Gay Marriage: An Opposing Viewpoint
G. Baker has commented to a couple of my recent posts. My guess is that he’s further to the right on gay marriage than most commentators to this blog would be. So I especially appreciate his willingness to bring up the topic here – he emailed his thoughts on the subject and we ended up agreeing to post them on my blog in condensed form. For now I’ll just state that my viewpoint on this is the opposite of Gary’s. I’ve been impressed by the quality of discussion among commentators to Original Faith and look forward to a conversation focusing on the issue and free of the personal antagonism sometimes brought to matters about which people may have strong feelings.
Finding “God’s Side” in the Gay Marriage Debate
By Gary Baker
There has been a great deal of haggling in conflicts through the ages about whose “side” God is on. To me, the very question is presumptuous. I view God as “right” by definition. It should be the goal of the church, the body of believers, to place all personal views aside and conform to His will. In this spirit, I believe that Christians should not support the institution of gay marriage.
The basis of this is my firm conviction that the scriptures indicate that any sexual relationship other than male and female, committed to each other only before God, is inherently immoral.
The primary basis for this belief comes from Leviticus Chapter 18. The text goes through a laundry list of sins performed by the pagans in the land the Israelites were to possess. Most of them were sexual in nature, related to incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. Child sacrifice is also thrown in, but that’s another topic. Now, if some of you reading this are asking if I believe that we are all required to live as the Old Testament Jews lived, the answer is a resounding “No.” We are called to a different relationship, as was confirmed when the apostles met to discuss what the new believers were to observe in Christ. However, I call attention to Lev. 18: 24 – 28:
Lev 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you;
Lev 18:25 and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Lev 18:26 Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you; {GB similarly cites Lev 18:27 and Lev 18:28}
The people being “vomited” out were not Jews. They had no relationship with God that I know of, though we know that they had heard of how God had brought the Hebrews out of Egypt. They were never designated in any way to show Godly principles the way the Jews were. Yet God still judged them, and he judged them worthy of death. There is a lot said about how after Christ came, people were no longer judged by law, but by faith. That is true. But Christ never denied the law. He never said that was once considered “bad” was now “good” or “okay.”
Some call this bigotry or hatred. I dispute that assessment. If we see a child playing in the street, having loads of fun, with a truck bearing down on her that she doesn’t see, is there anyone among us that would say “Oh, I don’t want to disturb her fun…” For the love of Christ, I would hope not.
As I said, I believe that I am correct in this view based on the scriptures. I am also aware that many others, secular, Christian, etc., have differing views on the matter, and I am not so far gone as to believe that all wisdom resides in me. May we discuss this in love, brother to brother, sister to sister? Come. Let us reason together.
- GB
Any thoughts on gay marriage or on scripture-based argumentation?
- PM
Finding “God’s Side” in the Gay Marriage Debate
By Gary Baker
There has been a great deal of haggling in conflicts through the ages about whose “side” God is on. To me, the very question is presumptuous. I view God as “right” by definition. It should be the goal of the church, the body of believers, to place all personal views aside and conform to His will. In this spirit, I believe that Christians should not support the institution of gay marriage.
The basis of this is my firm conviction that the scriptures indicate that any sexual relationship other than male and female, committed to each other only before God, is inherently immoral.
The primary basis for this belief comes from Leviticus Chapter 18. The text goes through a laundry list of sins performed by the pagans in the land the Israelites were to possess. Most of them were sexual in nature, related to incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. Child sacrifice is also thrown in, but that’s another topic. Now, if some of you reading this are asking if I believe that we are all required to live as the Old Testament Jews lived, the answer is a resounding “No.” We are called to a different relationship, as was confirmed when the apostles met to discuss what the new believers were to observe in Christ. However, I call attention to Lev. 18: 24 – 28:
Lev 18:24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you;
Lev 18:25 and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Lev 18:26 Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you; {GB similarly cites Lev 18:27 and Lev 18:28}
The people being “vomited” out were not Jews. They had no relationship with God that I know of, though we know that they had heard of how God had brought the Hebrews out of Egypt. They were never designated in any way to show Godly principles the way the Jews were. Yet God still judged them, and he judged them worthy of death. There is a lot said about how after Christ came, people were no longer judged by law, but by faith. That is true. But Christ never denied the law. He never said that was once considered “bad” was now “good” or “okay.”
Some call this bigotry or hatred. I dispute that assessment. If we see a child playing in the street, having loads of fun, with a truck bearing down on her that she doesn’t see, is there anyone among us that would say “Oh, I don’t want to disturb her fun…” For the love of Christ, I would hope not.
As I said, I believe that I am correct in this view based on the scriptures. I am also aware that many others, secular, Christian, etc., have differing views on the matter, and I am not so far gone as to believe that all wisdom resides in me. May we discuss this in love, brother to brother, sister to sister? Come. Let us reason together.
- GB
Any thoughts on gay marriage or on scripture-based argumentation?
- PM
Posted by Paul at 8:19 PM Permalink
60 Comments:
For the record, I would place myself among those who would consider themselves a 'devout muslim'. God knows, whether I am or not, truly.
I can respect Gary's approach, perhaps if all of society accepted the authority of the Bible in a similar manner than I would say that such common ground would exist to allow us to cast such rules of conduct for all concerned.
but, for better or worse we all do not. And so, I do not believe it is fair to judge and restrict another person based off a set of religious concepts which they do not adhere to.
I hope that Gary would take this as it is meant, it is not slight, but it seems to me that the premis of your writing assumes that your approach to interpreting scripture assumes that this is the "correct" way of coming to an understanding of what God intended.
If a group of like minded Christians wish to apply these principles to their own community, more power to them. That is fine, I support them, but don't expect me follow them, per se.
It may be that the verses you refer to have a context and that they may very well might not apply to this time and place.
I realize Gary would proablly not accept this, by his referring to Jesus, may Allah give him peace, as not dening the law. I can respect that, too.
My concern in reading these verses, is that they present an unrealistic caricature of real people. I don't doubt that there were and are people who are mearly filled with lust and act soely from a place of animalistic needs. But, there are also many homosexual folks whom act out of love, whom love their partner with a spiritual love which we all yearn for.
It is my conviction that love trumps law.
People love to talk about how much blood and war is in the Quran. The realityfortunately is that mercy, forgiveness, and kindness to strangers is mentioned in greater length...
It may very well be that our sincere love will grant us entrance into heaven, and help us to be forgiven of our lowly lusts. I say, let God judge, He's the One who can do that. I certainly can not. How does Jesus's saying go, the mote of dust in one's eye?
Thank you Gary for sharing, I look forward to reading more.
I was so excited by my discovery that I have decided to be a secret Christian, that is, practising in my own way, usually applying the same attitudes as those expressed by William Blake: "Would to God that all the Lord's people were prophets!" (Numbers XI, 29)
However, there must be limits to this power, for many have been crushed by it historically, and many are damaged by it today.
To use the power of one's Christianity to pass judgement over others is in my view a most reprehensible and immoral way to live. I therefore propose that every Christian refrains from doing it.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matthew, VII, 1)
Theologically, what is wrong with individual conscience and revelation? or indeed the prayer of Moses in my previous quote:
would God that all the LORD's people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
But I must confess that to consider the Bible to be the word of God and not of man seems to me an absurd and wicked notion; the cause of untold misery over the ages. Such attitudes are only adopted for the seductive power they convey upon the preachers and bible-thumpers. Surely you can see that?
Yes, let us discuss it in love, and acknowledge the terrible harm caused by using the bible to condemn others. In the past crusades were conducted, people were burnt to the stake, witch-hunts took place. It seems that these things have not ended. In love I say please be more conscious.
It makes for a certain tension. Those inside the group believe they're on to a universal, God-revealed truth. So as Gary says, for him it's a matter of wanting to save gays from damnation.
But of course a lot of the people he wants to save don't believe in an afterlife or hell. They don't want the salvific attentions of anti gay Christians and may be offended by them.
YVES: That strikes me as a valid point. I'd want to qualify it by saying that for some persons, the power aspect of religion is the main draw, but not all. (I wouldn't want to ascribe this motive to Gary, which I don't think you were doing anyway, but just to be clear on that.)
As far as your negative view of revealed religion goes, that's certainly a long standing debate. I do think it's hard to argue against the idea that sometimes people beieving "God is on their side" has had destructive effects in the world.
I wonder how much of this problem is the idea of scripture as revelatory per se; and how much of it is what often appears to be people's belief that their particular interpretation of scripture has been revealed to them as God's interpretation.
No offense is taken, though perhaps a clarification: I am not proposing "rules of conduct" so much as advocating a common standard of right and wrong. Am I proposing that standard be given legal weight? No, I am not. I have no interest in bringing back sodomy laws or any other laws that actively seek to limit what two adults consent to in the privacy of their own home. I do however stand against the adoption of a public standard which effectively states that homosexual activity is perfectly moral, and that incentives equivalent to that of "traditional" marriage should be supplied.
Yves,
I'm afraid that you've gone far beyond what I said. There may be some fringe elements of a lot of religious groups that are opposed to things and conduct witch hunts or whatever. My favorite is the environmental movement, whose staunch refusal to allow any use of DDT in Africa has resulted in millions of malaria deaths. As I said to Kevin, I am not "hunting" anyone. If I proclaimed that I thought stealing immoral, would you claim I was "witch-hunting" on behalf of the theives? And if that's what you believed, would it not make more sense to ask directly than assume the worst?
As for the belief that the Bible being the word of God causing evil, I can hardly deny that. It has also been the source of untold good. Compare and contrast with say the word of Karl Marx, whose word has resulted in untold evil and almost no good. Evil people take what is at hand and do evil. The Bible is a convenient tool for them in many cases, but they have no trouble seizing whatever is at hand.
I really pine for my daughter when she is the only one on her street who is home during the summer.
And yet I believe this is the test of our times, how do we co-exist within a pluralistic society?
I guess one thought that occurs to me is what is the consequence for said behavior? Really. How will gay marriages affect society? I think very little... I honestly believe that the consequence for sodomy lies with the individual. Frankly I prefer our gay neighbors to our straight ones, they are more thoughtful and community spirited. Their sex life has no effect on our family life.
It seems to me suppressing these urges have done us no good either, look at all the crimes that priests have been committing...
I am more inclined to wish for people to be together regardless of their inclination so that our innate and natural sense of good behavior can be an example. Curb the fawning worship of decadent lifestyles altogether, celebrate the regular and ordinary in each one of us and hope that our choices reflect positively for our communities. The rest we have to give up to God.
gosh so much to say, I am sorry for going on like this... I'll listen now...
I agree with Mr. Baker that it is presumptuous to question whose "side" God is on. But I also think it evident that to pick and choose amongst the third book of the Hebrew Bible which scriptures most accurately reflect the mind of God is more aggregiously presumptuous.
If one is to hold that the Torah is literally the word of God, then why would one presume that the abomination of crabcakes or all-you-can-eat fried shrimp or Sonny's Barbecue is not as terrible an abomination as to "lie with mankind, as with womankind"?
Unless, of course, one believes with one's whole heart in Chapter 20. Which is to say that he believes that those who cheat on their spouses and those who "lie with mankind, as with womankind" should be put to death. Do you believe that Mr. Baker?
Are those stones in your pocket?
Leviticus chapters 11 through 26 are the chapters that outline the Jewish purity code. Chapter 18 is a fairly small chapter that primarily deals with forbidden kinships. Though Mr. Baker seems drawn to making lurid leaps of judgement as to what these mean, it does help to put the chapter into some sort of historical perspective.
For instance, if one has no knowlege of the ancient Egyptians or Phoenicians (aka "Caananites") and their customs and practices, then it is easy to assume that these forbidden kinships are "incest" and to throw a salacious contemporary interpretation upon them. Pharoahs typically married their sisters to ensure the bloodline for instance. The ancient Hebrews saw their culture being diluted by their associations with the Egyptians and the Phoenicians and came up with the purity laws to preserve their culture.
Many biblical scholars, would strongly disagree with Mr. Baker's statement that "Christ never denied the law. He never said that was once considered “bad” was now 'good' or 'okay.'"
Indeed, Christ was quite definite about contradicting the purity laws. It was one of the things that the Pharisees found so terribly vexing about him. Leviticus devotes not one, but two lengthy chapters to dealing with lepers. Yet Jesus touched a leper.
...they(the Pharisees) repeatedly confronted Jesus because of his flagrant disregard for ritual purity. Jesus the Jew touched a leper (Mark 1:41), his disciples did not fast (Mark 2:18f), he ignored sabbath laws (2:23f), he touched a woman with a discharge and handled a corpse (5:21–42), and immediately after this week's story he healed two Gentiles (Mark 7:24f).
from No Outcasts Cast Out: From The Politics of Purity to The Call for Compassion
Christ took mercy upon and befriended prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, the mentally ill, the possessed...The man seemingly never met an "outsider" he didn't love. Why any contemporary Christian, 2000 years after Jesus blew the lid off of the exclusive "purity" laws, would want to now side with the Pharisees is a mystery to me. It is contrary to much that Jesus stood for.
Lest we think these sorts of attitudes are harmless and do not extend outside of the small congregations that practice them, please remember that there is real harm being wrought. One in three teen suicides, suicide being the second leading cause of death among teens, are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered youth. Children are dying. Children are being forced out into the street by hyper-religious parents.
So why is gay marriage the right thing to do? Because we deserve the same rights under the law as everyone else. And like it or not, marriage is one of the defining legal criteria for many of those rights. Gay partners who have been together 20+ years cannot make healthcare or burial decisions for each other if a hostile family member intervenes. If one is imprisoned, the other is at the mercy of the court regarding visitation rights. Estranged families can step in and seize the property of the couple when one of them dies. These sorts of things happen to us all the damn time. It's not fair, it's not right and the Jesus I'm familiar with would not have been in favor of such treatment of us.
We don't want to be married in your church. We just want the same protections under the law that you do. And that means being able to make a legal, spiritual connection with our life partner.
Sorry to have gone on so. I must now return to my homosexual lifestyle of tending my goatherd, milking, making cheese, tending my farm, writing and living my life in as Christ-like a way as possible. Note to self: Further homosexual agenda of being kind to animals, small children, old people and visiting sick.
It reminds me of my reaction to the phrase "the gay lifestyle." It doesn't make sense to me.
It happens that the best marriage I personally know - not official of course, but they've been together 20+ years - is a lesbian couple. One of them has two daughters who are stunning blonde "all American" type beauties, still in their twenties, each of whom is heterosexual, married, and with children. The two "grandmas" are heavily involved with the grandkids and highly supportive/family oriented.
It doesn't seem to me there's either a homosexual or heterosexual "lifestyle," just people with different sexual orientiations, some acting well toward others, and some pretty miserably.
ROSIE: You point to what strike me as important considerations:
1. The complexity of the book - really a whole lot of books written over thousands of years - that became known as the Bible. Written by so many different people over such a long period of time, it's complex enough that, as Gary himself points out, Christians differ over this as well as other issues.
Different verses, themes, and aspects of the text can be emphasized/downplayed with the result that you can have different interpretations.
2. The pragmatic aspect. When you look at homosexual people in society, now and historically, as a group they're just like any other group of human beings. Like you, I'm not able to attribute social ills to their sexual preferences any more than I can attribute the ills of society to heterosexuality.
Out of respect for Kevin, and you, and everyone else, I, too, shall try to keep snark to a minimum. Your points seem jumbled to me. You are mixing different things together and refuting points I have not made, nor would I make.
You seem to think this is an issue of Jewish purity law. Please re-read the referenced sections of the Bible. You will find very clearly that God is executing judgment not on the Jews, subject to that law, but to the present inhabitants of the land. The clear statement of the text is that the actions mentioned are wrong. Not from a relationship with God standpoint or a purity standpoint. Just wrong.
Now, I am not a Jew, observant or otherwise. God never indicated that gentiles were to observe Mosaic law aside from those that dwell in the land of the Jews. God directed that they were to be subject to the same restrictive laws. Since we are not in Israel, it hardly makes sense for me to declare war on crab-cakes or barbecue. What God did direct through the apostles in Acts specifically was that the new believers were to refrain from meat sacrificed to idols, refrain from drinking blood, and refrain from sexual sin. Hmm…
From there you try to change the subject by talking about stoning adulterers. I have said nothing in my posts about stoning or punishing anyone. The point I am discussing is what is right and what is wrong. For what it’s worth, I believe that adultery is as immoral as homosexual sex which is as immoral as heterosexual sex out of wedlock. I believe that all of them lead to bad outcomes. I am not campaigning to have any of them outlawed or punished. I simply do not want any of them declared “moral.”
Your comments on the history of the area are interesting, but irrelevant. What you are saying is that you believe the scriptures are man’s rules and not God’s. I definitely do not believe that. If I did, however, they would still have at least as much authority behind them as any source you could come up with.
I respect the scholarship in pointing out Jesus violating the purity laws, but again, what is the relevance? As God incarnate, he was the law. He also used these opportunities to teach the kind of interpretation that was sorely lacking by the religious scholars of the day. One of my favorites is “The Sabbath was made to benefit man, not man the Sabbath.” He also went on to say that he was Lord of the Sabbath as well.
I certainly know that Christ was a friend to sinners. He is even a friend to me. But there was nothing ever written in the scriptures that said that Christ wanted to leave us in a sinful state. His message was always to obtain mercy by returning to God through him. People that stress his mercy seem to forget that part. The Man who declared “Love your neighbor as yourself,” declared that the second most important commandment. The first was to love God with everything in you.
You know, it’s interesting that you mention the Pharisees: It seems to me that the people who are pushing declaring gay marriage as “moral” have much more in common with the Pharisees than the “conservative” types. Look at the passages where Jesus criticizes the Pharisees. Many people mistakenly believe it is because they emphasize the law. Christ himself debunks that interpretation. He states in Matt. 23:3 that the people were to do what the Pharisees said, just not to follow their example. He called them on burdening the people without help, and following the letter, but not the spirit of the law. And he criticized them for teaching man-made rules as though they were the laws of God. There is nothing anywhere in the scriptures to indicate that homosexual activity is anything but sinful.
I’m sorry that your desires single you out and make things more difficult at some points of your life. I have made choices in my life as well that have made things difficult for me. My bad decisions are hardly a valid reason for affecting public policy.
Mickymcb,
If you are involved with a church that is doing little for the poor and disenfranchised, I suggest that you get out of there immediately and find a church on the move. For all the heat that conservative churches take in the press, I think that you will find they are heavily invested in charity, education, medical assistance, and any number of similar ministries across the globe. As for your other point, well…
Child pornography is not mentioned as evil anywhere. I am willing to bet that it would get a pretty bad review. Christ did not address slavery as evil. Segments of Christianity are often criticized for supporting slavery. Very little is said about how most of the abolitionist movements were also based in Christianity. As I wrote before, evil people will justify themselves however they may.
Paul,
I mean no disrespect to the “marriage” you mention. I wish all of them nothing but good things (and that goes for Rosie as well). I don’t mean to imply that homosexual people are any more sinful than anyone else. We are all sinners. I just refuse to believe that calling vice virtue can in any way improve our country.
GARY: I also see your point - it's not like people who are against homosexuality therefore must logically have no interest in poverty etc. I suppose, to Mickey's point about all the energy invested around homosexuality, that there's just more controversy over this than over a lot of other issues - so that's why it's discussed so much.
For example, you're not going to find a lot of people making arguments against helping the poor or hurricane victims.
I also take your point that you don't villify homosexuals - it's that you view such behavior as a sin among sins, not that you see homosexuals as particularly sinful. A good and important distinction I think.
Still, I suppose homosexuals find it hard not to feel villified when something about who they are is regarded as sinful. Although the distinction is often made between the sinlessness of feeling homosexual attraction and the sinfulness of acting on it, it's a fairly fine distinction.
If homosexuals felt that heterosexuality was morally wrong if acted on - well, in the case of sex, it's not a big distance between urge and act. Most homosexuals and most heterosexuals act on their sexual feelings.
If most people were homosexual and those of us who are hetero were viewed as behaving immoraly whenever we acted on our attraction to the opposite sex, I think we'd feel rather negatively judged as persons.
The detail of your argument - you see that type of detailed back and forth argumentation pro and con on this issue in a lot of places - illustrates my point about the complexity of the text and how one's point of view is an interpretation, which speaks to how it is that Christians are divided on this issue.
As the comments to this post are showing, many people prefer the "love trumps law" approach to this issue, totally ignoring the fact that Jesus said "not one iota of the Law shall be revoked", and that "love fulfills the Law".
It's not either/or. It's both. God's moral Law is a expression of His heart and holiness. Is the Law evil? No, Paul said, it's not. It's good. And it's good because it comes from God. And since God is love, then His laws are loving. And within that moral law is the command not to sleep with a man as you would a woman, and vice versa. This is a command of love, and as Paul says, "he who rejects this teaching is not rejecting us, but God!"
We are not "judging" gays for their sin! John 3:17 forbids us to do that. So does 1 Corinthians 5:12. What we are doing is warning them that this sin (among many others) will land them before the Judgment Seat of God without remedy. But the remedy is found in Christ. he came to free us from sin, and homosexuality is clearly a sin.
As for those within the church who practice this sin, we ARE commanded to be both discerning and judging. 1 Corinthians 5 says "I have written to you not to associate with sexually immoral people...meaning anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, or an idolator...etc. With such a man do not even eat!"
"We are to judge those inside the church!" (1 Corinthians 5:12,13) "Expel them!", Paul says. He even went so far as to order Timothy to "publicly rebuke those who sin so that others may be warned" (1 Timothy 5:20)
Some would say that's unloving, but the Bible commands it, and always with a view to restoring the sinner by shaming him (2 Thessalonians 3:14,15), though not as an enemy, but as a brother who wants to see him/her restored (Galatians 6:1,2) to holiness, without which we can never see God, the Bible says.
Tao (God), the supreme good, is like water, which nourishes all things without trying to. It is content with the low places that people disdain.
That is what I wish to emulate.
An interesting thought, but to what purpose? If it nourishes all things, then it nourishes evil as well. How then can it be considered a "supreme good?" On the other hand, what about a God that gives a choice (free will) and then gives us the power to overcome the evil while nourishing the good?
A world without discrimination sounds good only as much as the word "discrimination" has developed a bad connotation. When we are given a choice at the grocery store to buy vegetables to eat or junk food or rat poison for that matter, we "discriminate." We evaluate things as either good or bad based on a set of criteria. The problem with people is that they are very good at changing their criteria to make evil good or vice versa. I believe that a truly "good" God would not only "discriminate" between good and bad, but have an eternal, immutable standard.
It is interesting to note that reading only from the Quran that it is only the act of sodomy that is condemned. There is no injunction preventing a man from loving another man. (Nor women and women).
May I be blunt? We are all adults here right? Paul, if you feel this comment is a little too out of line feel free to delete it.
The sufi perspective on this, and you will surely get another from a wahabbi, is that what at issue is the shit. Sodomy means your getting crap all over your privates, an act that should be filled with light is instead now mixed with filth from the ass. In Islamic theology, angels stay away from areas that are filthy. Hence the injunction to keep clean.
I agree that following God's will is a good idea - the problem is figuring out what God's will is, exactly.
As for Leviticus, there is a lot of what I would call questionable stuff in that book, including God signing off on slavery. I would take what's written in there with a big pinch of salt.
The underlying belief that leads people to attempt this is the view of scripture as inerrant - which is itself a particular interpretation of scripture not shared by all Christians.
With inerrancy, then if God said it, it has to be true. What with everything being true, you're forced into giving diverse statements pretty much equal weight.
So you have to reconcile things like "Love others" as the first mentioned of Jesus's two greatest commandments with "make homosexuals feel really bad about themselves during life as we know it" since the Bible also has statements condemning homosexuality.
N2 and GARY: I think you're on different wavelengths here - that your words are referring to different sets of experiences so you're kind of talking past each other. But too much for me to attempt to explain in a comment!
KEVIN: Right - that's what I thought you meant... that morality/immorality is a matter of how people live regardless of their sexual orientation.
You know, frankly what you're bringing to mind - this is off the cuff, it's probably way more complicated - but I have to wonder if the root of being against homosexuality isn't the simple "gross out" reaction that heterosexuals may have to the prospect of gay sex!
Sex itself, if you're not in the mood, could be seen as - well, less than pretty. That's how children first react to the idea of physical intimacy - Yuck!
As usual, this thread is going in directions I couldn't have predicted!
CRYSTAL: Sounds right to me - "discernment," right? And a pinch of the salt that hasn't lost its savor? (A little exegetical humor there...)
There was a great deal of thoughtful sincere opinions expressed within the miles of comments..((gasp)) having finally made my way through them I simply cannot evade my standard logistical reply.
Since all of these ideals and laws are manmade and culturally biased you know what I am going to say. Now that we are aware that Homosexuality is not some curable lifestyle choice we shouldn't even have to discuss this..however since atleast of third of Americans believe that it is curable and no amount of discussion on Amygdalas and genetics will be of any use to them how about this.
If any child is lucky enough to be born or adopted into a loving and gentle environment regardless of the gender designation of their parents WHO CARES!
Since we only pay lip service to how invaluable children are in our society I find it extremely vexing that basing Laws upon archaic unscientific notions and traditions is ridiculously regressive. Puh-Leeze let us take the next step forward and acknowledge that we aren't some anomoly in the spectrum of Life on Earth and that if we could accept the fact that we just don't know why we are here we might have a chance at surviving each other's company.
Half of all kids today have blended families, some live in multiple marriage communes, some kids have two Mommies! Far too many live in horrible circumstances and they need to be rescued and delivered into Homes that love and appreciate them..regardless of the structure.
Sorry for the exhaustive reply...I just don't have the heart to begin the case for mandatory sterilization and regulations regarding who deserves to proliferate..but it is coming and it will happen..and whoever eventually gets to decide who these lottery winners will be will have a lot more in common with God than I care to imagine.
1) legalistic. You skilfully distinguish between laws which are only for the Jews, such as avoidance of shrimps and so on; and laws which apply to all regardless of religion, i.e. man shall not lie with man. The defence would argue that an act is OK as long as it does not harm others, but you've predicted that defence and so you deliver the killer blow: God has indicated clearly that it's his will that we don't behave that way. (Presumably the desire to behave that way, and the physical possibility to behave that way, is something built-in to the human species so as to give an opportunity to choose good and resist evil: thus providing a profession for pastors and theological interpreters till the end of time.)
2) It all comes down to good and evil. "Evil" is that wonderful word which allows us to condemn something, and blind ourselves to the common humanity which is embodied in everything that everyone does. "Fighting evil" is the justification for wrecking other countries and locking up their people in defiance of all civilised norms in the world. "Evil" is the justification for anti-communist witch-hunts; and the means to deny your enemy the respect that is due to all brothers and sisters everywhere, as if in one loving family.
You say that I went far beyond what you said. I did, but you went and said the other things later!
"I believe that a truly "good" God would not only "discriminate" between good and bad, but have an eternal, immutable standard."
Well, it sounds as though you are dreaming up a God in your own image, one whose book of law can be invoked in the courtroom of your jurisdiction, so that you can fulminate against evil and score a ruling in your favour (o, the sweetness of victory).
Here in the UK, it's pretty much illegal to be anti-gay, as such prejudice is considered a social crime like racism. Maybe gays need such protection, but then again, I could understand that not everyone wants to give them a blessing at their wedding, nor allow their bishop or government to do so.
What I don't understand, and certainly don't approve, is that Christians should invoke their own controversial God as justification for any position in the matter whatsoever!
What you are saying, Gary, is that your God has very definite notions of good and evil, but it takes lawyers to discover - by carefully going through the evidence - what those notions are!
"What you are saying, Gary, is that your God has very definite notions of good and evil, but it takes lawyers to discover - by carefully going through the evidence - what those notions are!"
No. I am saying that God has proclaimed what his notions of good and evil are. You can read them and accept them, or you can go your own way. But it is not honest to say that God has not made his view known.
"What I don't understand, and certainly don't approve, is that Christians should invoke their own controversial God as justification for any position in the matter whatsoever!"
Then what should people of faith base their positions on? If we accept that the way of life that is good, moral, and beneficial has been made known, then why would we ignore it? It seems to me at least as valid a reason as "That guy sure gives a great speech..."
You mention that in the UK it's illegal to be anti-gay. For the record, I don't consider myself anti-gay. As I've said, I wish nothing but a good life for anyone. You also mention things like witch-hunts for communists. The comparison is both sad and funny. Under communism, vast numbers of people were hunted, killed, imprisoned, or enslaved. And their crime was basically a differing view point about the government. Now you say that the UK has laws about what viewpoints are allowed. If I lived there, I would worry greatly.
"Well, it sounds as though you are dreaming up a God in your own image, one whose book of law can be invoked in the courtroom of your jurisdiction, so that you can fulminate against evil and score a ruling in your favour (o, the sweetness of victory)."
No, sir. I am taking Him at His word. Read the book. Study the text. Learn the background. These are his words, not mine.
YVES and GARY: Some of what's been said on this thread so far points to the fact that different interpretations of scripture are possible on this as with many issues.
Your exchange is different. It brings to mind what strikes me as a greater divide.
On the one hand, you have someone like Gary who believes in God, believes that the words in the books of the Bible are God's own words in some special if not literal sense - a sense unlike the language of any other books. And who accordingly believes that whatever the Bible says must be true. (Scripture as inerrant.)
On the other hand you have large segments of society that don't believe the Bible is inerrant and often doubt or disbelieve in God's existence.
So what you're left with is a situation where an issue like homosexuality (also abortion, stem cell research etc.) is everybody's business in the sense that it affects society at large. In the case of homosexuality, it's a sexual orientation that people may have regardless of their religious belief system or lack thereof.
This creates a situation in which some people, believing themselves to know God's point of view on a specific issue, very much want to advance that viewpoint. But they're using scripture based arguments that don't work for people who don't believe in God, don't believe in scripture as constituting uniquely revelatory language, or who may have very different views about the nature of God.
Essentially you have a subset of society trying to tell the rest of society how to think and behave for what it believes are the best possible reasons when the rest of society doesn't accept that these are valid reasons at all.
I essentially agree with your point. However, and perhaps this is only my reading of your words, it seems that you are implying that people of my viewpoint are are the only subset trying to steer opinion ("tell people what to think") That is hardly the case. For example, the Massachusetts state supreme court took what they believed and essentially told the legislature what they "must think." There are many subsets of the population that are insisting on viewpoint conformity. A great part of the friction is that in a diverse society, there are very few common references, and none that is considered authoratative by all.
I was dropped from the leadership team in the autumn - and so it's probably not with a pure or unhurting heart that I write that I'm not sure we are going in the right direction.
I do believe that homosexuality is a sin, as is adultery, abuse of power, stealing, coveting, worshipping idols (money comes to mind), hating and hurting my neighbour etc etc
Yet my understanding of God is that He forgives all sin - no matter how heinous - and I am so confused why homosexuality is treated differently by the church - as if it were the worst of all sins.
We are called to confess sins - and maybe part of the problem is that it's no longer politically correct to call homosexuality a sin - but it is my belief that homosexual behaviour is no more a barrier to eternal salvation with Jesus Christ than my own sins of anger, pride and ... well you name it really.
Do we believe that unmarried couples can enter heaven even though fornication is clearly a sin. Or what about divorced couples - who then go onto live in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex even though the Bible talks about those as sins too - it leaves me really confused.
God hates sin - make no mistake - it causes a barrier between us - but we are only sin-less because of the blood of Jesus - and why would that cease to be effective for sin X Y but not Z. Maybe it does - ultimately - depend on our attitude - are we taking steps to move out of our sinful situation or not. Then it applies to me - and anger andpride etc - we tend to think of those as less important - but clearly the Bible calls us to become Christlike ...
now that's something we can debate here too - if you so wish?
Thanks for making me think!
GARY: Pardon what may be rehash. I view it as “supreme good” in that each perspective is allowed to work life out in their own time, without intervention. True, discriminating is our way of life. It is inherent in each perspective. And we are free to enforce that perspective on ourselves, but not others. For I do not see Tao (God) doing so. In day-to-day life, I don’t see sides being taken to the point of intervening. So I don’t see that being our purview. Tao (God) gives birth to all things, both good and evil. Throughout life, it nourishes both. It is content to guide, though not intervene. To be a beacon, but not a pilot. At least that is how I perceive it.
It would be the same if, for example, there were a large contingent of conservative Muslims in the US pushing for women to wear the veil and arguing their case based on their religious texts and beiefs. The general population would have to A) be converted to conservative Islam in order to B) find the veil argument compelling.
The fact that church and state aren't synonymous creates tensions when religious belief is offered as grounds for society as a whole adopting particular stances on social issues.
LORNA: It seems important to me too that someone taking your position on homosexuality stresses that you don't view homosexuals as particularly sinful - that you see homosexuality as a sin among sins, so to speak.
It does, of course, invite the question of why homosexuality should be viewed as a sin. If your point of view is entirely scripture based, it has to be acknowledged that there are other ways of interpreting scripture - Christians are divided over this issue.
If it isn't entirely scripture based, the question becomes: what reasons are there for regarding homosexuality as sinful? I would think the reasons would have to do with causing harm. That's generally what makes a sin a sin.
N2, interesting clarification...
The thing is, men wrote the bible. It wasn't a conspiracy to trip up those who would come later, but the very ignorance of what is written on occassion is appalling. For example, the only divorce papers being passed out are for men whose wives committed adultry.
The women are to be stoned to death or tossed down a well, the man that is caught pays an ox and a ram.
Hmmmm.
Let's get past that for a moment...
These are the specific morals of a single person with the idea that he can make the world better by laying down laws fer the rest of us to follow, even though he may very well have been on the south side of those very laws himself.
Homosexuality is a peson loving another person, and while that indeed can manifest itself in physical terms, it doesn't necessarily follow that it must.
I personally love another man, though I don't have sex with him. However, had he done the normal thing, he would have thrown me out of his house YEARS ago....but he didn't. Instead, he realized that I would have ended up on the streets as a typical Viet Nam vet, and so he let me stay even till today.
Is that evil? No. Is it homosexual in nature? well, it really depends on just how much of a taliban-oriented person you are as to whether you would judge me to be such.
But, that isn't the GOOD point...
There is also a law against doing it with animals. The punishment fer getting caught is drag 'em out into the street and stone them, same as homosexuality.
But, wait...there really are stupid (sorry fer the judgement here) guys who went out drunk some night and tipped a cow (slipt it to a sheep, honked a horse?) but, does that make fer dragging them out and stoning them to death?
No, I think not, and dang it, I still haven't got to the good point....
The one most folks like to skip by is masterbation...also a stone to the death punishment crime....yet I think the old joke may be right. 85% of people masterbate at some point in their life and 15% of people are liars.
Is that the point?
No.
First off, the old testament was altered plenty of times in all sorts of ways by all sorts of people till about fifty years before Jesus was born (by the way, how many sexual practices were condemned by Jesus?) (one) and the reason for doing this seemed right at the time, but has seriously crimped the new testament in accuracy. Men changed the words, the phrasing, the meaning in an attempt to stay "modern," abreast of their times and to allow for changes in culture and practices.
Is this the point?
Nope....
but the only thing left IS the point and I might get in trouble fer saying it.
but, since that's never stopt me before, what the hay...
If you are a Christian, the most damaging thing you can do is to use the bible to condemn other folks, no matter what you feel the crime is. That so many folks believe that gays shouldn't have rights for marraige, or at least a civil union, while all the wjhile expecting that they can divorce as they please when they please and shaking their pud (choking their chicken?) or bouncing their button is beyond my comprehension.
Jesus felt it right and proper to forgive us all for killing him (I've often felt that his statement of "forgive them for they know not what they do" actually speaks directly to us... just because we believe doesn't make us upright judges) and yet there are so many other folks willing to throw down stumbling blocks to keep us from following the right way.
Gay marriage? Heck yeah!
The good news would be that they can have their benefits that they've worked so hard to gather...
The bad news...well, in this country, there will be even more divorces than there were before.
I loved him very much, and he was a better man than me in many ways. but he rebelled against God's truth and i fear he is going to be eternally seperated from the Lord Jeus Christ.
And the only way i know this, because I am nobody, is from the Holy Scripturesthat the lord has given to us.
God saved me back in 1984. I was a drunkard/alcoholic bum and blasphemer. i used the Lord's name in vain over and over. I hated people, and I hated God.
And yet He had mercy on me. And I am forever grateful.
I have written an essay on my brother and the subject of homosexuality on my blog if anyone would want to check it out.
I miss my brother Tommy. He was 4 years older than me.
I hope he repented and cried out for mercy before he died, but I don't believe he did.
God bless you. And may the whole counsel of Scripture shape your heart, and renew your mind; not just particular portions. Amen.
Lorna,
I seem to be with you right down the line on sin is sin is sin. I don’ t consider homosexual acts any worse than sins I probably commit on a regular basis. When I commit them and cool down or get whatever is influencing me out of my system, then I pray, repent, try to write the wrong, etc. I think one thing that is keeping this so much in public sphere is that there is lobbying for recognition by marriage. Now, I understand that marriage is no longer recognized by most people as a blessing, sacrament, etc. It is, however, still often referred to as “an honorable estate.” That kind of attitude is going to be a sticking point. At least it will be for me with regards to formalizing gay marriage.
We run into hurt feelings from time to time at our church with regards to what might be called “relationship sin.” Rightly or wrongly, our church disqualifies divorced men from being deacons, I believe. We have a lot of divorced people in our church. Do I believe that divorce is a sin? I would say generally it is for at least one of the parties. A lot of times one of the couple’s lives depends on leaving the other. More often I think that it’s a two-party problem, with it just being easier to separate than work it through. An important distinction though is that a divorce is a finite event. Once it is forgiven, you can get forgiveness, learn, and rebuild your life. I would certainly be very suspicious of any pastor or spiritual leader that said “Sure, go ahead. Nothing wrong with it. Don’t forget to tell the kids…”
I do not think homosexual acts disqualify a person from worship or church membership. As we’ve said before, if sin disqualified people from worship, there would be nothing there on Sunday morning but a lot of empty churches. On the other hand, I would be very wary of a person taking a ministry leadership position who was in a continuing an unrepentant homosexual relationship, or a continuing unrepentant adulterous relationship, etc. If you are in active disagreement with God on his word, to me you are not ready for a position of spiritual leadership.
You asked if we believed that fornicators can enter the kingdom. I certainly do. I think that a sinless state is something that the Christian is always moving toward, but never in this life reaching. And it is his Spirit that allows us to move that direction at all.
Boneman:
I’ll try to take your comments in order. Pardon any omission.
“I couldn't help but to notice that the other sexual practices were conveniently left out.”
Well, the subject that I wrote about to get this started was fairly specific, but it seems to be branching out. I don’t object.
While I agree that men “put pen to page” so to speak on the scriptures, I believe that each word was inspired by God’s on Spirit and therefore inerrant. I don’t believe that any of the message was sugar coated for local sensibilities or sought to pander to anyone’s taste. When you create at least one universe, popularity polls probably don’t mean too much.
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
There be the scriptural reference. I will not for a moment claim that it was always enforced that way. People are not perfect, and that’s why the law was given, but God considered it equally bad for both parties.
Homosexuality, you say, is one person loving another person. That may be the case. I love my daughters very much. If that drifted into a physical relationship, most people would agree that came under the heading of sin. Oh, they might not call it “sin,” but the disgust would be pretty apparent in most cases. And if the daughters were adults and consenting, that would make a difference to some, but not many. And if I loved my wife’s sister very much, and she loved me, and we had intercourse, I don’t think we would find much approval.
The Point: God gave us physical and emotional and spiritual love as gifts, but not all expressions of this love are good, moral, or desirable.
I’m glad that you found someone to have compassion on you. That’s a wonderful thing. But again, not all expressions of “compassion” may be truly beneficial.
Now, you go on about bestiality and masturbation. On the first you seem hung up on the penalty, but I haven’t been mentioning (earthly) penalties at all. The point is right and wrong. I’m not about to declare either as morally “right.”
Now, you say the Old Testament was altered plenty of times. I dispute that. While it’s true that there have been some pretty bad translations throughout the ages, the actual transcription of the Old Testament scriptures has been carried down through the ages with quality control that would put the best lab in Japan to shame. For details on exactly how precisely the scriptures have been preserved, please see More Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell. Add to that our knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew is constantly being added to and you find that we are approaching as nearly flawless a translation as is humanly possible. Now, if you chose to believe that the scriptures are flawed, and chose to believe that you know what was really intended in those “flawed” passages, then you are essentially setting yourself up as your own God. God will not stop you, but I don’t think he will approve either.
“If you are a Christian, the most damaging thing you can do is to use the bible to condemn other folks, no matter what you feel the crime is.”
Christ definitely warned against judging others. In fact, Christ declared he was not there to judge, but to save. When a man came to him and asked him to make his brother split up the inheritance, Christ asked him “Who made me a judge between you?”
But Christ pointed out sin. He slammed the Pharisees for greed, hypocrisy, and placing man-made rules on the same level as the word of God. He did all that, and yet was not a judge. From his example, I have to conclude there is more to “judgment” than pointing out sin.
“Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.”
If the church is not there to rebuke in love, wherein is the repentance? And where then is the forgiveness. Our pastor has taught of a time in the Old Testament. It was the time of the “high places.” In that time, a really spiritual church service would have had a lot in common with a weekend party at the Playboy mansion, with perhaps just a bit of child sacrifice thrown in. The culture kept slipping, and the church didn’t stop it. In the end, God’s people were scattered from one end of the earth to the other.
It has been correctly pointed out that we have separation of church and state. And believe it or not, I thoroughly approve of that arrangement. Government does relatively few things well, and history has shown that religion is not one of them. But if we, the church, hand all decisions on governance over to secular philosophies, than how much guilt will we have when the line between right and wrong becomes so blurred that no one seems to know the difference any more.
So, love – yes. Forgive – yes. Condone and formalize? No! We were not called by Christ to be a rubber stamp for immorality in the name of love.
Donsands:
Your story is both touching to me, and familiar. I, too, have a brother. He is a good man. He is not homosexual (at least to my knowledge), but he has his sins, as do we all. And he wants nothing to do with Christ. And I believe that his fate will be the same as you believe for your brother. Only God knows for sure.
What much of society will not accept, and even many Christians are reluctant to embrace, is that when we go to God for salvation, we are being saved. That salvation is necessary because we commit actions that merit punishment. I look at the scriptures of the New Testament. People are always talking about the love and mercy Jesus displayed, and that’s the truth. But look at the people that got mercy – they came contrite, needy, confessing their unworthiness. And look at the people that thought they were good enough already. Not a lot of mercy there.
As the church, we are called to be “in the world, not of it.” This is another time and issue when we have to decide to stand or shrink. The church has already let a lot pass in the way of no-fault divorce, infidelity, fornication, etc. What will your decision be at this juncture?
God loves all unconditionally. There are only labels here on Earth and in the world of things. I abhor labels and find them more harmful than useful. Labels such as “gay” just allow people an excuse not to get to know someone. I certainly respect Mr. Baker’s opinions and his right to have them, but how is being closed to love (any kind of love) in furtherance of your message of love and spirituality. My contribution is that I’ll send Mr. Baker an abundance of forgiveness, which, I’m assuming he probably would take as an insult as opposed to the gesture of love in which it is intended. Interesting post sir.
This is one pattern toward living more sanely and constructively; it's by no means the only one.
TO BONEMAN, GARY, AND EVERYONE: Notice how lengthy arguments get when based on scripture?
I'd suggest that they can go on forever because of how voluminous the text is; how people can select/emphasize so as to come to various interpretations of the message; and because today knowledge itself has become politicized/sectarianized to the point where people will often disagee on the facts. I think this last is most unfortunate.
Today, everyone can find their own scholars/scientists/statisticians/books to support/refute pretty much whatever they want. You can still, for example, find scientists who discount global warming.
To my mind, when one isn't an expert in a particular domain of scholarship it makes sense to take for one's facts the consensus view prevailing among those with the greatest expertise in the subject matter. This certainly isn't being done today in the field of biblical studies from what I read in the blogosphere.
Anyway, just my two cents on this for now...
HI DENNIS - Will get back to you have to go for now --
For this reason I do not feel it is natural for gay relationships married or unmarried to occur. While I may consider this a flaw in their nature this in no way limits a gay person from becoming my friend for their sexual preference is of no concern of mine. Unless they abuse me in some way a gay person's friendship is no different than the man/woman who has a temper or drinks a little too much, spends too much money etc. I feel we are all mere human beings each with our own flaws yet each with varying degrees of compassion, honesty and loyalty and spirituality.
I do however dislike labels intensely and since I don't go around proclaiming I am "heterosexual", I do find it a touch annoying that gay people feel they have to "come out" so to speak and let the world know they are in fact "gay". Unless a gay person is abusing someone (in this case I mean sexually) who is under-aged, or against someone's will then I am not interested in that person's sexual preference. It is something they themselves have to work through and live with for the rest of their life.
So to me then, the person who drinks too much, shouldn't, because it is not natural for a human live life drinking too much. This is the same way I feel about a gay person, it is not natural for two men or two women to be involved sexually.
LFW
I hesitate to join this discussion because I am not what you would call a “believer”. Gary, I am a little annoyed at your dismissal of Rosie’s main point, which is that you are cherry picking from the bible. You are the one who brought up Leviticus. Then you turn around and said, don’t pay attention to that because of what was said in Acts? Well, which is it?
I am not a biblical scholar, but I do have a question for you Gary. This isn’t a flame. This is a sincere question. It really seems to me that the whole new testament is anti-family. Didn’t Jesus have his apostles leave their families? Didn’t Jesus at one point deny his own family? My memory is hazy, but didn’t Paul tell everyone not to get married? Its really interesting to me how tightly Christians hold to the one man, one woman paradigm when it seems to me that Jesus was really about blasting the whole paradigm to smithereens.
As you can probably tell, I have a dog in this fight. I am a wife who has a wife, how about that? And we have a beautiful 1 year old son. At the end of the day, I don’t really care what Gary thinks. Quote any bible verse you want. It’s your business.
I do care about being treated equally under the law. I need to know that I can make medical decisions for my wife if she is ill. I need to know that I can visit her in the hospital. I am the bio mom, and I need to know that she will be recognized as our son’s mother if anything should happen to me.
And because people like Gary have been so effective in passing those completely hateful and destructive DOMAs, I feel the need to jump into discussions like this.
Thanks for hearing me out.
JANICE: In your example, how is it not natural for 1% of animals to be homosexual? If not, do you mean that statistical rarity = unnatural?
Is it unnatural for people to have green eyes? Are child prodigies unnatural? Cleft palates?
Or by unnatural do you mean something like "not true to our basic animal biology?"
Should we condemn fertility clinics? What about the use of machinery to free us from the kind of manual labor people had to do earlier in our history as a species?
By far most of our time on this planet was spent scavenging/gathering/hunting. Is agriculture unnatural? Is life in cities unnatural?
This was said much more eloquently and systematically by the essayist John Stuart Mill. The natural/unnatural distinction is meaningless as grounds for approving or disapproving of human conduct. It was an eye opener for me when I first read this because using the word natural in that manner had made sense to me too. It sounds so reasonable until you really think about it.
ANONYMOUS: I take your point up to a point. Others have said essentially what you're saying, in different terms, but I think your use of the word "judgment" really gets to the essentials.
Sexual orientation and sexual behavior are distinct and yet closely related. The impulse to act on the urge is strong enough that relatively few people, whether heterosexual or homosexual, find lives of celibacy workable.
So to speak of judging the behavior and not the person is, on the one hand, a kind thing in the sense that some have already mentioned: they see homosexual behavior as a sin among sins and don't judge that particular sin more negatively than other sins.
On the other hand, being homosexual strongly implies that the person has a tendency to engage in homosexual behavior to the point where such behavior can be said to characterize homosexuals as much as heterosexual behavior characterizes heterosexuals. So it's a case where judgmnt of behavior cuts mighty close to judgment of the person. At least, if I were homosexual, I think that's how I'd feel.
Using the word "discernment" instead of judgment has overtones of being right for those who consider themselves to base their position on scripture but it's not an argument.
GOOGIEBABA: Although you heartily disagree with Gary's position here - I do too - I don't think coming so close to equating him with hate and destruction is correct. I truly appreciate his willingness to state his view in a non-vitriolic manner on a blog where I'm sure he expected most commentators to disagree with him.
Similarly, I'm happy to see that people who share Gary's perpective have felt free to enter the conversation. I think very few people take their positions out of a desire to be hateful/destructive. I find people's willingness to discuss this with people other than the like-minded constructive in itself.
However, it certainly is a personal issue, and I can see that you're truly restraining yourself! So I appreciate that too.
I don't know if you're serious about the NT as anti family but to me it's a wonderful illustration of how threads of meaning can be put together from verses to support all sorts of arguments!
I hope this doesn't offend anybody since, again, I don't take the anti family thing as more than a pretty ingenious illustration, but I can't resist following your train of thought:
Yeah, whatever happened to Joseph? After the nativity scene I only seem to recall him from that episode when he and Mary were wondering where Jesus was when Jesus was maybe twelve years old. (It turns out he'd wandered off to a temple where he was amazing the elders with his knowledge).
After that, offhand, I don't recall reading a word about Joseph. Did Mary end up as a single head of household??!
Forgive me for not attending to the various aspects of your exchange; I merely scanned it to see if anyone had called Mr. Baker on his abysmal ignorance of the Christian Scriptures. I see this is not the case.
The internet is no place to deal adequately with this, save in very broad strokes. Please note, I speak here as a Christian to one who claims this for himself, and not as much to those who have no interest in such matters:
1) using Christian Scriptures as a rulebook, even where it is a rulebook for cultic purity in the Ancient Near East, though well after the Israelites were established in Syro-Palestine, c. 500 BCE, is horrible theology,
2) Such a reading is a violation of the purpose of the Scriptures, which is to guide us towards Jesus Christ
3) In this case, such a rule as Mr. Baker extracts, so as to be able to sacrifice a goat during the Feast of Booths, perpetuates horrible violence against God's children which must be denounced as such.
I mean, gracious, Mr. Baker, the KJV? You do know that the texts upon which it is based are much less reliable than more recent ones, such as the NRSV, especially with regard to the Hebrew texts? After all, Europe was still violently anti-Semitic, retarding the advancement of Hebrew studies among the peoples (h'goyim): us Gentiles, those of us who are.
I'm embarrassed for both of us, really, for your ignorance, and the fact that nobody noticed it for what it was, beyond Rosie. It doesn't speak well for the ways the Gospel was promulgated in the U S. You claim the Scriptures; why have you had no training in them? Do your leaders even know the difference between the trash they spew and the depth and riches of these stories? To whom are they responsible? Who has sent them so pitifully untrained for the work they espouse?
And, as to the larger civil audience, how is it that the standard for a religious group, even a number of them, may dictate the standards for a civil relationship? This does not seem to be in accord with the cherished principles of our Constitution and Founders. Shouldn't civil relationships be on a civil basis, and those open to all citizens and residents alike?
It's not sad; it's heart-breaking.
God has been very clear in the Scriptures about His thinking on homosexuality and a whole raft of other sins. Without repentance and faith there is no forgiveness of these sins.
Let me ask you folks this: if we were talking about raping your sister or molestating your little brother, both of which God condemns in His Word, would we still be talking about "various interpretations", and "community thinking"? My bet is NO. We would point to the very clear commands of God against these sins. The same would be true if the topic were murder or the theft of your car.
Funny how we're Bible "literalists" on these kinds of issues, but not on homosexuality. Could it be that the church is still trying to be friends with the world?
And PAUL, you said: "what reasons are there for regarding homosexuality as sinful? I would think the reasons would have to do with causing harm. That's generally what makes a sin a sin."
I profoundly disagree with that. Sin, by definition, is the intentional AND unintentional disobedience of man to God's spoken Word and desires. One could very easily argue that idolatry hurts no one, polygamy hurts no one, or that masturbation hurts no one, but God has called all three of those acts a sin -- and so THAT IS WHAT MAKES IT A SIN!
And HOMO ESCAPEONS, the book is hardly closed on the debate about the "curability of homosexuality". Plenty of former homosexuals would disagree with you on that, as would many researchers.
Funny how we're Bible "literalists" on these kinds of issues, but not on homosexuality.
Speak for yourself, Alan, but most of "us" - the people of the world - do not consult the Bible to know what is right from what is wrong. I cannot imagine checking it to see if child molestation is OK or not.
The Bible did not always exist and in many parts of the world still doesn't. So if God's heart grieves, then he should have found a more universal way to communicate his wishes to his creatures, many of whom are illiterate.
The notion that God's will is conveyed only via the apparatus of Judaism and Christianity is probably the most divisive and disempowering notion on earth.