wife. It was not advised (if not outright forbidden) and the month of mouring is said by some to mean also a mouring for the loss of the girl's previous life, including her religious beliefs; a precursor to conversion. (This is one view of which there are variations) But the bottom line here is that rape is not supported by this regulation, it is mitigated. Thus, your use of it to make your case is foolishness as it is not in any way a positive view of rape at all. Indeed, for one who claims to filter parts of Scripture through the entirety of the Bible, the strict guidelines set forth in Leviticus would preclude such a nonsensical understanding of the regulation for taking captive girls. Support for rape indeed! (Even more glaring is the absence of any mandate for rapists to marry their victims.)
1. So, given the lack of response from both of you, I guess we can assume that we all agree that the exegetical argument, " When a behavior is condemned/supported 100% of the time, that means that behavior should be always condemned/supported," is not a valid bit of exegesis. Which is not to say that when a behavior is condemned/supported in the Bible, we are to do the opposite, it just means that is not a valid method of exegesis.
2. I further assume that we can now acknowledge that neither of you can "prove" that "All homosexuality" IS condemned 100% of the time. That's your hunch. Stating it as a fact is begging the question.
3. It is precisely because I hold a high opinion of marriage and monogamy that I support marriage equity. Because love, commitment, fidelity, respect, etc ARE good things, and against THESE, there is no law.
Feel free to disagree, but that to me seems the most logical biblical and moral reason to reach. None of your hunches to the contrary have convinced me otherwise.
4. And, keeping in mind, I HELD your opinion. It WAS, in fact, prayer and Bible study that led me away from that old position to the new. Just because you can't wrap your mind around an idea does not mean that it can't/doesn't happen.
I just no longer find the arguments against marriage equity to be biblically or morally compelling. Sorry.
"but not convinced at all about what it says about marriage. "
Speaking not for Dan, but for myself, I don't remember anyone here saying they're not convinced about what the Bible says about marriage. We're just not convinced that it says what *you think* it says. I am very convinced about what the Bible has to say (and does not have to say) about marriage.
I just don't agree with you, Doug. And here's a news flash: you're not God. Once again, Doug, like all your little cronies, you confuse your opinion with the Word of God.
So while we're trotting out Commandments, here's one you might want to be reminded of:
"I am the Lord your God ... do not have any other gods before me."
Again Doug, you're not God.
I have been as confident in my beliefs as you have in yours, Alan. Yet in your mind, your confidence is noble and my confidence is idolatry. This is extremely duplicitous of you, and keeps the discussion off-track onto tangents and name-calling such as that.
In addition, Dan is convinced that the Bible's vast amounts of commentary on economics is significant, but when presented with the vast amounts of commentary on marriage, he says, "Significant? Maybe, maybe not." More duplicity.
True discussion cannot happen as long as the double standard exists.
Doug...
In addition, Dan is convinced that the Bible's vast amounts of commentary on economics is significant, but when presented with the vast amounts of commentary on marriage, he says, "Significant? Maybe, maybe not." More duplicity.
Doug, you won't win any debates or friends by accusing folk of duplicity where none exists.
Ad Hom. Look it up.
The vast amounts of commentary on economics IS significant. What it isn't is conclusive.
The commentary (not what I'd call vast, by the way) on marriage IS significant. But what it isn't is conclusive that your position is right.
The comparison would be like this, IF I had said...
"There are vasts comments in the Bible on economics. FURTHER, all those comments support this ONE CONCLUSION: That we ought to be socialists."
THAT would be comparable to your suggestion:
"There are comments in the Bible on marriage. FURTHER, all those comments support MY ONE conclusion: That marriage isn't for everyone - it's not for gay folk, for instance..."
THAT would be comparable IF I HAD DRAWN such a conclusion. I did not. No duplicity exists.
Once again, look it up in the dictionary:
Duplicity: contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action [M-W]
No deception, no contradictory doubleness of thought.
On the other hand, do you see how YOU ALL seem to be engaging in just that? That you TRY suggesting that whole 100% canard, all the while not really believing it, yourselves. You DON'T think it a good thing to demand a rapist marry his victim, do you? (You all have never answered that question - seeming duplicitous right there, as if you don't want to answer the question because it undermines your point - but I am quite sure you don't think it a good thing.)
"keeps the discussion off-track onto tangents and name-calling such as that"
So when I do it it's bad. when you do it, it's great!
Gotcha, Doug.
You and MA were made for each other. It's like you're both on a race to see who can be the biggest hypocrite.
"True discussion cannot happen as long as the double standard exists."
Yes, I agree. So if you want true discussion, you should probably stop with your double standards, Doug.
"Yet in your mind, your confidence is noble and my confidence is idolatry."
Really? Is that how it is in my mind, Doug? Are you so sure about that, because you know, your apparent inability to even understand your own mind probably makes you completely unqualified to guess what is in mind.
Sorry, Doug, once again we see your hypocrisy. You hate it when you think we have mischaracterized your opinion, and yet you do it all the time.
In fact, what I was saying should be clear even to someone like you, but I'll go through it step by step as if you were 3, and see if you can follow along, OK?
1) Fact: You mischaracterized our positions as if we were not confident at all about what the Bible says about marriage.
2) Fact: I responded, clarifying, that in fact that was a lie, and I, for one, am very confident about my position.
3) Fact: Then you reply with another lie saying that I think my confidence is noble, while yours is not.
Now I'm replying that you have now lied twice in a row, and yet have the stones to accuse me of anything.
I *am* convinced about what the Bible says, I am simply unconvinced that what the Bible says is what *you* say Doug.
Yet you seem to believe if I disagree with you, I therefore must disagree with the Bible. This is not a fact, it is my opinion based on how you simply attempt to prooftext your arguments, rather than acknowledge that you are, in fact, interpreting.
Is that finally clear to you Doug? If not, I honestly do not see how I could make it clearer.
So, are you going to apologize for and then take back your lies, Doug? Care to stop with the hypocritical whining?
True discussion cannot take place while you continue with your lies and hypocrisy.
"That you TRY suggesting that whole 100% canard, all the while not really believing it, yourselves. "
Exactly Dan. This is a common rhetorical technique of theirs.
1) Make some sort of absurd proposition.
2) We apply that proposition to other situations. After all, if interpretation of Scripture is a numbers game, then that *standard* such as it is, should apply throughout the Bible.
3) Applying that standard to the rest of the Bible turns up any number of situations where it is obviously stupid.
4) Therefore we conclude that it is not a useful standard for interpreting all Scripture.
5) MA and the phonies then decide that we're "off topic" and that they won't answer.
How convenient.
Listen boys, Scripture is Scripture. If you want to invent your own standards of interpretation -- standards I might add that have never been part of the orthodox, traditional understanding of how to interpret Scripture for the last 2000 years -- be my guest. If you want to invent standards of interpretation that you can use sometimes and not other times whenever it is convenient, be my guest.
But don't piss on our heads and call it rain.
This standard of interpretation (ie. majority rules, or the "verse counting" method of interpretation) is not now nor has it ever been how anyone has ever seriously interpreted Scripture.
So feel free to get your knickers in a twist that we find this "standard" (ie. majority rules, or the "verse counting" method of interpretation) unconvincing, random, and capricious. Feel free to lie to yourselves that this whimsical and silly verse-counting method of interpretation is somehow "traditional." Feel free to call us hypocrites when we keep pointing this out.
I don't actually care.
But if you think we're going to be convinced by a "method" of Biblical interpretation even a child would find illogical, inapplicable, and capricious, you are mistaken, particularly when you clearly cannot even address the examples we give which prove your "method" is illogical, inapplicable, and capricious.
The commentary (not what I'd call vast, by the way) on marriage IS significant.
Understand that this seems to be a change in your position. Before, its significance was questionable at best. “Maybe, maybe not.” Now you say it "IS" significant. I'm not sure what changed between then and now, but at least this is good to hear. If this is due to something other than duplicity, fair enough, and I apologize.
But what it isn't is conclusive that your position is right.
Fair enough, but again, I’ve just held that my position with the same conviction that you have held that giving to the poor is good or greed is bad. This isn’t even a question of what the information says in the aggregate (i.e. all the Biblical economics passages, taken together, deal with socialism), but a case of it saying one thing, quite specifically in the very first book, and not deviating from it in the least from front to back. That it never bothers to say what marriage is not speaks to, I believe, how firm it insists on what it already said it is.
That you TRY suggesting that whole 100% canard, all the while not really believing it, yourselves. You DON'T think it a good thing to demand a rapist marry his victim, do you?
I think Art pretty much covered this, but I will say a couple of things. First, my noting the 100% thing has, in the latter part of this conversation, for purposes of clarity, been paired with the idea that it’s not 100% of a little, but 100% of quite a lot of Bible that deals with marriage (which, as we agree, is significant).
Second, while some of the mentions of homosexuality in the Bible talk about it being moral issue, the handling of rapist and victim is not. As Alan has noted, there are different types of laws in the OT; some moral, some civic, and some just for Israel. Which is this? That’s a topic for debate, but the fine imposed in addition to the requirement to marry sounds an awful lot like a civic law. (There is no sin, that I’m aware of, that has a specific monetary penalty such as “50 shekels”.) Meanwhile, while some mentions of homosexuality do mention what is likely a civic penalty, others are very much moral pronouncements. So your harping on this subject vs the totality of the Biblical treatment of sexuality and marriage is odd, because how I feel about the former doesn’t change the latter, in light of the volume of treatment given to each, and the civic vs moral issue.
But I would ask you, is your religion really just a series of “hunches”? Indeed, there are questions that are not answered clearly in the Bible, but there are some that very much are. Caring for widows and orphans is, I think, one of those questions. What marriage is, is also, I think, one of them. I understand that you don’t, and we’re not changing minds here today. But if someone were to suggest that the God doesn’t care what I do with my money, wouldn’t you agree that the burden of proof would be on them to overcome all that the Bible says on that very subject? Would you be satisfied with, as you used, a verse suggesting we think good thoughts, or one just as marginally (un)related, as one that buttresses their point and counters all the specificity about economics? I see the issue of marriage the same way. The Bible is very specific and very talkative on marriage. There is a high bar to clear for someone to overcome all that; the same high bar as there would be for someone to claim my money is my own to deal with.
"The Bible is very specific and very talkative on marriage. "
No one is arguing about that.
You're attempting, Doug, to suggest that there is an analogy between someone saying "God doesn’t care what I do with my money" and "God doesn't care what I do with my marriage."
But since I don't think anyone here is saying that God doesn't care about marriage, your analogy is faulty.
Nice try though, and at least it is less obvious as a rhetorical trick than some of your previous attempts.
By the way, I don't quite get how anyone could read this post, all the comments, and be aware of all the other posts on marriage (and all the comments therein) and yet still conclude that Dan or any of us think that "its significance was questionable at best."
You can't possibly be serious with that.
(Yes, I read the "Maybe. Maybe not." comment that you refer to, and I also don't see how anyone could possibly get out of it what you're reading into it. Not even remotely. It doesn't even work in or out of context. It doesn't make any sense at all. None. But then, I doubt it really matters to you what we *actually* say.)
Doug...
I would ask you, is your religion really just a series of “hunches”?
To the extent that I can't "prove" that we are saved by grace, or that marriage is good, regardless of orientation, or that it is more blessed to give than to receive, or that we are to turn the other cheek, etc, etc, my faith system IS certainly my/our opinion. A hunch, if you will.
The more solidly I can physically, logically see some component of my faith and beliefs, the more solid my support is for it. I DO think that some things are self-evident - that we ought not harm or oppress others, that grace-filled lives DO save us, that mercy is better than sacrifice, that the sabbath is made for humanity, not the other way around, etc - and are easier to stand by logically speaking.
But a God of the universe who cares for each and every one of us, who invites us ALL to sit at his banquet table, and especially the least of these, who is willing to forgive even the worst of us and in us!, no, I can't prove that. It is my subjective opinion, one that I find reasonable, if not provable.
Is your faith system something more than your opinion?
Is your faith system something more than your opinion?
Our denomination's Bible Quizzing material for next year is Hebrews and 1 & 2 Peter. When we get to chapter 11, I have, after this discussion, decided on a topic for the devotions that week.
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Doesn't mean we can't be wrong or change our minds. We are human, indeed. But barring something to the contrary, I am certain that God is God, and is willing to forgive us. And I am sure that what the Bible says is true, over and over, in many different ways and contexts, is indeed true.
Aaaaaaaand, as usual, when he can't answer questions, Doug ignores them.
When he is caught in a hypocritical web of his own making, Doug ignores it.
157 comments later and there's been much heat, but no light.
What was the point again? Dan has answered several times why he engages with the trolls. However, Doug, I'm wondering why exactly you bother.
Post a Comment