God’s Op-Eds; But then Maybe Not…
Some Concluding Thoughts on Scriptural Arguments against Homosexuality
We’ve delved less into the topic of same sex marriage in particular than views on homosexuality in general, which is OK – our views on the former follow from our views on the latter. I’ll conclude with a suggestion: Perhaps arguments against homosexuality that are presented and genuinely thought to be based on scripture really are not.
1. Christians Divided
Some Christians cite scripture as condemning homosexuality/same sex marriage; some Christians cite scripture in support of homosexuality/same sex marriage.
As I mentioned in the previous post’s discussion thread, I don’t personally take what someone described there as a “rule book” approach to scripture. But if I were going to do that, then without picking up a bible and just off the top of my head, here’s a small example of how scripture can be read as supporting gay marriage:
St. Paul favors celibacy. He also clearly recognizes that this isn’t possible for everyone. For all who can’t control their passions, Paul recommends marriage.
This could be taken as an implicit endorsement of homosexual marriage. It’s no more realistic to expect homosexuals as a group to be capable of celibacy than it is to expect this from heterosexuals as a group.
2. Feelings… Nothing More than… Feelings…
I’d suggest that first comes an opinion about homosexuality; then comes noticing those biblical passages and themes that support it. And that sometimes people hold opinions on this subject that they have not considered all that carefully and that are based primarily on their immediate and often unexamined emotional reactions.
Examples emerge from the previous post’s discussion thread: equating “the gay lifestyle” with sexual promiscuity – and as if, to begin with, describing a homosexual as leading a gay lifestyle provides any more information about that individual’s conduct than it would to hear a heterosexual friend or colleague described as leading “the straight lifestyle!” Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not lifestyles; they’re sexual orientations.
There was also the unexamined assumption that homosexuality is “unnatural.” And there was an instance of someone confusing their aversion for that tiny fraction of homosexuals they see on TV who are often purposefully loud and abrasive to attract TV cameras for an indicator of what homosexuals are generally like and how obnoxious and misguided they are.
And notice how hard it is to find anyone who believes that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality as based on considerations of evidence and reason stepping forward to proclaim: “But despite all this, I’m overruled by what the Bible tells me. Even though I personally consider that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality and favor same sex unions, I reluctantly have to come down against it. In my own mind, it would be only fair and right for society to institute civil unions for homosexual couples. However, God’s against it – here, take a look at these verses, I just wish it weren’t so – and so, with much regret and some confusion, I’m against it too.
Somehow this never seems to be the tone. To me it looks like people who condemn homosexuality “based on scripture” have previously condemned it in their own minds for their own reasons.
3. God’s How-To Manual: the Revised Editions
Scripture-based interpretations of issues that society as a whole grapples with show high historical volatility, strongly suggesting that the Bible has never made for a good rule book or How-To manual for every detail of our lives. You really can’t just look it up once, find the answer, close the book, and wash your hands of the whole thing.
These days, for example, you don’t find a lot of people citing the relevant passages in support of the sun revolving around the earth, slavery, or anti-Semitism.
4. Found this Post-it On My Bible…
The Bible is voluminous. With our human capacity for playing with words and their definitions, using logic to clarify or obfuscate, accepting or not accepting particular scholars/pseudo scholars as authoritative regarding historical issues pertaining to the canon and how it was written, the potential for scripture based argumentation is endless.
If the Bible really is a rule book for humanity’s ongoing struggle with its social issues, I bet the rule that God is trying to convey to those with ears to hear is:
Sometimes you have to feel and think for yourselves.
We’ve delved less into the topic of same sex marriage in particular than views on homosexuality in general, which is OK – our views on the former follow from our views on the latter. I’ll conclude with a suggestion: Perhaps arguments against homosexuality that are presented and genuinely thought to be based on scripture really are not.
1. Christians Divided
Some Christians cite scripture as condemning homosexuality/same sex marriage; some Christians cite scripture in support of homosexuality/same sex marriage.
As I mentioned in the previous post’s discussion thread, I don’t personally take what someone described there as a “rule book” approach to scripture. But if I were going to do that, then without picking up a bible and just off the top of my head, here’s a small example of how scripture can be read as supporting gay marriage:
St. Paul favors celibacy. He also clearly recognizes that this isn’t possible for everyone. For all who can’t control their passions, Paul recommends marriage.
This could be taken as an implicit endorsement of homosexual marriage. It’s no more realistic to expect homosexuals as a group to be capable of celibacy than it is to expect this from heterosexuals as a group.
2. Feelings… Nothing More than… Feelings…
I’d suggest that first comes an opinion about homosexuality; then comes noticing those biblical passages and themes that support it. And that sometimes people hold opinions on this subject that they have not considered all that carefully and that are based primarily on their immediate and often unexamined emotional reactions.
Examples emerge from the previous post’s discussion thread: equating “the gay lifestyle” with sexual promiscuity – and as if, to begin with, describing a homosexual as leading a gay lifestyle provides any more information about that individual’s conduct than it would to hear a heterosexual friend or colleague described as leading “the straight lifestyle!” Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not lifestyles; they’re sexual orientations.
There was also the unexamined assumption that homosexuality is “unnatural.” And there was an instance of someone confusing their aversion for that tiny fraction of homosexuals they see on TV who are often purposefully loud and abrasive to attract TV cameras for an indicator of what homosexuals are generally like and how obnoxious and misguided they are.
And notice how hard it is to find anyone who believes that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality as based on considerations of evidence and reason stepping forward to proclaim: “But despite all this, I’m overruled by what the Bible tells me. Even though I personally consider that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality and favor same sex unions, I reluctantly have to come down against it. In my own mind, it would be only fair and right for society to institute civil unions for homosexual couples. However, God’s against it – here, take a look at these verses, I just wish it weren’t so – and so, with much regret and some confusion, I’m against it too.
Somehow this never seems to be the tone. To me it looks like people who condemn homosexuality “based on scripture” have previously condemned it in their own minds for their own reasons.
3. God’s How-To Manual: the Revised Editions
Scripture-based interpretations of issues that society as a whole grapples with show high historical volatility, strongly suggesting that the Bible has never made for a good rule book or How-To manual for every detail of our lives. You really can’t just look it up once, find the answer, close the book, and wash your hands of the whole thing.
These days, for example, you don’t find a lot of people citing the relevant passages in support of the sun revolving around the earth, slavery, or anti-Semitism.
4. Found this Post-it On My Bible…
The Bible is voluminous. With our human capacity for playing with words and their definitions, using logic to clarify or obfuscate, accepting or not accepting particular scholars/pseudo scholars as authoritative regarding historical issues pertaining to the canon and how it was written, the potential for scripture based argumentation is endless.
If the Bible really is a rule book for humanity’s ongoing struggle with its social issues, I bet the rule that God is trying to convey to those with ears to hear is:
Sometimes you have to feel and think for yourselves.
Posted by Paul at 8:38 PM Permalink
50 Comments:
"To me it looks like people who condemn homosexuality “based on scripture” have previously condemned it in their own minds for their own reasons."
The statement seems to imply that aversion to homosexuality is bigotry, and nothing more. It saddens me that you feel that way. Still, if it "looks that way" to you, there is probably nothing that I could say to change that view. For the record, would you have the same view if we substituted "polygamy" for "homosexuality?" I have brought up the question before and it has been skirted. I would appreciate a positive reply.
"These days, for example, you don’t find a lot of people citing the relevant passages in support of the sun revolving around the earth, slavery, or anti-Semitism."
I am unaware of a great many of passages supporting slavery or anti-Semitism, though perhaps a few that could be interpreted as the "sun around earth." I know that slavery is dealt with. I don't believe positive support is offered. Can you expound?
On the knowledge of scripture based issues causing volatility, that's probably the case. The question I would pose is "What is the cause of the volatility?" To associate the volatility with the scripture is to imply that the scripture is at fault. The counter argument could easily be made based on Old Testament history that volatility is the lowest when the scriptures are adhered to. By way of counterexample, can you offer a more "stable" model from history?
Thanks again for the "guest spot."
If two people love each other and want to commit to each other, then they should be able to do so, regardless of whether they are both men or both women or a man and a woman. In the end it's all about love, and I believe that that idea is (purposely) largely ignored when discussing homosexuality. Two people who love each other and are committed to their relationship should be able to legalize this commitment so that they can have the same benefits of marriage (right to visit in hospital, share health benefits, tax benefits, make decisions should one be incapacitated...). To deny them this is to imply that somehow marriage is not about love.
I have seen five marriages break up in the last couple of years--we need to honor true love and true commitment whenever and wherever and however we can.
It is clear that Gary - with many others - considers the Bible as God's rulebook, not just for Christians, but for all.
Under such a regime, the issue for me is not "what are the rules?" but "how sad that people attribute to God such a totalitarian paternalism".
Consider life outside this repressive regime. I'm able to love in my own way, giving praise to the Creator of all lust by tenderly loving and making love, not according to a rulebook, but according to my own feelings and conscience and inbuilt morality---but above all in a sacred dance with my partner.
In any relationship, sexual or otherwise, there are instinctive taboos. I am bound not only by my own sense of what's wrong, but my partner's. Whatever one's sexual orientation, this applies.
What others do is not my business, except where the effects are no longer private (e.g. infections, unwanted pregnancies). From another point of view, sex needs regulation to protect the emotional and financial interests of society. Therefore there have always been rules.
But rules are useless if they are not respected. "Bringing the law into disrepute" is something that no society wants.
I have no problem with those Christians who believe that the Bible is a universal rulebook; let individuals believe what they will.
But their beliefs should not, and generally don't, determine public policy. Recent exceptions were the regimes of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Historically, many governments have imposed Christian rules upon their people, but not lately I think.
The British Government under Tony Blair has recently enforced a rule which is seen as anti-Christian: adoption procedures must not discriminate against gay couples. Various Christian organisations including the Catholic Church and the Church of England are furious.
I think the Government is totally wrong to enforce such a rule. Christian doctors and adoption societies should not be dictated to in this way.
I understand your viewpoint, and though I don't agree, I do respect it. Perhaps you would answer a question that I keep posing. You begin your comment with "If two people love each other..." Would you limit it to "two"? If so, do you have any secular reasons for doing so?
Yves,
Though I don't agree with your statements either, again I hope you will accept that I do respect people of differing viewpoints. In that spirit, I would invite you to consider something: At the end of the book of Judges in the Bible, a closing statement is made (and this is an approximate quote from memory): "At that time Israel had no king, and each person did as they thought best; what was right in their own eyes." The book chronicles a people that repeatedly pushed the boundaries of social and moral behavior and suffered because of it. I would submit that the Bible is not so much a rule book that we must observe or incur punishment, but rather a book that gives methods which, if followed, will allow us to live in peace and prosperity.
Something was striking me a bit odd about some of your thoughts under heading number 2. It took me a while to decipher what it was, and even now I'm not sure. Perhaps you can clarify things for me:
It sounds like you are lamenting the fact that there don't seem to be more people who reluctantly obey scripture on this matter. Is that what you are saying? Wasn't that part of the problem that made the Pharisees so bad, that they held to the legal traditions but had no heart for the spirit of the law? Do you really believe that an attitude like that is in any way honoring God or faith?
OTROW is pretty much a 'mental masturbation' technique more than anything else which makes the OTROW person have warm fuzzies about themsleves.
No one has yet to answer one question: how does one person of the same sex marrying another person of the same sex hurt me? (Or a 'poly-amory' marriage between consenting adults. Polygamy is, of course, illegal under US law.) This is a rhetorical question.
In the end, one can only speak for one's self and no other. Legislating morality is always a bad idea.
What I’ve expressed are my own views; and what you and everyone else have expressed are your own views. I don’t think it’s possible to read scripture objectively. It’s a rich, complex, and lengthy text containing a great range of material – symbolism, narrative, poetry, parable, passages that are sometimes clearly meant to be taken literally, sometimes clearly not, and sometimes it’s debatable. Plus you have all the ongoing debates in the area of bible studies and scholarship that can have bearing on how people understand the text.
To pick up on your particulars:
The lines about multiplying and filling the earth could easily be turned around interpretively...
We’ve done our duty! Surely we’re not suffering at this point from an insufficient number of babies being born or from not having sufficiently subdued the earth! Homosexuals have always been in the minority and the fact that they bring fewer children into the world isn’t hurting anybody.
I stated, for the reasons I gave in the post, that I tend to think people who purportedly condemn homosexuality based on scripture actually make up their minds ahead of time – and that I think the same goes for those who don't condemn homosexuality as purportedly based on scripture.
I gave a few examples to support my view that people who disapprove of homosexuality may do so for reasons that are basically emotional and that they may not have examined closely. However, these emotions don’t always or even usually include hate, which I closely associate with your word “bigotry.” For example, it doesn’t look to me as though you or any of the commentators who’ve posted to these threads and disapprove of homosexuality hate homosexuals. Rather than hate, the underlying emotion might be, for example, something like personal distaste or a "that’s so weird" reaction.
I guess I’m not seeing how a discussion of polygamy relates to a discussion of homosexuality. I’m not aware of any big push for polygamy among either heterosexuals or homosexuals.
There are lots of online bibles that would let you come up with the slavery verse (verses)? There may even be a link to an online Bible on Crystal’s blog, I know she at least had one at one time. As I recall it’s something about how slaves should cheerfully obey their masters and maybe it’s in St. Paul.
As to anti-Semitism, I clearly recall that the gospel of John has at least several verses portraying Jesus as consigning to hell those Jews who don’t accept him as the Messiah. I overwhelmingly prefer the verse where Jesus says something along the lines of “All those who speak against the Son of Man will be forgiven.” Another illustration of selective emphasis, interest – how all of us see and understand scripture with our own hearts and minds.
As to changing social perspectives in relation to the Bible, I’m sure someone who's into biblical studies could come up with many additional examples where people once argued things from scripture with which practically everyone would disagree today. To me it’s a good thing that we know the earth goes around the sun and that slavery and anti-Semitism are wrong. My only point is that construing the Bible as a kind of inerrant "Book of Rules on All Subjects" therefore looks to me like an erroneous approach to scripture.
On point 2 that's not what I was saying. I was pointing to the reliable congruence between the positive or negative private feelings and thoughts about homosexuality that Christians hold and how they interpret scripture on this issue. I don't think it's a coincidence that those with a positive view of homosexuality/same sex unions see the Bible as permitting it and that those with a negative view read the Bible as condemning it.
KAREN: I agree.
YVES: You point to a basic problem with religious belief in the modern world: competing claims of absolute truth, especially by religions that consider themselves based on revelation. It sets up a definite tension between church and state and one religion and another. If you believe you know the Truth, you believe it holds for everybody. I’d add that this does not necessarily mean you want to impose it on others, although clearly segments of believers have had those tendencies.
ANONYMOUS: Thanks for stopping by, please see my reply to Yves - I think you're speaking to the same point.
To me also, it's evident that some who believe that they know the Truth do, as you suggest, use this to buttress their egos. But I wouldn't by any means go so far as to say that all believers do this, or that that's all there is to belief - an excuse for buttressing the ego.
I think your web site is really fascinating. Every since my son was born, I have a great desire to clarify my thoughts on faith. I guess in order to be able to communicate to him. Like I said, I am essentially an agnostic, and every step I have taken to try and “shore up” my belief system, if you will, has led me deeper into the maze of uncertainty. So I am really glad I found your web site, hat tip Rosie. I will be back.
But most of the laws forbidding stores opening on Sunday have been thrown to the wayside with less than a whimper from most Christians. The uncovered women wearing gaudy gold hoops sigh an irritated "goddamnit" and wait for the after-church rush to die down at Walmart.
On the March 18th post by Paul I added a comment that was carefully written in hopes that all might have picked up on a subtle clue. I started with "I'd like to add another perspective..." and I ended with "To me..."
Let me elucidate further.
Every question asked has many many answers for the simple reason that each and everyone of us is a unique individual. Our thoughts feelings and ideas come from every experience we have had since birth and since my experiences are unique to only myself then any idea I have on a subject is neither right nor is it wrong but comes only from Janice's perspective.
This means then that at this precise moment there are 6,634,610,277 (World population as of March 22, 11:50 AM) possible views on any given subject and all these views make up the whole.
This is the point I was trying to make. All views are indeed relative to the person holding them therefore there is no right or wrong but simply a viewpoint held by that person at a particular time. As more experiences happen to that person then so too will his perspective change. While I may not condone murder or homosexuality I cannot but help think that if murder or homosexuality brings another individual to the side of love than how can I judge or condemn that person? I may have learned that lesson but he may not have and if that's what it took to make this person realize there are other alternatives then so be it.
This is what I believe to be the crux of any question. If the ideas or actions a person takes brings him to the realization of his true divine/spiritual nature then that is what that particular person needs to do or think at that particular time whether I like it or not, whether it causes me pain or not or whether I believe the same way or not.
In the end a person's actions, ideas and beliefs will dictate the consequent reactions and in time, perhaps with a great deal of pain not only to himself but to others, a person learns what are the better actions, ideas and beliefs to follow.
I quite agree that we have done our duty in filling the earth. The point was strictly a counter to your discussion about "implicit" support of homosexual relationships. Implicit can be found in a lot of ways and places. Again, you can see why I prefer the explicit instructions.
In regards to your statement:
"I guess I’m not seeing how a discussion of polygamy relates to a discussion of homosexuality. I’m not aware of any big push for polygamy among either heterosexuals or homosexuals."
Here is the link: A theme that has been going through the thread over and over is that if the people really love each other, gender shouldn't matter. We should recognize it and provide legal and financial support. After all, no one is getting hurt. And scriptures should not be a reason, or at least the majority reason, for allowing or prohibiting something in a secular society. If that's the way you believe, I can accept that. I simply want to know if that is what you really believe.
I can think of no valid reason aside from scripture for prohibiting polygamy, not if the people really love each other. For that matter, the same holds true for incest. (Granted, there are genetic effects over time, but people routinely take greater risks with regards to potential birth defects all the time, and society permits it with nary a whimper.) So, if love is the only real criteria for homosexual conduct, logically it should be the only logical criteria with regards to recognizing polygamy and incest. After all, many scholars will tell you that both were common in past eras and exist in in certain amounts today.
So please tell: Do you think we should formally recognize those relationships as well. Tell me please what you believe.
There has also been a lot of people asking the question "What does it hurt if homosexual marriage is legalized throughout the nation?" Sometime late next week, I will attempt a post answering that question. Visits and comments from all political and sexual alignments are welcome.
Since the book is about faith and other aspects of “spiritual development” – all of these basic terms need clarification, which I do in the book – I pretty much have to “target” people interested in this subject most of whom are probably already involved in religion/spirituality.
Yet since the book comes at the subject with an emphasis on how people as people are spiritual (again, term defined in book…) and approaches its topics from an entirely experiential angle, I’m equally interested in seeing how agnostics and atheists respond to it. In other words, the book isn’t about belief systems, either pro or con. It doesn’t challenge belief systems or endorse a belief system.
This will sound odd to a lot of folks because especially in the west, being spiritual/religious/faithful is pretty much equated with adhering to a belief system, whether traditional or alternative. However, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam also each have venerable contemplative (basically monastic) traditions that focus at least as much on experience as belief. In a way, you could say I’m trying to emphasize this approach, give it some definition, demystify it, and take it beyond the monastery walls and out into the wider world.
SOULPEACE: Good illustrations of how much selective emphasis/attention is involved with interpreting scripture. A few more to add to your list:
The evils of wealth and the virtues of poverty – I don’t hear a lot of mega-ministers stressing this and there’s even some sort of “prosperity theology” I’ve run across – Christ wants us to get rich! Makes you wonder why those silly "desert fathers" came up with that simple rule of life that includes a vow of poverty for monks obligating them to live very simply and just meet their basic material needs so as to keep the focus on spiritual life.
Then there are those verses where Jesus speaks out against public shows of piety and prayer…
And hypocrisy on the part of people who present themselves as religious authorities particularly bugged Jesus going by his outspokenness on this particular topic.
JANICE T: Sounds like you’re stressing the importance of what might be described as spiritual growth or development – and of proceeding in the right direction… So while beliefs and behaviors often change, if there really is a way, a path, a direction, then aren’t some beliefs/behaviors more right, so to speak, than others? And if there’s a right direction isn’t there also a wrong direction? It seems to me that your idea of “better” and “worse” may be compatible with the idea of right and wrong but that you’re viewing it more on a continuum than in black and white terms.
GARY: Whatever perspective one takes on scripture, inferences are sometimes drawn. It’s part of the human thought process, whether you’re a conservative, a progressive or anything else.
I haven't discussed the notion of “really loving” the other person as a criteria for approving same sex unions although there have been comments by others that refer to love in the context of marriage.
Whether people really love each other couldn't be used as a criteria for approving of a marriage or civil union for any couple - heterosexual or homosexual – or for any of the other sorts of unions you refer to. No one could make such a determination. The people getting married themselves may not have a clear idea of what love is or whether they really love each other.
Your post sounds interesting, thanks for letting us know -
SUSIE Q: So are you going to post again sometime? Or did you start some new blog I don't know about? And did you happen to catch the one I did on my grandmother a few posts back - "A Second Home?" I remember you used to post on your relatives sometimes and I liked those pieces.
Maybe NOT the SAME, but EQUAL.
This is also shown in other species, as also in the "third gender".
Time to grow up and really be a Christian, instead of giving it big lip service.
You are right, people get emotional on topics that have no real information on and then go looking for an explanation or justification for their attitudes.
But, there is hope yet.
It appears Evengelicals are splitting... into the Fanatical/Righteus side and the (Sane - no judging here) new-ish "Red Letter Christians" that focus on Social Justice, Compassion for all, elimination of hunger and poverty...
everythihng away from this gay, same sex marriage and anti-abortion song and dance.
Otherwise... hope to find you well.
:)
I believe that the current struggle about gay rights is no different from the age-old struggles for abolition, womens' voting rights, mixed marriage, all of which were spoken of as "un-natural" and since they were against the cultural norms of the time, many thought of them as "morality" issues as well--very like the Taliban today--and many murders have been done in the name of said "morality"!
To me, same-sex couples' wish to have a true and lasting marriage is a celebration of "family values" at its best--
(at a time when so many heterosexuals get married, and have children, with no commitment at all--) these gay couples are all about making a stable home and community life...we should embrace them for their old-fashioned wholesomeness!
I am still having a little trouble getting a clear sense of your opinion. Perhaps my question was unclear. I'll try again:
It seems obvious from your postings that you feel that gay marriage should be legal? Is that true?
Since many would argue on the same grounds for polygamy and / or incest, do you believe those relationships deserve the same level of public acceptance that you feel gay relationships deserve? I am still looking for a clear answer.
If that was what you were taught, then so be it, but I think I should point out that is not what the text of the Bible shows. If you look at the actual scriptures of the Old Testament, it points to Christ (which he stated himself). If you look at the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament, he referred very often to the scriptures of the Old Testament because they too were the word of God. If you review the Gospels, you find that the Old Testament is not cancelled, but rather revealed. What was new and revolutionary is that the requirements of the sacrificial system were satisfied, but I think you will find most of the word left untouched.
FIREBIRD: Seems that way to me on both counts - that development is key (and unless our collective spiritual development starts to catch up with our technological development we're in trouble...); and that homosexual couples are doing the same sort of bonding that heterosexual couples do. I happened to live for close to three years with a female couple. If that was "the gay lifestyle" that I witnessed, then it's a good thing and indistinguishable from "the married with children" lifestyle.
GARY: I did answer your question. You posited that all kinds of other marriages would have to be allowed because you thought I'd stated that same sex marriages should be approved as long as it coud be established that the two people "really loved" each other.
I answered that I've never stated this. So I'm still not understanding why you're lumping all these other much more unusual arrangements together with same sex unions.
Unless you have in mind the "slippery slope" argument? I.e., if we let homosexuals marry then the next thing you know it will be polygamy, then people will want to marry their first cousins, grandmothers, pets, household appliances...
As you can see, I don't think that the slippery slope exists in reality. Homosexuals have always been coupling. That's reality. They're in a minority, but they're a sizeable and enduring one. They want their unions to have the same civil status that heterosexual unions enjoy and many who are involved in their churches also want to see them accorded the same spiritual status.
I just don't see how granting them this status makes other people want to marry their uncles etc.
As to polygamy, it's all about numbers - the number of partners in a marriage. It has nothing in particular to do with sexual orientation - at least in theory. Actually, however, I have to say that whenever I've heard polygamy discussed, it's been heterosexuals and not homosexuals who are pushing for it.
I still have heard nothing from you stating whether you believe polygamy or incest should be formalized under law or if you think it is right or wrong. Please clarify. I don't want legal pros and cons. I want your opinion. What does Paul Maurice Martin think about the morality of polygamy and insist? Do you believe it is moral or immoral? Do you think it should be formalized as a legal institution? You are evading the questions like a seasoned politician. How about displaying the courage of your convictions with a clear, unvarnished opinion? You can refuse to answer, but until you either clearly answer or clearly refuse to answer, I will not stop asking. I believe that others on the site are interested as well.
For one thing, we had a scare with my husband's health for a while. He had developed a life threatening blood clot in his leg as a result of sitting too long in the car when we traveled to Florida for a short vacation in early February. If you recall that is what killed journalist David Bloom in Iraq. A word of advice to everyone here; when you travel be sure to walk around a little every hour to prevent a blood clot from forming in your lower extremities.
Even though I haven't been posting to my own blog, I try to read my favorite blogs, yours being one of them. It takes my mind off my worries. To be honest, I only skim read your post about your grandmother. I will go back and read it in full. You are such a terrific writer, Paul. You have a way with words.
Previously you were asking if I saw a relation between homosexuality and a list of marriage/sex related items - polygamy, incest, and so forth. I said no and gave my reasoning.
Now you're asking what my views are on polygamy per se and incest per se.
I don't have a well formed opinion on polygamy. You'd probably need to be something like a student of cultural anthropology. I imagine it's probably been widely practiced in other times and places, but not here and now. That's probably why I haven't given it much thought. I can't say that I have any immediate reaction that leads me to want to condemn it wholesale wherever and whenever it's appeared.
Incest is easier. There are the well known genetic problems. It's also easy to imagine that it could have harmful effects on a family unit.
SUSIE Q: Thanks so much - and so glad that was a case of live and learn.
Thank you. You tend to over-think things a bit, though. You still seem to be trying so hard to dance out of directness. Believe it or not, you don't need a degree in anthropology or anything else to have an opinion. Still, it was something of a clear answer, and I guess I can't expect too much.
For anyone who is interested, my comment string on the blog is posted over at http://gbaker-amirightorwhat.blogspot.com/. Comments are welcome, though I doubt that I'll be doing any answering until tomorrow evening. My day will start early and run long. Until then, I wish you well.
ENEMY OF THE R: I'm really glad you found this useful. I've had experiences similar to yours.
The best critical scholarship from our leading divinity schools - that are staffed mainly by Christians from across a variety of denominations who hold their positions because they're tops in their fields - is simply ignored as "inconvenient truth" in favor of authors with letters after their names with a greater committment to the point they want to make than to scholarship.
It really does parallel the way that for years, people have been dredging up anti global warming scientists to supposedly counter the strong scientific consensus about this.
The counter charge is that the genuine experts, who've followed evidence to conclusions instead of looking for evidence to fit preconceptions, are equally "biased." As a society we seem to be in some danger of losing our respect or even awareness of the methodologies of science and sound scholarship.
When it comes to what's factual and what's probable, all opinions aren't equal.
Also, I have something to contribute to this discussion if I can manage to pull it together.
'Sometimes you have to feel and think for yourselves.'
These are some of my views on gayness, polygamy and incest:
Homosexuality between consenting individuals I don't have a problem with.
Polygamy between consenting individuals quite aware of the other wives and so forth I don't have a problem with.
Incest between consenting individuals? Well this is difficult because one is usually dealing with children and children are very susceptible to believing anything their parents tell them. It is hard, therefore, to suggest that children are really consenting individuals.
Indeed, in UK law a child cannot consensually have sex with anyone until they are sixteen years of age.
This point about consensual behaviour is very important I feel. This is why we put aside the fact that many men don't wish to engage in homosexual relations and allow those that do wish to do so to get on with it.
Sexuality is a good thing, I feel :)
BENJAMIN: Thanks for a good illustration of how these things need to be thought through. For example, as you say, incest in relation to minors is particularly harmful. But I wouldn't be surprised if, among the billions of people who have ever lived, there hasn't been the occasional marriage between, say, first cousins, that turned out to be a postive thing.
Have you read Romans the first chapter, and 1st Corinthians chapter 6.
The Apostle Paul condemns it there, as he does all sin.
God hates sin, and He will judge us for our sin. If we justify our sin, then we have no hope, as the Lord said, "The eye is the light to the soul, and if that light is darkness, how dark is."
However, after saying all that, I must say that I am a great sinner, but I have a great Savior.
God gave Jesus Christ as a sin offering for all who will cry out for mercy.
The truth of God's word will show us our sin, and we need to repent and trust in Christ, and how He died, and is rose again.
May the Lord pour out His mercy upon us in America, and over this whole world. may Christ be glorified in His Church.
The Lord calls His people to holiness, and not so much happiness. Though the genuine joy is to live holy before Him by grace through faith alone.
But have you read my post? I'm not seeing any response to it; it may be that you simply want to state your own views, which is OK too.
I see that you are a deep thinker Paul.
Keep thinking, and keep seeking God's truth.
many say they seek it, but when they find it they don't like it, and so twist it.
The truth in the Bible about God, sin, mercy, and judgement are pure and simple.
The Gospel is the good news for mankind, and that means that there is some bad news as well.
The Cross of Christ, and the empty tomb is God's sign to this evil world. Yes the world is evil, but God is merciful. God's is forgiving, and yet He is holy and just, and will not forgive without having the debt of the sin forgiven paid for.
"Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe,
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow."
God's mercy and grace be with you.
Then again, you can be a real LIGHTNING ROD sometimes, Paul. On the other hand, I like yer style, and I feel comfortable around yer words.
Sorry to get so carried away with words and ideas at yer comments box, but, dang! Seems like so many folks are being "sold" ideas and they get it tossed at them from all angles and as obnoxious as burger commercials on tv, well, I just got ticked.
And, sure enuf, there's some more of it to the left as I write this.
Polygamy, huh....
that was the way fer a long time. Does that mean we follow old rules or new rules?
Do we really NEED more people here on earth? I mean, really. 317 people starve to death every week right here in the US.
Starve to death!
Maybe less people would be better, but then, dubya's doing his part by sending so many children to their deaths.
Nevermind the genocide a few miles south of 'raq.
uh oh....
I'm going off again, ain't I?
Dang!
Maybe YOU should run fer president.
If you won, I would have more respect for the office than i do now. I mean, c'mon. bush, clinton, bush, reagan....what a mess.
Best we had is still kickin' butt and takin' names! Carter. Good man, that.
'Course, he doesn't like homosexuality, either, but, he was willing to put civils on the table.
Not MORE!?!
Well, after I write, I read. Sure, I know this means redundancy sometimes, but, what the heck. It's a better idea of what I'm saying and not what others say.
But, gosh, Gary sure has tossed the saddle on ya. Keep buckin' him.
Some folks never see that they "bait" others. It's like when a person asks a question even though he already has his own answer.
So, lessee...polygamy?
Sure. As long as everybody goes along with it, I don't see any harm. Would I marry a gal who has other husbands? Heck no. My two ex-wives had no reason to divorce me other than their own self interests. I ain't gettin married again, period.
And, fer the life of me, I don't know why anyone gets married in a church that so easily grants divorces, anyway.
Incest? Is that like when Lot's daughters got him drunk one night and had their way with him?
Since that's in the bible should we assume its correctness to do the same?
As it turns out, I sleep with my dog every night.
No, we don't "fool around" but, if ol' Moses peeked in m'window and saw me, he'de have me dragged out onto the street right off!
Here's hopin' that nothing of the like happens.
If gary is so adamnant about what is and isn't in the bible, what say he come up with some answers....
Divorce only being granted for adultery? What? Not fer beating the mate? Not fer gross dis-respect?
Love your neighbor....uh oh. What if my neighbor IS the same sex?
How about the many contradictions in the bible, such as can only be found in something man made....
Eye for an eye? or forgiveness?
Shouldn't we be forgiving the Iraqis for being a host to the bloodshed? Shouldn't we have actually forgiven bin laden? (that last may be a really hard thing to consider, but, what would the world have thought had we taken THAT course? Not the usual claptrap about how all the "bad" nations would come over here and kick our butts. Rather, I feel the whole world would have seen that we do stand by our principles! Not like that draft-dodging moron of a president) (oops...)
Lessee. Even the new testament has dozens of contradictions. It's inevitable because mankind is flawed. We think WE are the answer all are seeking.
dang it, we ain't even close.
Do we NEED to see miracles to believe?
no. but, even though Jesus said so much the same thing, he did them for the "show" anyway? I think not.
"By your faith you are whole. Don't tell anyone of this event!" and what's he go off and do? Heck, he does the same thing any of us would do...
tell it to anyone who will listen!
If you want to study on some hard religion, figure this one out....
"...and none of you shall pass away till all these things have passed." speaking of the last days.
He was also speaking to JUDAS ISCARIOT.
AGNOSTIC? ATHEIST? Heck yeah, they can go to heaven, too.
Even the more so because when they do good to their neighbors and when they love the creation it is not for the ultrior motive of going to heaven at all.
They are what is spoken of in Revelations, don't you imagine? ("I would rather you were hot or cold...")
Oh, shoot. I'm just going off on any of thousands of flaws in a manmade book, but, I'll say this...
It is lessed with answers for individuals.
Anyone who wants an answer can find it there.
But, again, the bible is not supposed to be used to find flaws in other folks...rather to get that beam out of yer own eye!
"My two ex-wives had no reason to divorce me other than their own self interests." And not because they wanted to avoid polygamy!?
Lol, this just cracks me up and thanks, I needed that today!
I've been reading your post and you seem to be asking questions, but I can't tell for certain. Things seem a little hard for me to follow. You mention something about contradictions. Give me some examples, and perhaps I can comment. As it is, you claim the Bible is a man-made book. I disagree. I think my God is more than powerful enough to preserve his word for all that would look for it. He himself promised that "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my word will not pass away."
Oh, as for that partial quote you listed, I can't seem to find the scripture reference that says anything like "and none of you shall pass away till all these things have passed." There is a scripture reference sort of similar:
Mat 16:28 Truly I say to you, There are some of those here who will not have a taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Now as for Judas:
Joh 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them by your name that you gave me. I guarded them, and not one of them became lost except the one who was destined for destruction, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
The answers are in there. I promise. Even better - He promises.
BONEMAN and GARY: The Bible contains many contradictions. People who want it to be a single rule book consistent with their own views try to explain them away. Many of the contradictions aren't even subtle.
To anyone interested in this topic, I'd highly recommend James Barr's The Scope and Authority of the Bible. It's a "quick read" as they say. But he looks at just this sort of thing in detail. Since he himself had formerly viewed scrpture as inerrant, he has all the specific verses at his fingertips.
Off the top of my head - this isn't strictly a "contradiction," but it's an error and a biggie - take the quote Gary just provided:
Mat 16:28 Truly I say to you, There are some of those here who will not have a taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
It's one of a number of quotes that clearly and overtly demonstrate that the early Christians expected Jesus's second coming to occur in their lifetimes.
To me, this is nothing that ought to bother anybody - unless you want to view scripture as inerrant. In that case you have to try to explain it away somehow.
In order to declare the scripture you cite as an error, you need to provide evidence that not one of them did. Considering the paucity of death records at the time, I don't think you can. So what you are left with is your general belief that all of them must have died. Logical from a standpoint without faith, and totally without supporting evidence. Try again.
If the Bible does indeed have "dozens of inconsistencies" you should have no trouble supplying a few to make me look as foolish as many believe me to be. I invite you to bring them on. My faith, against your doubt.
Boneman (and anyone else),
There seems to be a general consensus that I, and everyone else like me, uses the scriptures to support my own positions. I doubt that many of you may be moved by this statement, but I will make it nonetheless:
My goal in my faith is agreement with God. That is the source of my spiritual strength, my peace, and my joy. If someone could show me definitely God's approval of homosexuality, I would stop opposition of it immediately and work through prayer until my spirit embraced it. And by doing so, I would receive a blessing.
Which of you claim the other side: If someone showed you beyond doubt that God does not approve of homosexuality, would you accept and agree with God, or would you still fight? Would you call God unfair for making you this way? It's an important question. If you acknowledge God through faith, yet constantly rebel against his will, you can find salvation, but you will never find peace.
I didn't mean to "soapbox" out of yer blog, but, I dunno. Sometimes I get excited about what I'm writing....
fer example, I didn't mean I had married them both at the same time...it was different times
finally, sixty years later, folks started thing..."hmmm. maybe it meant something completely different. Maybe we should make a writing of what has occurred so that generations can see the truth."
It was near 140 years later that the gospels were collected together, and the odd thing was that none were written by anyone who actually knew Jesus....well, unless John's disciple met up with him, though I doubt that else John wouldn't have included his disciple in his teachings.
More to any point than what I can come up with is, why is it that folks feel that we should have stopped writting the bible?
This in itself is a hard rock to roll. With all the controversy over a simple matter as gays getting married how can future books be added to the bible at all.
Wars would flash up all the time, eh?
Mormons, muslims, whatevers....
This isn't the mainstream Christian point of view. And it isn't the point of view held by our most respected Christian scholars who come from every denomination and teach at the nation's leading divinity schools –Harvard, Yale, the University of Chicago.
Christians generally see scripture as the word of God in the sense of being divinely inspired but have no trouble acknowledging some errors in hand-copied texts that were written via the hands and minds of numerous human beings over a period of thousands of years. One would expect some errors.
And no, I'm not going to spend time poring over the Bible to cite verses showing the many well documented historical and factual errors and contradictions. It's been done already many times. As an example, for anyone who may be interested, I cited James Barr's The Scope and Authority of the Bible. He used to be a fundamentalist himself and was used to citing scripture chapter and verse. He provides numerous specific examples in a short, very readable book.
Re. your quote from Matthew which reads
“Truly I say to you, there are some of those here who will not have a taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
Here and in other similar verses, Jesus is presented as telling his followers that he'll return for judgment day while some of them are still alive. You maintain that possibly there are still some leftover people from the first century who haven’t died yet, so maybe Jesus was right; and that it’s up to me to prove that no one from the first century is still alive. Otherwise we are to believe that such people really do exist and so scriptural inerrancy is upheld.
In terms of basic logic, the burden of proof is always on those who make assertions that flatly contradict general experience and knowledge. It’s not up to the rest of us to prove the negative.
If I walk around stating that if I want to I can fly by flapping my arms, I can't reasonably expect people to believe this unless they can disprove my assertion. It would obviously be up to me to demonstrate that I can fly. Or that Martians exist. Or that the world really is flat. Or that two thousand year old people exist.
The inerrancy dogma often leads people to make arguments that are tendentious and intellectually unsound, to say the least.
BONEMAN: I know! It wasn’t that. It was the idea of your ex wives not staying married to you on account of wanting to avoid polygamy that struck me funny…
From Pyromaniacs today. Thought it spoke well for what i think.
The Scriptures are pure and simple, and they are the final authority for us. And they are all sufficient.
That's what I believe, and am thankful for.
God grant us all His grace to see His pure and simple truth. Amen.
"This isn't the mainstream Christian point of view. And it isn't the point of view held by our most respected Christian scholars who come from every denomination and teach at the nation's leading divinity schools –Harvard, Yale, the University of Chicago."
You are of course free to respect anyone you wish, though Christ does point out that following his teachings were hardly a way to popularity. He also has several things to say about what the world considers wise with regard to God. Is that your definition of true faith? Belief by consensus?
"Christians generally see scripture as the word of God in the sense of being divinely inspired but have no trouble acknowledging some errors in hand-copied texts that were written via the hands and minds of numerous human beings over a period of thousands of years. One would expect some errors."
People would expect errors in human generated texts. Why does it logically follow that they would expect errors in God generated texts? And, no offense, but I don't think you are qualified to proclaim what "Christians" generally see. There may or may not be some kind of consensus in the US, but the world is very large.
You may do whatever you chose with regards to the scriptures, but I think you have just sacrificed a great deal of respect from many of your readers. You proclaim with great boldness that the scriptures are contradictory, and when challenged, you have nothing. When asked for a straightforward opinion on right and wrong, you dance around. Your scholarship is as hollow as your faith. You can deny the Word, but you cannot defeat it. You may sell books. I doubt that you will ever accomplish anything lasting. That requires boldness. I see none.
Back to that scripture you cited:
“Truly I say to you, there are some of those here who will not have a taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
Another possible meaning - The Revelation of John. Church tradition holds that he did indeed die on Patmos, but he "saw" Christ in his kingdom and recorded it for the rest of us. Just a possibility.
"In terms of basic logic, the burden of proof is always on those who make assertions that flatly contradict general experience and knowledge. It’s not up to the rest of us to prove the negative."
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Your words:
"The Bible contains many contradictions. People who want it to be a single rule book consistent with their own views try to explain them away. Many of the contradictions aren't even subtle."
You made it sound like a walk in the park, that leaps of illogic are packed in there left and right. If that's the case, it should be no work for you at all. You made the assertions, and they were very possible. You only have to come up with one clear case to blow me out of the water. You made it sound earlier like three or four would be no problem at all. Now I am burdening you with research?
"The inerrancy dogma often leads people to make arguments that are tendentious and intellectually unsound, to say the least."
Is it any less sound than simply criticizing a stance, claiming that it is easily disproven, and then showing no supporting cases?
It sounds like once upon a time you had a teacher or professor who basically said "The Bible is crap," and you either believed it already or adopted the believe for a grade or approval or whatever. The problem is, you never had to give any reason why you believed. You just took a lack of faith on faith, and now you have nothing.
It really is entertaining that Christian fundamentalists are so often criticized for following blindly when their critics can present nothing substantial against them. You have an impressive degree. Can you not come up with something better than essentially saying "Don't be stupid?"
"This isn't the mainstream Christian point of view. And it isn't the point of view held by our most respected Christian scholars who come from every denomination and teach at the nation's leading divinity schools –Harvard, Yale, the University of Chicago."
You are of course free to respect anyone you wish, though Christ does point out that following his teachings were hardly a way to popularity. He also has several things to say about what the world considers wise with regard to God. Is that your definition of true faith? Belief by consensus?
"Christians generally see scripture as the word of God in the sense of being divinely inspired but have no trouble acknowledging some errors in hand-copied texts that were written via the hands and minds of numerous human beings over a period of thousands of years. One would expect some errors."
People would expect errors in human generated texts. Why does it logically follow that they would expect errors in God generated texts? And, no offense, but I don't think you are qualified to proclaim what "Christians" generally see. There may or may not be some kind of consensus in the US, but the world is very large.
You may do whatever you chose with regards to the scriptures, but I think you have just sacrificed a great deal of respect from many of your readers. You proclaim with great boldness that the scriptures are contradictory, and when challenged, you have nothing. When asked for a straightforward opinion on right and wrong, you dance around. Your scholarship is as hollow as your faith. You can deny the Word, but you cannot defeat it. You may sell books. I doubt that you will ever accomplish anything lasting. That requires boldness. I see none.
Back to that scripture you cited:
“Truly I say to you, there are some of those here who will not have a taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
Another possible meaning - The Revelation of John. Church tradition holds that he did indeed die on Patmos, but he "saw" Christ in his kingdom and recorded it for the rest of us. Just a possibility.
"In terms of basic logic, the burden of proof is always on those who make assertions that flatly contradict general experience and knowledge. It’s not up to the rest of us to prove the negative."
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Your words:
"The Bible contains many contradictions. People who want it to be a single rule book consistent with their own views try to explain them away. Many of the contradictions aren't even subtle."
You made it sound like a walk in the park, that leaps of illogic are packed in there left and right. If that's the case, it should be no work for you at all. You made the assertions, and they were very possible. You only have to come up with one clear case to blow me out of the water. You made it sound earlier like three or four would be no problem at all. Now I am burdening you with research?
"The inerrancy dogma often leads people to make arguments that are tendentious and intellectually unsound, to say the least."
Is it any less sound than simply criticizing a stance, claiming that it is easily disproven, and then showing no supporting cases?
It sounds like once upon a time you had a teacher or professor who basically said "The Bible is crap," and you either believed it already or adopted the believe for a grade or approval or whatever. The problem is, you never had to give any reason why you believed. You just took a lack of faith on faith, and now you have nothing.
It really is entertaining that Christian fundamentalists are so often criticized for following blindly when their critics can present nothing substantial against them. You have an impressive degree. Can you not come up with something better than essentially saying "Don't be stupid?"
On the other hand, Gary's approach here is a good example of the sort of obfuscation that can make discourse in the area of religion unnecessarily long, complicated, and very tedious.
GARY, this is way too long; and scanning the first third I find thinly veiled insult and what looks like deliberate misrepresentation - again trying to put words in my mouth.
People are free to scroll up and see what I've actually written. It's clearly nothing disrespectful of Christianity. And I'm pretty sure my professors in divinity school who were also Christian ministers from various mostly Protestant denominations and who rejected inerrancy, didn't feel they were being disrespectful of Christianity either.
If you can condense it, read more carefully to respond to things I said and not things you're wanting me to say, and edit for insult and attempted condescension, then I'll be happy to read and respond to the whole thing.
And while the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy is an important and related topic, it's not what this post and last post try to focus on. If you or Don S want to fully elaborate on why you think this view of scripture is correct, you could post something on your blogs about it. I may even post about it in the future, but not in a comments thread trying to focus on same sex unions.
You wrote:
"The Bible contains many contradictions. People who want it to be a single rule book consistent with their own views try to explain them away. Many of the contradictions aren't even subtle."
If that is the case, then please demonstrate a few for general comment. As it is, you are making a blanket statement with no supporting evidence. Your previous comment:
"And no, I'm not going to spend time poring over the Bible to cite verses showing the many well documented historical and factual errors and contradictions."
This provides no new information. Speaking in all frankness, I have heard many people claim that the Bible is hopelessly flawed, but I have never heard anyone that can back it up with solid examples. I do not believe that your opinions are as "mainsteam" as you state. Can you provide some solid examples for discussion?