The point of this post is simply to review what the Bible does (and doesn't) say about the people of Sodom, and why specifically they were known for their wickedness, at least as recorded in the Bible. There are many (myself included, once upon a time) who have it fixed like a stone in their head that the "sin of Sodom" was homosexuality.
By reviewing the Biblical accounts that touch on Sodom, we will see that the Bible itself literally, factually, demonstrably nowhere makes this case. Rather, it is the case that traditionalists have had this opinion of it and that is what they/we read into it... oftentimes so strongly that we can not see that it is literally not there.
I'm omitting the Biblical references that merely mention the name Sodom, without any context or commentary on the nature of the people there. Instead, I'm looking only at the passages that talk about why Sodom had its evil reputation.
From the Beginning, then...
[Gen 13, no mention of details, only that they were wicked...]
The two men parted company: Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.
[Gen 14 contains a story about a battle between various nations where Abram's nephew, Lot, was kidnapped by these other kingdoms as well as people and goods from Sodom. Abrams staged a raid and rescued Lot and others. Afterwards, the king of Sodom requested that Abram and he split the goods and people rescued. Abram responded that he'd only take what was his, that he didn't want anything from Sodom. But that's all that's stated.]
[Gen 18 is the story of Abram pleading for the sake of Sodom, because there are at least a few decent people living there... God reports that God is going to check out Sodom, to see if they're really as bad as rumored (interesting aside: the omnipotent God doesn't appear to know how bad they are, taken literally). Again, literally no specifics about the "sins of Sodom..."]
Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”
[Gen 19, the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. We find that Lot is living in Sodom and is visited by "messengers" who are supposed to be angels from God. In the story, the "men of Sodom" surround Lot's house...]
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
“Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
[That passage above, Gen 19, is the one people cite when they think about Sodom being destroyed because of homosexuality, or "homosexual behavior," some people will distinguish. But look at it, there is literally NO mention of homosexuality. Instead, what you see is an attempted gang rape.
And indeed, gang rape is bad, wicked, wrong, no doubt. But, gang rape is not an indictment on sexuality itself. Consider (and, if you're going to comment here, answer this question): IF you read a text that talks about the evil of rape, male on female... do you recognize that as an indictment on heterosexuality? Would you say of that text, "Clearly then, we see that heterosexuality is being condemned in that passage..."?
No, of course you wouldn't. No one should, anyway. Recognizing the evil of rape is not at all to say that, "and thus, sexuality is itself evil..." That would be an exactly wrong and awful conclusion to reach.
So, no reasonable person can say, "Because this story contains a reference to an attempted male-on-male gang rape, that is clearly saying that Sodom was destroyed, at least in part, due to homosexuality." That conclusion simply can NOT rise out of that passage. That is an example of reading INTO the passage something that is literally not there.
So, so far, we have seen that Sodom was considered evil, but with no direct references to what they did there that made them evil. NOW, we can see that at least one thing that made them evil was that they were all ("all the men [and boys] of the city of Sodom") willing to engage in gang rape. The story so far does not SAY that is why Sodom was destroyed, but the destruction comes following that and, I think most reasonable people will agree that gang rape IS an evil thing.]
[The next few references to Sodom are all more or less like this passage from Isaiah 1, where it is a general comparison of bad nations to the evil nation of Sodom. These point out that Sodom was bad, but does not go into details...]
Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us some survivors,
we would have become like Sodom...
[...or this one, in Isaiah 3, that alludes to arrogance and obviousness of their sin, but not to specifics...]
Jerusalem staggers,
Judah is falling;
their words and deeds are against the Lord,
defying his glorious presence.
The look on their faces testifies against them;
they parade their sin like Sodom;
they do not hide it.
Woe to them!
They have brought disaster upon themselves.
[Then, in Ezekiel 16, we have something that is more specific that explains WHY Sodom was evil and destroyed...]
our older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom. You not only followed their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they. As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom:
She and her daughters were arrogant,
overfed and
unconcerned;
they did not help the poor and needy.
They were haughty and did detestable things before me.
Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.
[And so, HERE we have some specifics and, lo and behold, not once is "homosexuality" or "homosexual behavior" mentioned. Not one time.
Now, there are vague references to doing "detestable things" and one could GUESS that MAYBE it was a reference to "homosexual behavior," but it is literally not there. That would be a guess from out of the blue. Like, "It says "detestable things..." that MUST be talking about twerking and doing the salsa!" would be a guess from out of the blue, not based upon the text, but, well, not based on anything, just a wild guess.
Clearly, the sins that lead that list are at least relatively clear: Being wealthy and, in that wealth, being overfed and unconcerned with the poor and needy. THAT is a pretty specific explanation of what brought about Sodom's downfall literally from the text.
Guesses about "maybe it's speaking of 'homosexual behaviors...'" are just that, wild guesses, NOT from the text, but from prejudice and traditions.]
[Beyond that, the rest of the Sodom references in the Bible are of the sort that were general warnings, "Be careful or you'll end up destroyed like Sodom..." with no specifics. There IS one verse in the NT that is in that vein, but offers something more specific. From Jude 1...]
In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns
gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.
[Here, we have a reference to "sexual immorality and perversion," that at least COULD be referencing homosexual behavior, if you wanted to make that guess. But it could be referencing gang rapes (which we know had been attempted). It could be just general licentiousness. It could be using children for sexual purposes, which we know was a problem in these areas in these times. It could have been many things and there is literally NOTHING in the text that suggests it should be interpreted as "homosexual behaviors."
And that is the point of this post, that and no more. That the traditional hunches that 'the sin of Sodom" included - or were mainly - related to "gay behavior" is literally not found in the Bible. It just isn't there. At all. Not hinted at. Not alluded to. Certainly not clearly affirmed.
Those who embrace that human hunch do so because of tradition, NOT because of the text, because the text clearly, literally does not contain that suggestion.
I will just note that, as I have said in the past, it was THIS realization - that no matter how strongly I believed that "the sin of Sodom" was/included "homosexual behavior," it's simply not there in the text of the Bible - it was that realization that began me down the road to changing my position on homosexuality and Christianity, from the more traditional one to what I hold to now.]
63 comments:
You're lying again.
Imagine my surprise and excitement at hearing this is your hunch/unproven claim.
Of course, I'm not lying and you have no data to demonstrate that I'm lying (since I'm not lying, how could you?) and the question would be, what could I possibly be lying about? That the recognition that this passage does NOT speak to "gay behavior" began my change from the position I held to the one I hold now is a simple matter of historic reality.
That the verses no where say ANYTHING about "gay behavior" or homosexuality itself is a simple matter of observation. IF you read the texts involved, it simply isn't there.
So, of course, I'm not lying and there is no evidence that I'm lying and, as a demonstrable point of fact in the real world, your claim is, itself, a false claim.
No need to posit here more false claims. IF you have a passage about Sodom that says, "You know, those men in Sodom were stinkin' gay guys and THAT is why they were destroyed... all that gay sex did it!" then you could point it out. But as a point of reality, you don't have that. That verse doesn't exist.
As a point of reality in the real world, those of you/us who find "gay behavior" in these passages ARE reading it into the passages, because it's just not there.
Oh yeah. That's right.
"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city---both young and old---surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Yeah. No "gay" behavior there, boy. None whatsoever.
Even if their intention was "gang rape" as opposed to simply having sex with the "two men", which the passage does not in any way indicate, that would be "gang rape" of men by men. Here in truth and honesty land, that's "gay" behavior.
More later. Or will you delete this as it exposes your falseness once again on this issue?
So, you go home tonight with two buddies, guy friends from work. After you get home, all the guys on your block see you walking in with the two guys and they surround your house - dozens of them! - and say to you, "Marshall, bring out those two guys who we do not know and who, presumably are not interested in sex with complete strangers, much less group sex with complete strangers, much less, just because we're 'asking' them to... bring them out so we (all these dozens of men) can all have sex with those two men..."
In that scenario, does that sound like rational, consensual behavior? Or does it sound threatening and forced?
Don't be ridiculous! Of course, that was an "invitation" to a gang rape. You'd recognize it if it were happening to you, I have to believe.
Regardless, that is NOT "homosexual behavior..." Normal gay folk do not engage in that behavior. Only in your fevered imagination, perhaps, but not in the real world.
It was an attempted gang rape, in the context of the story. I think even Stan would agree with that, but you can ask him. It was NOT "homosexual behavior..." Literally, not. Not in the text. You HAVE to recognize, don't you, that you are reading that INTO the text, that it literally isn't there?
You're reading that story that, I think, even you admit ends up being an attempted gang rape, and saying, "It does NOT SAY IT IN THE TEXT, but I THINK that it's clearly talking about normal consensual gay behavior in the first part of the story..."
The key part being, "YOU THINK" it's talking about it... but it's literally not there in the text.
Do you recognize that reality?
" "Marshall, bring out those two guys who we do not know and who, presumably are not interested in sex with complete strangers, much less group sex with complete strangers, much less, just because we're 'asking' them to... bring them out so we (all these dozens of men) can all have sex with those two men...""
That's nothing like how the story is laid out. But even in your narrowly framed and self-serving invention, there's no hint of intention with regard to gang rape. What's more, I would find it hard to even imagine that "all the guys on my block" are homosexual or eager to engage in homosexual behavior, much less likely to approach even people they do know in such a manner.
"In that scenario, does that sound like rational, consensual behavior?"
You can't even ask if it's consensual until there is a response to the request, for which your "scenario" doesn't wait to hear.
"Or does it sound threatening and forced?"
Once again, you're trying to assert that simply because there were so many that they "surrounded the house" that the "surrounding" implies a threat, when it could just as easily be eagerness on the part of all the men from every part of the city---both young and old, to get to know either my work mates or the two angels the Sodomites thought were just visitors. You want it to have been a planned gang rape in order to push the homosexual agenda with regard to this story. You talk about honest people "reading into the story" that it was about homosexuality, when it is YOU and other pro-homosexual liars who force this premeditated "gang rape" intention into the story.
"Don't be ridiculous! Of course, that was an "invitation" to a gang rape."
Bullshit. You're forcing the notion of gang rape on what which, until Lot refuses their request, can only be honestly regarded as a desire for "group sex". Could you insist their intention was gang rape had they simply turned away after Lot denied them? This is what you refuse to acknowledge in your corrupt desire to protect homosexual behavior against God's description of it as an abomination...WITHOUT regard to ANY scenario or context in which it might take place.
"Regardless, that is NOT "homosexual behavior...""
Of course it is. Heterosexual men don't seek to have group sex with men.
"Normal gay folk do not engage in that behavior."
First off, you don't know enough homosexuals to presume you know what for them is normal.
Secondly, you aren't knowledgeable enough about the subject to suggest you know with absolute certainty that there is such a thing as "normal gay folk". Far worse, you have threatened to delete any comments where the question of homosexuals as "normal" is in doubt, despite there never having been any scientific reasoning behind the psychiatric community deciding that they are. As such, integrity, honor and yes, even Christian grace (by your definition of it, whatever that is) demands that any mention either way of homosexuals as normal should be forever off the table. It is unfair to speak of them as such if I am prevented from expressing the opposing view.
"You HAVE to recognize, don't you, that you are reading that INTO the text, that it literally isn't there?"
No. Once again, men wishing to have group sex with men is homosexual behavior, NOT heterosexual behavior. Even if you want to call it deviant or criminal, it is men having sex with men which is homosexual behavior by definition. It is YOU who HAS TO recognize it, but you don't have the honesty and integrity to do so, because of your agenda of promoting certain expressions of homosexual behavior as worthy of God's blessing, when there is no such thing.
"The key part being, "YOU THINK" it's talking about it... but it's literally not there in the text."
More bullshit. The fact is that you want and need me to "think" I see what isn't there. I relate the story as it is laid out and infer from it in the only way the passage allows to honest people with no agenda. There is nothing that suggests rape is the intention no matter how desperately you need for it to be so. It becomes that only AFTER Lot refused their request, which he did because homosexual behavior is sinful. It is you who reads into the story what isn't there, not me.
Look, the text LITERALLY no where states "These guys were engaging in 'homosexual behavior,' therefore, they were all killed."
YOU read the text and YOU deduce, "That was an example of gay behavior."
I (and right thinking people) read the text and WE deduce, "That was an attempted gang rape, clearly..."
We are BOTH/ALL surmising a conclusion that is literally not stated.
Do you recognize that reality?
If you can at least recognize that reality, then that's a starting point. If you think that your conclusion IS what the text says, you're delusional on the point.
If you can recognize reality, then the next step is to help you recognize that this was not a sweet romantic night out on the town for the gay guys, it was, as described clearly in the text, an attempted rape.
But there's no point dwelling on that point if you can't at least begin with recognizing reality.
~Dan
As a somewhat disinterested observer, I want to point out the obvious.
Art is making the assumption that men having sex with men is homosexual behavior by definition.
Dan is making the assumption that it’s simply “gang rape” not “homosexual gang rape”.
I’d point out that it’s a mistake to impose our 21st century notions of things on events in antiquity. I’d also point out that doing so would necessitate acknowledgement of the vast amount of evidence that suggests that monogamy is definitely not the norm in the western gay culture. Not that “gang rape” is normal or accepted, but neither is monogamy in the usual meaning of the word.
The text does NOT in any way NEED to use the term "homosexual behavior" in order for honest people to note that men having sex with men, by consent or by force, is by definition homosexual behavior.
And nothing in the text puts forth the notion that the intention of the Sodomites was to rape, but simply to engage in homosexual behavior with the angels. There is no special ability needed to see the obvious. There is a special desire to distort for the sake of protecting a pro-homosexual position...which is what you, Dan, are doing. No matter how many times you try to restate the false premise, there is nothing in the story that suggests rape wasn't the result of Lot's intercession, rather than the initial intention. It became rape according to the way the story is related, but the intention was simply to engage in group sex. Perhaps you can point to where the intentions of the Sodomites to rape were made known before Lot's refusal. Surrounding the house won't cut it. That, too, does not denote intention other than to express that all the men were there.
One question, Marshall: IF there is an attempted gang rape, guys on girl, is that rape a heterosexual behavior or is it just a violent rape?
(Hint: The right answer is that it's a violent rape, an act of violence, not an expression of one's sexual orientation... indeed, if "all the men" of Sodom showed up, then that means ~90% of those men attempting gang rape were straight guys, if percentages hold true across cultures and time.)
After re reading the text as posted by Dan. It seems as though the notion of tape isn’t definitively present in the text. It’s a logical inference, I suspect it would have ended up as rape had the angels been handed over, but at most its (in modern terms) attempted rape or conspiracy to commit rape. But nowhere do I see that the text demands a conclusion of rape.
All that aside, men raping men, does seem to fit the definition of homosexual sex.
One question, Craig: IF there is an attempted gang rape, guys on girl, is that rape a heterosexual behavior or is it just a violent rape?
Please answer directly.
As a somewhat disinterested observer, I want to point out the obvious...
Given the great harm done by the church in the oppression of gay and lesbian folk in large part due to the misrepresentation of "the sin of Sodom..." and given that you're part of the church, I'm not sure why you'd be disinterested. Here's your chance to help end the oppressive history of the church towards homosexual folk by merely pointing out the obvious: That, in the Bible, there is no de facto claim of homosexual behavior being part of the "sin of Sodom..."
If, on the other hand, you just want to continue to support that oppressive history, it would make more sense why you'd count yourself as "disinterested..."
It’s both a heterosexual behavior and a violent rape.
I’m more disinterested in your poorly reasoned, repetitive, eisegesis and the pablum you spout as if it was serious study.
Of course, if you could offer definitive proof that your hunches are more likely to be objectively true than other options, that would be different. Or if you could offer one citation from any biblical (or Hebrew, or the Apocrypha), that spoke of homosexual behavior as either positive or neutral, that would be different.
Look, I’m sorry if pointing out where you guys are reading things into the text is a problem for you, but..,
So, the rape is about heterosexual behavior and therefore, heterosexual behavior should always be condemned?
You see, the problem is you are speaking from a place of privilege. It's never been unacceptable or considered "evil" to be heterosexual, so saying that rape is a "heterosexual behavior" (besides being a nonsensical thing to say, it's a violent attack, it's not about the sex, it's about the violence) is that you don't have people then saying, "Aha! Then ban straight sex! It is evil and those who engage in it are hellions, demon-spawn, bound for hell!" You can say "it's about straight sex" without worrying about the attacks that come from looking at it that way.
Gay folk don't have that privilege.
Again, in reality, literally, there is nowhere in the bible that says Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality.
Do you recognize that reality?
Again, in reality, literally, there is nowhere in the bible that says the "sin of Sodom" was homosexual behavior.
Do you recognize that reality?
Are you yet prepared to speak out against the false claims made by many that say just that?
he pablum you spout as if it was serious study.
I'm just observing what is and isn't literally there. No pablum.
Do you think that recognizing what literally is and isn't there is pablum?
f you could offer one citation from any biblical (or Hebrew, or the Apocrypha), that spoke of homosexual behavior as either positive or neutral, that would be different.
I don't NEED to find a bible verse to state what is obvious and observable. People exercising their sexuality in healthy ways is OBVIOUSLY positive. It's healthy. It promotes good feelings, good self esteem, stronger humans and stronger communities.
Do you need a Bible verse to tell you obvious things? Do you need a Bible verse that tells you sucking on a running automobile tailpipe and inhaling the toxins it spews is bad for you? Do you need a Bible verse that tells you that exercise is good for you?
Please answer all these questions, beginning with that last, if you are going to comment further.
Thanks.
If you're going to comment, please answer the questions asked of you. It will help you from making silly false claims like the ones that were just deleted. You see, that's one of the benefits of asking questions that are asked of you... you can make yourself clear.
One comment that Craig made that helps enforce what he's getting wrong...
All you can do is appeal to your (personal, individual, fallible, flawed, fallen, human) Reason as the arbiter of what’s sexually “healthy”.
it's literally all you can do, as well. Of course we appeal to reason, it's what we do when we're striving to make a reasonable case for or against something. When you make your case for stuff, even when you make your "biblical" case (i.e., cite verses as if that proves anything), you are using your (personal, individual, fallible, flawed, fallen, human) Reason to explain why that matters.
Behaviors are observably healthy when they observably contribute to a more healthy, whole, well-rounded, satisfied life. That's going with what's observable, not just some made up hunch about what your god might or might not think.
Not that it’ll do any good, but please point out one specific false claim I made, along with proof it’s false.
Oh, I did answer your question. I just pointed out how you twisted what I actually, provably, observably said into something entirely different.
But, if hiding behind the delete button protects you, be my guest. Just be honest about it.
sigh. Why?
But okay, you said, in the deleted comment,
"See, what you did there was to take what I actually said, and re phrase it into something completely different from what a literally, actually said."
I literally did not do that. I QUOTED you and responded to your literal words. Like this:
CRAIG:
"The pablum you spout as if it was serious study."
MY RESPONSE:
"I'm just observing what is and isn't literally there. No pablum."
I responded to your literal words, quoted, copied and pasted from you. I literally changed nothing. Their YOUR words and I responded to what YOU said.
Here again:
CRAIG:
"If you could offer one citation from any biblical (or Hebrew, or the Apocrypha), that spoke of homosexual behavior as either positive or neutral, that would be different."
MY RESPONSE:
"I don't NEED to find a bible verse to state what is obvious and observable. People exercising their sexuality in healthy ways is OBVIOUSLY positive."
Your words, literally quoted. I responded to YOUR words. I didn't change a thing. I did not rephrase it.
I'm guessing you're responding to MY QUESTION about your position...
"the rape is about heterosexual behavior and therefore, heterosexual behavior should always be condemned?"
But that ISN'T rephrasing what you said. It's quite literally ASKING you (note the squiggly little question mark at the end...) to clarify if that's what you're saying.
Ready to apologize?
It's doubtful.
Dan
Apologize for treating a rhetorical question as a rhetorical question, sure, why not.
And yes, a man raping a woman is heterosexual sex. Just like a man raping a man is homosexual sex.
I’m sorry that little bit of reality gets in the way of you trying to “prove” that which isn’t can’t be proven.
Just a reminder, you have a list of questions waiting answers. If you want to comment here, please engage in respectful dialog and answer the questions put to you. The last one, for instance:
Do you need a Bible verse to tell you obvious things? Do you need a Bible verse that tells you sucking on a running automobile tailpipe and inhaling the toxins it spews is bad for you? Do you need a Bible verse that tells you that exercise is good for you?
Rape is an act of violence, not a reflection of one's healthy sexuality.
No, but it’s the best option for insight on what God thinks.
No, but there are Biblical principles that would encourage people not to engage in behavior that is harmful.
Ahhhh, the goalposts get moved. I never, ever, not in any, way, shape or form indicated that rape is “a reflection of one’s healthy sexuality”. But if putting words in my mouth helps you, go for it.
No, as I’ve said, rape is both heterosexual sexual behavior and a violent act. How difficult is it to acknowledge the reality, while condemning the violent act?
Yes, I realize the reality that homosexuality was only one aspect of the abominable behavior that resulted in the judgement of Sodom.
I realize that conflating your opinion based on your flawed, fallen, human Reason as “reality”, is problematic. Thus, it’s pablum. Poorly studied, researched, shallow, unconvincing pablum.
That takes care of your questions, still waiting for one teeny, tiny bit of scriptural support for the notion that “homosexual activity” is “healthy”. As in, always healthy in all circumstances.
I had asked...
Do you need a Bible verse to tell you obvious things? Do you need a Bible verse that tells you sucking on a running automobile tailpipe and inhaling the toxins it spews is bad for you? Do you need a Bible verse that tells you that exercise is good for you?
To which Craig responded...
No. but it’s the best option for insight on what God thinks.
SAYS CRAIG. God didn't tell you this. God didn't write it to you in a book. It's something YOU REASONED OUT in your head, based mostly upon what your tradition tells you, not what the Bible says, since the Bible does not say this. At all. Literally does not say that.
Do you recognize this reality? That this is a conclusion YOU reasoned yourself to, not what the Bible or God literally has told you?
But returning to the first part of the answer. No. That part is correct. We DO NOT NEED a verse in the Bible to tell us things that are observably obvious.
So, given that you and I agree that we do NOT need a verse in the Bible to tell us obvious things, and given that it's obvious that people having the choice to marry who they wish and to enjoy a satisfying healthy relationship (at least to me and many others, if not you), why would you suggest I need to offer a Bible verse to support what seems obvious?
If you could offer one citation from any biblical (or Hebrew, or the Apocrypha), that spoke of homosexual behavior as either positive or neutral, that would be different...
Why? Why would that make a difference? Before that question, you asked...
if you could offer definitive proof that your hunches are more likely to be objectively true than other options, that would be different.
I'm offering you the opinion of experts. I'm offering you the opinion of people involved in healthy, loving, satisfying and beautiful marriages whose lives are better now that they have that option available to them... the option to be self-determining in seeking out their life's mate without being prevented by the state or the church from doing so.
Cont'd...
The experts...
"this study presents evidence that marriage, regardless of whom it involves, has empirical benefits for most."
https://www.studyfinds.org/lgbt-married-health-study/
"Through survey materials measuring physical and emotional well-being, couples who'd tied the knot or were in a long-term committed relationship fared better than singles. But married couples did the best of all."
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/gay-marriage-boosts-happiness-health-study-article-1.3053017
And just think it through for yourself: IF you were denied the option of being able to marry the person you want, enjoy sex, companionship and life with that person... IF in fact you were demonized and attacked for even suggesting you want that... if your family and church rejected you and told you that this decision would send you to hell to burn for eternity... IF you were a part of a community who'd been told this for hundreds and thousands of years... doesn't it seem reasonable that removing that level of oppression and demonization and opening up the freedom of choice in the matter... doesn't it just make sense that you'd be both healthier and happier? That society would be better for it?
It's just reasonable, if you aren't blinded to the possibility of it by human tradition. Of course it's reasonable to assume, given the research and given just basic common sense, that one would be healthier and happier given that freedom (as freedoms tend to bring happiness and contentment, as opposed to being denied freedoms against your choice).
So, you APPEAR to agree that no, I don't have to offer a biblical verse to support what is obvious. And, well, the evidence is there that this freedom to marry is a healthier and happier choice, and thus, should be obvious.
So, now,
if you could offer definitive proof that your hunches are more likely to be objectively true than other options, that would be different. Or If you could offer one citation from any biblical (or Hebrew, or the Apocrypha), that spoke of homosexual behavior as either positive or neutral, that would be different...
I've offered compelling proof, expert opinion and reasonable observation, so no need to offer a Biblical verse, right? That you disagree with the experts and what seems obviously reasonable to many is not evidence that I need to offer anything further. Rather, it seems like now the onus would be on you to present some case as to why people SHOULDN'T enjoy the freedom to make themselves happier and healthier via marriage to the person of their choice.
But don't do it here, that's not the topic here.
Rather, the topic is just that I pointed out the reality that the verses in the Bible about Sodom do not ever say that one of the sins of Sodom was homosexual behavior or that it was destroyed, at least in part, because of homosexual behavior.
Thanks for answering the questions.
One reason I think it’s reasonable for you to cite scripture to support your claims, is your repeated insistence that God “blesses” gay marriages or the gay marriage is specifically covered in the “good, noble...” list you trot out. Until you stop trying to give God’s imprimatur to homosexual acts, I’m going to ask you to support that with scripture.
And, no. I’m not going to dignify your switch from homosexual acts to gay marriage with a significant response.
You’ve offered proof regarding what fallible, imperfect humans, believe to be true. Yet, you offer human opinion to bolster your claims about God “blessing” or approving of gay marriage.
Here’s the deal. If you want to stop invoking God in the discussion of homosexual activities and simply admit that you are asserting your personal opinion based on your observations, great.
But, if you insist on invoking what God thinks or blesses, you would need something beyond two random links.
I’m sure your links are much better than the CDC study about disproportionate rates of domestic violence in the gay community.
Marshall, you have some questions to answer before adding additional comments.
Craig, it is MY opinion that, given the observable goodness of people being married (gay or straight), that a good God would indeed bless them because, reasonably, a good God blesses good things.
If you want to argue that what is clear (that it's observably good that people having the liberty to choose who to marry and that they benefit from healthy committed relationships), feel free to try to make that case on your blog. It's not the point here. Clearly, you are mistaken if you are making that suggestion. Just look at reality. But go be wrong elsewhere, if you want to be wrong. It's off topic, here.
And here's the deal: I've ALWAYS been clear that it is MY OPINION that God would bless good things, like marriage.
Now, will you likewise stand up and be clear that it is YOUR opinion that God would oppose two gay gals marrying, or adopting children or raising children (IF that is your opinion). Or clear up and say you think that it's entirely likely that God would bless such a sweet and loving arrangement.
No more comments until you clarify that, 1. It is YOUR OPINION that God opposes gay folks marrying, not anything like a known fact or 2. That you are on the side of reason and morality and, in your opinion, it's reasonable to surmise that a good God would bless/approve of gay folk marrying.
In either case, it will be your opinion, of course, as it is my opinion. Which I've always been clear about.
And don't be a dick and try to invoke a CDC study about domestic violence and try to suggest that, without any data, there is a causative correlation to being gay and domestic violence. A shallow look at data is just that. Shallow.
No more comments until you clarify that, 1. It is YOUR OPINION that God opposes gay folks marrying, not anything like a known fact or 2. That you are on the side of reason and morality and, in your opinion, it's reasonable to surmise that a good God would bless/approve of gay folk marrying.
Please answer questions, Marshall. I'm trying to engage in a respectful, two way conversation, but if you refuse to answer questions, that isn't dialog, it's rants and silly ad hom attacks. Like this one that was just deleted...
OK, coward. Go ahead and delete while pretending you care about honest discourse.
Expecting that the other participant in a dialog would actually, you know, respond to reasonable, respectful questions is just rational and, if the other participant refuses to answer these questions, then deleting other comments until they do is not an irrational approach to trying to engage in honest discourse.
Feel free to disagree. There is a simple solution to all this, of course: Simply answer the questions asked of you.
I guess the inherent contradiction in forbidding me from commenting, while demanding that I do what you want.
1. It my informed opinion, based on more than adequate Biblical texts, the overwhelming testimony of Church history, and the specific words of Jesus, that marriage (from a Biblical, Christian, Jewish perspective) is one man married to one woman for life. I’m drawing a distinction between the Christian sacrament of marriage and the civil institution of marriage. While I disagree with gay marriage as a civil matter, I respect the right of the civil government to legislate these things, and realize that I won’t agree with every law.
2. In the absence of any direct evidence to support your proposition, I personally don’t find it reasonable to insist on things about God without any actual direct support.
Of course, the problem is your substitution of gay marriage for homosexual behavior as the central issue.
I will say that from a societal sense, it’s better (relatively) for two gay people to enter into a exclusive monogamous relationship instead of engaging in unfettered promiscuous sex. But that’s a societal opinion, not Biblical.
1. And it is my informed opinion, based on MORE than adequate Biblical text and just plain common sense, using the reason that God gave us to use, that of course, it is a good and holy and wonderful thing to support two folk marrying, gay or straight.
It is further my informed opinion that "church" tradition has got it wrong on slavery, wrong on women's rights, wrong on the notion of Sola Scriptura, wrong on engaging in war... wrong on a number of issues, so citing church tradition is hardly a safe source for solid moral conclusions. It's certainly something to consider, but hell, even YOU think that "the church" (i.e., the Catholic Church that dominated much of Church history until the Reformation) got it wrong on a number of points, quite serious points. So, I think good solid reason would say "church tradition alone is not sufficient for me to stick with a position, especially when it is so clearly wrong, like it was on slavery, on women's rights, and yes, on human liberty for gay folk.
2. Likewise, in the lack of any direct evidence to support your apparent position (still, you don't make yourself clear) to suggest that God would oppose gay folk marrying.
Imagine "the gays" relief that you grudgingly allow that maybe it perhaps is SLIGHTLY better for gay folk to marry than be promiscuous. They send their thanks to your progressive self, bubba.
1. Just one text that speaks of homosexual activity in a neutral or positive tone and I’d be open to convincing. If you could just leave God out.,,
2. My direct position is, that scripture is clear on the sinfulness of homosexual activity, therefore arguing that marriage somehow sanctifies sinful behavior makes no sense.
I’m sure that William Wilberforce in the thousands of Christians that fought to end of slavery, will be called gratified to know that you think they are wrong. Unfortunately until you can demonstrate that the church was actually wrong on your laundry list of social issues. Your opinions leave me I’m convinced. Especially given the fact that all of those tea and some instance your opinions leave me I’m convinced. Especially given the fact that all of those instances are examples of people moving away from scripture in the nam of the Church. What you have is people who used reason, and followed their society, instead of focusing on scripture.
1. Just one text that speaks of homosexual activity in a neutral or positive tone and I’d be open to convincing. If you could just leave God out.,,
We've already covered this. WHY?
If it is completely crystal clear evident to me based on a variety of data that there are positive aspects to our human sexuality, gay or straight or otherwise, WHY do I need to find a verse to back it up? You have already agreed that there is no need to find a bible verse for something that is extremely obvious.
Likewise, WHY? Why should I "leave God out..."? Simply because you disagree with my reasoning?
No, thank you.
Or reversing it: JUST ONE TEXT that speaks of the wrongfulness of ALL gay behavior - including loving committed relationships - in the bible and I'd be open to convincing. But you can't do it. IT doesn't exist. ALL that you have is a bunch of church tradition, in a church made up of fallible human beings that have been wrong on many points in the past.
WHY should I do for you what you can't do for me? Why do I need to, if it's obvious and you've already agreed that there is no need to provide biblical proof texts for notions that are obvious?
You can cite one person that fought against slavery who was a Christian in the 18th (?) century and that is somehow evidence that the church was never okay with slavery?
Of course, if you are aware of church history and history in general, you'd know that the church (and society, at large) for centuries accepted slavery as an acceptable practice. Are you aware of that? Or do you think that "the Church," writ large, was definitively against the enslavement of people from the year 0?
Are you aware of the oppression and treatment of women as second class citizens (or worse, property!) throughout much of church history?
I can't believe you don't know this, but you tell me.
“Why?”
1. Because your trying to speak for God, while ignoring one on the primary forms God uses to communicate with us.
2. Because you can’t do it, and I know you can’t.
3. Because of the increasingly inventive excuses you come up with to justify your inability.
I can certainly cite at least one verse, and you’ll engage in creative eisegesis to disagree. The point is, I indeed can do so, you can’t.
As to your ignorance of the abolition movement, I can’t help that.
Actually, the slavery issue makes my point. Much of the church did err on slavery for a period of time, yet the abolition of slavery came mostly through the church. So yes, the fallible, fallen, humans who trust in fallible, fallen human Reason and align themselves with society instead of Jesus sometimes err. Yet, the Holy Spirit working through other humans provides the necessary corrections.
I guess when those folk trusted in their Reason (which contradicted scripture) they were wrong, yet somehow you think you’ll do it better than they.
Marshall, you have questions to answer before you can comment here.
Craig, last chance for you:
1. Because your trying to speak for God, while ignoring one on the primary forms God uses to communicate with us.
1. I have stated that it is REASONABLE to conclude that
IF one accepts the notion of a good God and
IF there is an action that is demonstrably good, healthy, loving, pure and beneficial,
THEN it is reasonable to surmise that a good God would support that.
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS CONCEPT? I believe you've already answered that yes, this is reasonable. And so, your first point is blown out of the water BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.
2. Because you can’t do it, and I know you can’t.
2. Because I DO NOT HAVE TO. I do not have ONE SINGLE REASON to provide a Bible verse that says, "vacation days and 40 hour work weeks are good things and surely God would bless that idea, given the data on the health benefits from days off."
Likewise, I DO NOT HAVE TO simply because YOU want me to, provide one single reason to provide a Bible verse that says, "Two lesbian gals marrying, committing to one another in pure love and solidarity and support is a good thing, given the obvious health and emotional benefits from such an arrangement... and surely a good God would bless such a good thing."
Your irrational desire that I should provide a verse in support of something obviously good is an irrational need on your part, not a rational requirement on my part.
3. Because of the increasingly inventive excuses you come up with to justify your inability.
There is nothing "inventive" in the notion of accepting obviously good things as obviously good. Indeed, there is something deviant and dark about finding evil in obviously good things. Be wary.
Your responsibility, now, is to recognize that one does not need to provide a bible verse in support of obviously good things. You've already done so once, please do so again, just to reinforce the point that you've undermined your own argument.
Now, IF you want to try to find some data to suggest that what APPEARS to be obviously good (time off from work, for instance, or two people committing to one another in love and support, for another), you can make that case. But you have not done that and, I'm quite confident, you are completely unable to do that. So, lacking any data to support your irrational and rather dark claim, I'm left with the option of viewing your opinions on the matter as irrelevant and even harmful.
the slavery issue makes my point. Much of the church did err on slavery for a period of time, yet the abolition of slavery came mostly through the church.
I don't think you are understanding the point. The slavery issue UNDERMINES your point. Your point being that church tradition is a reliable defense for holding to an otherwise irrational conclusion. The church, for centuries, accepted both slavery and the oppression of women/treating women as second class citizens or chattel. They did so because they found verses in the Bible that made them think that these things were acceptable, normative and even good.
EVENTUALLY, the church has opened its eyes on slavery and come out (mostly) against it. (Although, I think there are still some - you maybe - who are unwilling to call all slavery/ownership of people evil and wrong, regardless of the type of slavery, feel free to clarify. Some in the church say that since God approved of/commanded slavery in SOME INSTANCES, then slavery must sometimes be a morally acceptable thing... one of the sicknesses with this sort of literalist approach to the Bible).
EVENTUALLY, most of the church has opened most of their eyes on the wrongs of treating women as second class citizens, allowed that women SHOULD be allowed to vote, to work in the job of their choosing, to choose their spouses, to refuse sex... to have their own opinions on matters and not be subservient to men or "their" men in their family.
The point being that the church for hundreds of years was wrong. I'm very glad that the anabaptists, the quakers and other Christians eventually came around to recognizing the evil of slavery and actively worked for its abolition (and really, Craig, that I point to a hole in your reasoning is not evidence that I'm unaware of abolitionism... at least try to be rational in your attacks, brother). But that doesn't change the point that the church, through most of its history was on the wrong side of morality on those issues.
Likewise, the church has been on the wrong side of the oppression of gay folk throughout most of its history. That's changing, at last, and thank God. Join the right side of history/morality on this point, Craig. Think it through.
IF something is obviously good, healthy, producing joy and contentment and beautiful support, THEN it is Good.
Whatsoever things are good, true, pure, holy, just, loving... think on THESE things.
1. Until you can objectively demonstrate that all homosexual sexual activity is “good, loving, healthy, pure, and moral”, your simply basing your entire argument on an assumption.
2. Of course you “don’t have to”, but that doesn’t mitigate the simple, irrefutable, demonstrable fact that you can’t. You’ve tried, you’ve tried to twist scripture to support your other pet causes, but the simple fact is that you can’t.
3. I’m waiting for proof that homosexual sexual activity” is objectively “good”. I’ll gladly give you all the time you need to prove that.
Yes, the parts of the church that supported slavery did see their error, and other parts of the church led the way. Thanks for agreeing.
I hope you realize how stupid the “right side of history” argument is in relationship to God.
The only “right side of history” I hope to be on is the side where God is. If that desire makes me unpopular with people like you who are concerned about how society sees them, I’m ok with that.
If something is (objectively) “good, healthy, etc”, then proving that should be easy.
I look at the data and follow that.
I just doesn’t seem “pure, or loving” to encourage people to engage in behaviors that data shows to be unhealthy.
1. Until you can objectively demonstrate that all homosexual sexual activity is “good, loving, healthy, pure, and moral”, your simply basing your entire argument on an assumption.
Do you recognize the reality that I have NOT made the argument that "all homosexual activity" is good? Of course, not all homosexual activity is good, any more than all heterosexual activity is good.
DO YOU REALIZE THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT?
Rather, I'm stating that the data shows that happy marriages, gay or straight, tend to make for healthier, happier, more fulfilled people, lives and communities. The data is there for that claim.
DO YOU ANY REASON TO DOUBT THAT DATA? Do you have any DATA-BASED reason to doubt that data, or is it merely because of your religious traditions/superstitions?
Please answer before continuing one single step further.
And, just as a preemptive point: DON'T point to data that shows promiscuous behavior/having many sexual partners is unhealthy, according to the data. That only serves to MAKE my point: That a committed, healthy loving marriage arrangement is measurably, objectively good for those who want that in their lives.
I haven't pointed to this obvious good but there's also the obvious good of people making their own choices. Human Liberty is in an overtly obvious good. The times that we should not be allowed the Liberty to be self-determining is when our Behavior causes harm to others or perhaps ourselves.
Otherwise, it is obviously good that we should be allowed to be self-determining. This is a overt obvious good. Marriage to the person of our choice is good.
Dan
It’s interesting that you’ve chosen to selectively apply your respect for what data shows.
1. When you make blanket statements referring to “gay marriage” or “homosexual activity” and claim that those broad categories are “healthy” with no qualifiers, the logical conclusion is that you are literate enough to mean what you write.
2. If that’s not your argument, then please phrase your argument with more precision to help being as clear as possible.
3. No, I don’t doubt that “happy” marriages are more “good” than unhappy marriages. But that’s not what you’ve been arguing. You’ve been arguing that this “data” allies to “gay marriage” in general. Or that this data indicates that God blesses “gay marriage” ( again your general term)
So now that you’ve decided to embrace what the data shows, you’re arbitrarily going to exclude the data that counts. Nice. Because it allows you to ignore the vast amount of data and advocacy that shows that monogamy is disproportionately high and accepted in gay marriages. That shows a disproportionate amount of domestic violence in gay relationships.
Of course excluding data helps you, it’s just intellectually dishonest.
“Marraige to the person of your choice is good.”
You sure you want that statement to haunt you for the foreseeable future.
Again, you are proving my point really well. All of your arguments make sense in a secular, societal, context. If only you were arguing from that context where relative “good” and secular societal norms were the only thing that mattered. But, you just can’t resist trying to slip a thin veneer of God over your otherwise secular, fallen, finite, relative, flawed , human Reason.
Two things before I begin "answering questions":
1. Citing two articles referencing the same study does not make the info more compelling. It's a fraud and a lie to attempt to have "more" evidence for your position by doing so when in fact you have but one study.
What's more, this study relies on the self-reporting of homosexuals, a common ploy in pro-homosexual "studies" (one that was incredibly common to support the notion that children of homosexual/lesbian parents developed as good or better than those of normal, mother/father headed families.) that doesn't prove anything but that homosexuals/lesbians will answer positively when they feel their answers will benefit the LGBT agenda.
Furthermore, given that the legalized redefinition of marriage to include same-sex unions is incredibly recent, even in states that corruptly and illegally imposed it upon their citizens before the Obergefell decision did so to the nation. As such, it is far too early to pretend "studies" like that which you cited have any real value in making a determination that you so desperately need to believe is true. Indeed, as is so typical of the left, and pro-LGBT agenda people like yourself, you're quick to cite as Gospel that which in any way hints what you want see realized, regardless of the merits or quality of that which exists for the purpose.
This also is deceitful.
2. I'm unsure of these questions I have left unanswered. It seems to me I've answered everything that appeared to be directed at me, or actually were. This leaves me with no choice but to either ignore the demand as having been met already, or to answer absolutely every question posed by you thus far without regard to whom it may have been posed. So I begin from the very first...
May 7, 2018 at 9:41 AM
"Of course, I'm not lying and you have no data to demonstrate that I'm lying (since I'm not lying, how could you?) and the question would be, what could I possibly be lying about?"
Two questions in one, or one questions asked two ways?
My data is Scripture, what is clear and unambiguous on the subject of the Sodom story. You are lying about what it says, what can be honestly inferred given how the story is laid out. The specifics have been provided in the past as well as in this comment thread...specifics you simply ignore and wave off without serious counterpoint.
May 7, 2018 at 6:19 PM
"In that scenario, does that sound like rational, consensual behavior? Or does it sound threatening and forced?"
Answered already, but then, I said I'd respond to all questions:
You can't even ask if it's consensual until there is a response to the request, for which your "scenario" doesn't wait to hear.
--and--
Once again, you're trying to assert that simply because there were so many that they "surrounded the house" that the "surrounding" implies a threat, when it could just as easily be eagerness on the part of all the men from every part of the city---both young and old, to get to know either my work mates or the two angels the Sodomites thought were just visitors.
continuing:
May 8, 2018 at 2:23 AM
"You HAVE to recognize, don't you, that you are reading that INTO the text, that it literally isn't there?"
No. Once again, men wishing to have group sex with men is homosexual behavior, NOT heterosexual behavior. Even if you want to call it deviant or criminal, it is men having sex with men which is homosexual behavior by definition. It is YOU who HAS TO recognize it, but you don't have the honesty and integrity to do so, because of your agenda of promoting certain expressions of homosexual behavior as worthy of God's blessing, when there is no such thing.
May 8, 2018 at 5:53 AM
"Do you recognize that reality?"
The text does NOT in any way NEED to use the term "homosexual behavior" in order for honest people to note that men having sex with men, by consent or by force, is by definition homosexual behavior.
And nothing in the text puts forth the notion that the intention of the Sodomites was to rape, but simply to engage in homosexual behavior with the angels. There is no special ability needed to see the obvious. There is a special desire to distort for the sake of protecting a pro-homosexual position...which is what you, Dan, are doing. No matter how many times you try to restate the false premise, there is nothing in the story that suggests rape wasn't the result of Lot's intercession, rather than the initial intention. It became rape according to the way the story is related, but the intention was simply to engage in group sex. Perhaps you can point to where the intentions of the Sodomites to rape were made known before Lot's refusal. Surrounding the house won't cut it. That, too, does not denote intention other than to express that all the men were there.
May 8, 2018 at 5:49 PM
"IF there is an attempted gang rape, guys on girl, is that rape a heterosexual behavior or is it just a violent rape?"
As Craig stated, I concur...it is both. Heterosexuals don't rape men. It's so stupidly obvious even one with pro-LGBT agenda leanings should be able to understand it. You just don't want to.
May 8, 2018 at 7:31 PM
(Since you asked Craig the exact same question, read this response twice to cover the "answer every question" pledge I made.)
"So, the rape is about heterosexual behavior and therefore, heterosexual behavior should always be condemned?"
No one said rape is "about homosexual behavior", except you, which is incredibly stupid. Also stupid is the suggestion that we think or propose that homosexual behavior is considered worthy of condemnation simply because of a story that includes attempted rape. It is not. It is worthy of condemnation because God regards it as abomination (or detestable) without any caveat with regard to any context or scenario in which it might take place...without any regard to the feelings or vows of commitment between participants. The same is true of incest, bestiality, adultery and sex between male and female outside of marriage.
May 8, 2018 at 7:31 PM
"Again, in reality, literally, there is nowhere in the bible that says the "sin of Sodom" was homosexual behavior.
Do you recognize that reality?"
That's not reality, no matter how badly and desperately your corrupt mind needs it to be. See Jude 7-8.
"Again, in reality, literally, there is nowhere in the bible that says Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality.
Do you recognize that reality?"
That is not reality, no matter how badly and desperately your corrupt mind needs it to be. See Jude 7-8 and your own Ezekiel offering in it's total context and not just the part you need to pretend you're right.
"Are you yet prepared to speak out against the false claims made by many that say just that?"
Huh? I think we've been speaking out against the false claims of YOURS and people like you. Our claims are true and factual and based on thousands of years of Biblical scholarship.
May 8, 2018 at 7:32 PM
"Do you think that recognizing what literally is and isn't there is pablum?"
The "pablum" is your laughably unsupported case for the notion that God would support SSM.
May 8, 2018 at 7:36 PM
"Do you need a Bible verse to tell you obvious things?"
No.
"Do you need a Bible verse that tells you sucking on a running automobile tailpipe and inhaling the toxins it spews is bad for you?"
No.
"Do you need a Bible verse that tells you that exercise is good for you?"
No.
May 8, 2018 at 10:28 PM
"sigh. Why?"
??? Uh...because.
"Ready to apologize?"
You have far more reason than either of us, who have pretty much done nothing for which we need apologize.
I have to note the difference between data that tracks measurements of actual events, domestic violence and disease statistics for example, and data that tracks peoples opinions. I can’t believe that you’re really suggesting that polls of opinion are the same as the tracking of actual events.
Art, Dan could take lessons on how to answer questions from that last series of comments.
May 9, 2018 at 5:40 AM
"Do you need a Bible verse to tell you obvious things? Do you need a Bible verse that tells you sucking on a running automobile tailpipe and inhaling the toxins it spews is bad for you? Do you need a Bible verse that tells you that exercise is good for you?"
Just answered. See above. However, I will add that none of these questions are legitimate, in that they suppose what is obvious with regard to homosexuality, Sodom and/or SSM in Scripture...that is, what is obvious to those like yourself who choose to see what you want and need to see in order to hold the corrupt and unChristian positions you hold. What's more, if something seems obvious, it must be supported by Scripture in order to determine whether or not it is moral and therefor proper to support. You have no such basis for supporting the sexually immoral practices you support.
May 9, 2018 at 5:58 PM
"Do you need a Bible verse to tell you obvious things? Do you need a Bible verse that tells you sucking on a running automobile tailpipe and inhaling the toxins it spews is bad for you? Do you need a Bible verse that tells you that exercise is good for you?"
All answered. See above.
"So, given that you and I agree that we do NOT need a verse in the Bible to tell us obvious things, and given that it's obvious that people having the choice to marry who they wish and to enjoy a satisfying healthy relationship (at least to me and many others, if not you), why would you suggest I need to offer a Bible verse to support what seems obvious?"
Because it is Scripture where we find what is or isn't moral and/or pleasing/displeasing to God. There are many sinful practices that give joy to those who engage in them. Indeed, it is obvious that many people derive great joy out of doing so. What an incredibly sad and pathetic "reason" to suppose that God would approve of those sinful acts! How incredibly shallow and insipid to suppose these obvious observations have any bearing on the morality of their behaviors!! But this is how corrupt your mind now is...how given over to your corruption you are, that you would make such weak arguments in defense of your unBiblical positions and suppose you're "reasoning" in a manner one is meant to use reason.
And that's another word you abuse..."reason". You don't "reason", you "rationalize"...in the very same way others rationalize attacking homosexuals, or in the very same way Klansmen rationalize their racism.
"Do you recognize this reality? That this is a conclusion YOU reasoned yourself to, not what the Bible or God literally has told you?"
You don't understand what "reality" means, as you don't apply it properly, accurately or when appropriate. Our conclusions are supportable due to the blatant teaching of the text concerning issues on the table. We do not need to read into the text what it says so clearly and is supported throughout the entire book in various places. You have no such support from Scripture to refute our conclusions, nor have you ever provided any that were not incredible corruptions and twisted distortions required to make to have any hope of having the text say what you need it to say. What's more, you have never provided anything in the way of argument as to why the text doesn't mean what we know it does. You simply do your typical John Cleese act.
"Why? Why would that make a difference?"
Because then you would have some legitimate basis for presuming that God might actually bless an SSM. Without which, you don't.
You’ll be able to tell if Dan really wants answers to his questions (and thus dialogue), or if it’s just making you jump through hoops and laying the groundwork for deletion, soon.
May 9, 2018 at 5:58 PM
"IF you were denied the option of being able to marry the person you want, enjoy sex, companionship and life with that person... IF in fact you were demonized and attacked for even suggesting you want that... if your family and church rejected you and told you that this decision would send you to hell to burn for eternity... IF you were a part of a community who'd been told this for hundreds and thousands of years... doesn't it seem reasonable that removing that level of oppression and demonization and opening up the freedom of choice in the matter... doesn't it just make sense that you'd be both healthier and happier?"
Of course, but the question is incredibly irrelevant to whether or not God would possibly bless such a union. The same would be true for thieves who would no longer be attacked, imprisoned and treated badly for stealing if stealing was no longer regarded as the sinful behavior it is.
"That society would be better for it?"
The jury's still way the hell out on this right now, but leaning toward "no...we're absolutely NOT better off for it." You're just once again seeing what you want to see, from the perspective of sinners now given a pass by those like yourself and without regard to the rest of the culture who is suffering from this corruption.
"I've offered compelling proof, expert opinion and reasonable observation, so no need to offer a Biblical verse, right?"
First of all, what's compelling to honest people differs from what compels you, one study does not constitute "expert opinion" that one should give the time of day and "reasonable" observation doesn't so casually dismiss CDC data as if it has no value to the issue at hand. More importantly, none of the above counters God's Will as so clearly revealed to us in Scripture. If there was compelling proof, expert opinion and reasonable observation that slavery would serve our culture well, would you change your position on that, too? Thus, if you're going to insist that God might approve and bless ANY same-sex union, you absolutely need to offer something from Scripture that supports the premise...something solid in the manner you demand of us...and not default to the cowardly "it's my opinion" (as if we didn't get that) dodge.
May 9, 2018 at 7:52 PM"
"Now, will you likewise stand up and be clear that it is YOUR opinion that God would oppose two gay gals marrying, or adopting children or raising children (IF that is your opinion)."
There's no question mark at the end of this, but it's worded like a question...if I might be so bold as to conclude it is intended as one, because...you know...reason. But the question is still idiotic in that it's not a question of "opinion" or what one believes, but how one can support either. All that refers to homosexual behavior demands that support of the LGBT agenda is no different than supporting any other sin. Thus, it is more than merely opinion that God would oppose SSM or adoption by homosexual couples (with possibly the exception of providing care for kids with absolutely no other alternative...which isn't really ever true). Based on what Scripture says, our "opinion" is thus more fact than opinion and remains so without a fact-based argument from those like yourself.
The following isn't a question but demands a response:
"And don't be a dick and try to invoke a CDC study about domestic violence and try to suggest that, without any data, there is a causative correlation to being gay and domestic violence. A shallow look at data is just that. Shallow."
You're the dick for deleting our responses rather than addressing them like a man with integrity and honor...and for suggesting citing CDC data is shallow while citing ONE study that is based on the testimonies of the very subjects being studied. Talk about shallow!
May 10, 2018 at 7:51 PM
"We've already covered this. WHY?"
Because in "covering this" you've failed/refused to provide the requested information that forms a basis for your position.
"If it is completely crystal clear evident to me based on a variety of data that there are positive aspects to our human sexuality, gay or straight or otherwise, WHY do I need to find a verse to back it up?"
Because morality isn't based on what is evident to Dan Trabue or data that suggests TO YOU that there are "positive aspects" to homosexual practice.
"Likewise, WHY? Why should I "leave God out..."? Simply because you disagree with my reasoning?"
One answer satisfies all three of these: I believe "leaving God out" was Craig being facetious.
Another question in a statement:
"Or reversing it: JUST ONE TEXT that speaks of the wrongfulness of ALL gay behavior..."
Lev 18:22. What more do you need? You presume it does NOT speak of ALL homosexual behavior. But on what basis? You provide more conjecture, but nothing from Scripture itself. You don't do this for murder, for example, or even incest or bestiality or for a host of other sins. But for this one, you pretend that "Thou shalt not..." is somehow insufficient for certainty. Nothing, not one thing anywhere in Scripture so much as hints at a caveat to this single, unambiguous verse/commandment. You desperately attempt to insist that it is time and place specific to ancient Israel, while it is sandwiched between verses that indicate...if not outright prove...that it is universal. The moral of this story is that you've never resolved this one single verse in any way, shape or form by citing Scripture to do it...not without distorting and twisting that which you do cite, rationalizing instead of actual reasoning.
"WHY should I do for you what you can't do for me?"
A wholly outlandish question given our far superior record of providing direct answers to your questions.
"Why do I need to, if it's obvious and you've already agreed that there is no need to provide biblical proof texts for notions that are obvious?"
There's been no such agreement by either us in the manner you want to pretend exists. What's more, what is "obvious" to you is not necessarily obvious at all. In this case, it's wishful thinking on your part. OR...you're confusing what IS obvious with what APPEARS TO BE obvious...or worse, what you want to be obvious.
"You can cite one person that fought against slavery who was a Christian in the 18th (?) century and that is somehow evidence that the church was never okay with slavery?"
First, he was representative of a far larger faction within Christendom that oppose slavery. Secondly, that the church has a less than stellar record on the issue doesn't mean the church is in any way mistaken on the absolute sinfulness of homosexual behavior in any context in which it might take place. Third, you've failed miserably to prove the church is mistaken.
"Of course, if you are aware of church history and history in general, you'd know that the church (and society, at large) for centuries accepted slavery as an acceptable practice. Are you aware of that?"
To whatever extent it did, it is irrelevant to whether or not it is correct in regarding homosexual behavior as sinful regardless of the context in which it might take place.
May 10, 2018 at 7:51 PM
"Or do you think that "the Church," writ large, was definitively against the enslavement of people from the year 0?"
To whatever extent it did, it is irrelevant to whether or not it is correct in regarding homosexual behavior as sinful regardless of the context in which it might take place.
"Are you aware of the oppression and treatment of women as second class citizens (or worse, property!) throughout much of church history?"
To whatever extent it did, it is irrelevant to whether or not it is correct in regarding homosexual behavior as sinful regardless of the context in which it might take place.
May 11, 2018 at 6:10 AM
"1. I have stated that it is REASONABLE to conclude that
IF one accepts the notion of a good God and
IF there is an action that is demonstrably good, healthy, loving, pure and beneficial,
THEN it is reasonable to surmise that a good God would support that.
DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS CONCEPT?"
Absolutely. One has no relation to the other, particularly if the action is unequivocally regarded in Scripture as sinful, as homosexual behavior is, without regard to any context in which it might take place. Worse, what YOU perceive as demonstrably good, healthy, loving, pure and beneficial is not proof or evidence that it is so.
May 11, 2018 at 7:29 AM
"Do you recognize the reality that I have NOT made the argument that "all homosexual activity" is good? Of course, not all homosexual activity is good, any more than all heterosexual activity is good.
DO YOU REALIZE THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT?"
Can answer both easily: Nice to see Craig inadvertently threw you a bone. I've no doubt he meant to suggest that is indeed your argument. Clearly you've tried to make the false case that "some forms of homosexuality" is not sinful.
"DO YOU ANY REASON TO DOUBT THAT DATA?"
I've given you reason to doubt the "data" you've presented in this thread. It is weak simply because it relies on the testimonies of homosexuals themselves, who are not likely to report that their lives are better after "marriage" than before if doing so destroys the LGBT agenda plank regarding the legal redefinition of "marriage".
"Do you have any DATA-BASED reason to doubt that data, or is it merely because of your religious traditions/superstitions?"
CDC data, as well as testimonials of thousands of homosexuals who left the lifestyle, testimonials from children of "gay" couples, and medical facts about the dangers of homosexual practice including that which has no relation to STDs. This CDC data doesn't require promiscuity for it to have relevance to the issue at hand. That is, not all homosexuals who abuse drugs and alcohol, are suicidal or depressed, etc., are automatically promiscuous in their sexual behavior...though I'm sure you need to believe it.
There. As far as I can tell, I've answered absolutely all questions posed by you, Dan Trabue, in this thread up until the point I first began to respond today. Later, I will address some of the absurd comments you've made to bolster your sinful position.
Art, the thing that I would add to your comments about the CDC data and other data. Is not so much that it happens, but that the numbers in the gay community are so disproportionately high.
I referenced the exact number earlier, but when the minuscule percentage of the population that are gay men have 67% of all reported aids cases, there is clearly something wrong. That can’t be explained by oppression or whatever other excuse is offered.
I absolutely agree, Craig. I wonder how many black slaves were overly promiscuous or suicidal as a result of their slave status. I wonder how many blacks after Emancipation turned to alcohol, suicide, suffered depression disproportionately to the general population. Were they more or less oppressed during those years than any homosexual in more recent times, including previous to Lawrence v Texas?
That’s actually an interesting question. I think it’s safe to say that enslaved Africans were incredibly oppressed, and for the most part horribly mal treated. I’d assume that they didn’t keep the kind of statistics about these kinds of things then that we do now, and there might not have been as much concern then as now. But it would be an interesting research project, and an interesting comparison of how oppressed groups respond.
I think we can get a fairly good understanding by looking at a more recent period, specifically that period immediately prior to the Civil Rights era. Those like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell suggest that which indicates more similarity to their white counterparts with regard to the many categories of well-being (substance abuse, depression, suicide, etc) than to the homosexual population.
Craig, I'll give you a pass and not delete your comments, but I'll remind you of the actual questions asked of you:
Do you recognize the reality that I have NOT made the argument that "all homosexual activity" is good? Of course, not all homosexual activity is good, any more than all heterosexual activity is good.
DO YOU REALIZE THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT?
Rather, I'm stating that the data shows that happy marriages, gay or straight, tend to make for healthier, happier, more fulfilled people, lives and communities. The data is there for that claim.
Please answer before continuing one single step further.
On your slavery discussion between yourselves... I'm sure you all don't intend to be evil and recognize how evil you sound, but you do.
Just fyi. You know, if you don't want to sound evil, you may want to be wary about those sorts of things you're saying.
There's nothing evil about our slavery discussion except what exists in your morally corrupt mind. It was you that made suggestions about how oppression has led to all manner of negative health stats for homosexuals. The natural thing to do is to look at other oppressed groups and expect to see the same percentages. Since we know that so much went south for the black community since the Civil Rights Era, we must look prior to it and I don't think there's anything that suggests similar stats, especially since their oppression and the discrimination against them was more common, given it's kinda hard to hide the fact that one is of a different race.
So this "sounding evil" crap is just that. Crap.
Good God. Marshall, you've said enough on that topic. It's off topic and creepy as hell. I am totally sure you don't even understand why, but take my word for it. Or don't. But give up that line of discussion here. It makes me feel like I need a shower.
~Dan
An oldies (what else!) songbook I bought this year has the song 'Walk on the Wild Side.' I was just now looking online to try to understand what the lyrics are about. I had no idea on that when I heard it on the radio as a kid, but I always liked the musical feel of the song, especially the bass. Anyway, here is a quote from a web page regarding the "colored girls sing" line, which reminded me of this thread.
"Changing social perceptions after thirty-odd years.... Today, this is a politically incorrect line, quite seriously so to some observers. Yet all the stuff about transvestites, gay sex, promiscuous gay sex, and taking hard drugs barely raises an eyebrow today. Just as drawing attention to somebody's skin colour was unremarkable in 1972."
I'll add an observation of my own. When I was young, magazines would censor the word "fu__" but not "nig___". These days it is pretty much universally the opposite.
~ Hiram
Do you recognize the reality that I have NOT made the argument that "all homosexual activity" is good? Of course, not all homosexual activity is good, any more than all heterosexual activity is good.
DO YOU REALIZE THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT?
It appears that the answer is No, but please answer directly. It's okay to admit that you were mistaken in your understanding. Indeed, it's clear to anyone else not beholden to your viewpoint to such a degree that it blinds them to what I've actually said. You're just admitting the mistake for your own sake, well, and to demonstrate that you understand reality.
And again, I GET that you two no doubt don't understand how ugly and evil your talk about slavery appears. Nonetheless, I'm telling you it does. If you want to go down that line of questioning on your own blog, feel free. You're done with it here.
Post a Comment