He stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground a line, straight and unambiguous. "You may go as far and wide as you wish, Adam-- I have given you dominion over the entire earth. But you may not cross this line."
"Why, Father? Why can I not go beyond the line you have drawn?"
"It should be enough that I have said you may not. But obey me in this or it will mean your death."
God created Eve for Adam. No doubt. And this was God's perfect will-- before 'The Fall' --before that straight and unambiguous line was crossed. But God is in the restoration business. This sinful world will be restored to Eden's pristine perfection... one day. How do I know this? Shake the dust off your Bible-- God's word. It's in there.
Marriage was the perfect relationship between ONE man and ONE woman, and until God allows us BACK across the line He drew, all our relationships are distorted... perverted... NOT perfect. Including human relationships. Especially human sexuality. All relationships 'between perfections' are flawed. Some more than others.
Homosexual relationships, for example. It is the antithesis of pristine. Why? Because it has its genesis on the other side of the line God drew. Heterosexual marriage, though flawed this side of the line, still has its origin in the mind of God on the other side of the line-- the side we are all longing to see and experience; made possible ONLY by the shed blood of God Himself.
The price of crossing the line God stooped down to write with his finger? To witness God Himself kill and skin some creature that Adam and Eve might be clothed. Their nakedness cost the life of an innocent, and eventually their own. Homosexuality cost the life of an innocent. Jesus paid for that sin. But sin it is, if for no other reason that it is the product of perversion-- a perversion of the pristine.
If what is on OUR side of the line were acceptable to God, He would not have had to kill an innocent lamb [if lamb it was] to clothe Adam and Eve's nakedness. If what is on OUR side of the line were acceptable to God, He would not have had to clothe HIMSELF in human flesh to die an innocent lamb, to erase the line that separates us from our loving Father Creator.
101 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In reference to the tragedy in California, Er asked, "If you are an opponent, tell me, please, in what un-American name are you fighting against freedom?"
We're not only bigots, but unAmerican bigots at that.
Realistically, laws do change as society changes-- this has happened in America. But the laws a nation reflect the mores of a nation.
Yes, the California decision is a tragedy, but so was Roe, so was Kelo... slowly but surely the Left is knocking down our Constitutional walls. They've successfully changed the meaning of the 1st Amendment and they're working on the 2nd. They've destroyed personal property rights with Kelo, they've destroyed whole generations, in the name of convenience, with Roe. They've usurped the authority of the president through the War Powers Act, and the Gitmo ruling. Congress has usurped the authority of the States. The Courts have usurped the authority of Congress. And the "Free" Press cheers them on. Our founders would not recognize this county. They would likely feel a revolution was warranted.
The Left hates the America described and delineated by our Constitution. They are bigots of the worst sort. They spout the words of the Founders when convenient, and disregard them when they're not. The Constitution is quite unambiguous, but the Left isn't comfortable with Black and White. They prefer the shadows of ambiguity... the convenience of 'yea, hath the Constitution said...?'
The Constitution is chock full of lines we are told not to cross. This nation, in a sense, has also sinned against its creator. The question now is, who's going to sacrifice him/herself for the sins of America [against it's creator] that America might be redeemed? Even at my most optimistic I don't see such a person with us now, on the horizon, nor do I hear rumors of his coming-- Obama is a false messiah... and an American antichrist.
This nation is doomed. It will never be again, what it was 50 years ago, let alone 221 years ago. Perversion is run-amok not just in California, but all across the fruited plain; in the courts, in Congress... everywhere ignorance nods its head to the ideals of men like Barack Hussein Obama.
But tomorrow's another day. Who knows what lies in store?
I hope to live to see it, but if I don't, this world is transitory anyway and the next won't be beset with political problems or sin.
A better analogy would be someone who is compelled to smack the crap out of another for presenting poor analogies. Such violent behavior is certainly biological in nature, and one study seeking to legitimize homosex behavior says exactly that, but we insist that it be controlled and dealt with as well.
Roe was by far the worst of the decisions as it led to the shedding of innocent blood a million times over. In light of Roe issues like gay marriage have the bare flicker of a candle compared to the burning sun. In allowing gay marriage we only allow homosexual men and women to claim the acceptance they desire, but in allowing abortion we condemn to death so many millions of the unborn who will never have the chance to seek any kind of acceptance from the grave.
Like far too many on the left, ER invokes principles such as freedom, not because he actually cares about these principles, but because they are -- for the moment -- useful slogans for advancing a radical agenda.
(And it should go without saying that the leftists who demand that their patriotism never be questioned, are frequently very quick to attack the patriotism of others.)
EL, personally I'm not certain that our nation is doomed. I do think that America -- and by extension, all of Western civilization -- needs to reaffirm the principles and values that have made it both so great and so good: doing so, we need to defeat the essentially nihilistic post-modern Left within our civilization in order to rally to defeat the essentially nihilistic pre-modern barbarians at the gate.
(Insert allusions to rallying the West in The Lord of The Rings, here.)
The task is difficult, but not impossible. Are chances are slim, but not non-existent.
"Like far too many on the left, ER invokes principles such as freedom, not because he actually cares about these principles, but because they are -- for the moment -- useful slogans for advancing a radical agenda."
I'll thank you to stay the hell out of my head. You know nothing about me other than what I post. So, shut your arrogant self up. :-)
How 'bout that activist SCOTUS and the gun rights law, eh? Virtually everyone in this country, except extremists (I include myself) pretty much agreed that the whole "militia" thing might derail what had been a Second-Amendment freedom of individuals to bear arms. And then five activists on the SCOTUS overturned expectations, legislation and loads of previous court rulings.
Y'all are real thick when it comes to what an "activist" judge is: It's one y'all fricking disagree with!
Four "Activist" justices, whose jobs are to interpret the Constitution of the United States of America, who cannot seem to grasp meaning from simple English, chose instead to cast their lots in favor of excising a fundamental American right from the Constitution.
You're gonna need a mighty big Q-Tip to dig out whatever crap is crammed between your two ears.
If you have a problem with people drawing conclusions about you from what you write, maybe you shouldn't be so quick to make sweeping assumptions about those with whom you disagree, assumptions based on literally nothing. You implied that opposition to that court ruling cannot possibly be based in an appeal to American principles, that everyone opposed to the decision are inherently "un-American" in their opposition. By comparison, my "arrogant" conclusion about your principles is incredibly humble.
About your invocation of conservative judicial activism, I believe that the editors at NRO were succinct in expressing the position I share:
Some have alleged that this ruling is merely judicial activism from the right. Judicial activism, however, entails going beyond what’s in the Constitution — “finding” new rights, or stretching words past their plain meaning. By contrast, Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion simply affirms what anyone fluent in English would conclude after reading the constitutional text at issue: The Second Amendment protects an individual right.
The Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As the opinion translates, this means, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” This is not at all the same as saying that only militia members can bear arms, or that “the people” can only bear arms for militia-related purposes. The latter clause describes the right and describes it as belonging to “the people,” while the former merely announces a purpose.
The ruling may well have "overturned expectations, legislation and loads of previous court rulings," but in doing so it affirmed the text of the United States Constitution.
By doing that, the court displayed an all-too-rare rejection of judicial activism.
I think it's pretty clear that the Constitution was written in the common language of the day-- in English I might add --and that the average American citizen would correctly understand and properly infer that the 2nd Amendment gave them the individual right to possess and bear firearms. It's the modern Doofus muddying the clear, pristine waters of the King's English-- the ones who graduated from government schools and are incapable, seemingly, to decipher plain English.
The Constitution wasn't written to be esoteric or enigmatic. It's meaning was plain as the paper it was written upon.
Eric, let me first try to answer your question (“Please show to me the passage[s] that led to your change of heart/mind.”).
Sorry I didn’t answer this right away but the truth was, I had to think about it. As noted already, I was firmly in the Homosexuality = Biblically Wrong camp and now I’m firmly not. I explained the process that moved me from one camp to the other, but did not point to a specific passage, per your request.
And so I had to think about that - was there one specific passage that led me to a change of mind? I don’t think there was.
Just as often, when we pray for understanding and strive to discern God’s Will on a topic on which we already have our mind made up, there’s not always one specific passage that leads us there, rather it is a process.
For me, the process went something like this, I believe…
1. I realized that the Bible has very few verses (4-6, tops) that seem to actually deal with homosexuality (whereas, at one point I thought there were dozens and dozens of passages, an honest and prayerful look at them opened my eyes to the reality of the Bible’s silence or near-silence on the issue)
2. I realized that the Sodom/Gomorrah story had nothing directly to do with homosexuality
3. I realized that Jesus was silent on the issue in the Gospels
4. When I started looking at the mere 4-6 passages, I further realized that really, only THREE were more possibly talking about homosexuality – Paul’s references to “homosexual offenders” in a list or two (1 Corinthians and Timothy) were not convincing that they were dealing with homosexuality, leaving us with Leviticus and Romans 1
5. In looking at Romans 1 and Leviticus – and at this point, I was still clinging to thinking the Bible teaches homosexuality as a sin – I finally became UN-convinced that they were talking about loving committed relationships, as in gay marriage
6. I came to believe those passages (and maybe the other 2-3) are dealing with SOME sort of sexual offense, but in context, I just became unconvinced that they were talking about faithful, loving, committed relationships – some offense along the lines of pederasty or boy prostitution seemed a more convincing explanation to me
8. Romans, for instance, describes these particular sinners as folk who:
a. …when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations…
b. …changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things (clearly suggesting some sort of idolatry problem, to me)
c. …changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator
9. At this point, although I did not know who they were, I was aware that there were lesbian/gay folk at my church and this description simply did not fit anyone at my church
10. No one had “glorified God NOT as God” nor were “vain in their imaginations” nor had worshiped idols, not had exchanged the truth of God for a lie nor worshiped the creature rather than the Creator – that description simply did not fit these folk who, instead, exhibited the Fruit of the Spirit in their lives
11. If the Bible is going to discuss a sin, it ought to do so in a way that matches the real world – IF this passage (and the Romans one) were true descriptions of opposition to gay marriage, then the descriptions ought to fit real world people
12. Coming to THAT realization (and given the paucity of any passages dealing with the topic) left me with the belief that the more LIKELY explanation for two passages in Leviticus and one in Romans was that these verses were talking about something other than mere gay marriage, something more depraved and – again, in the context of those passages – more likely to do with idol worship or temple worship of other gods and naughty sexual practices surrounding that worship
13. Again, I had READ the people and books in opposition to homosexuality and HAD believed them, but in the end, after hearing another point of view and knowing (even clandestinely) some actual lesbian/gay brothers and sisters, I found the “Homosexuality=Sin” position biblically untenable. I was simply unconvinced
14. Could I be mistaken? Could I have somehow convinced myself to believe something I didn’t WANT to believe? It’s always a possibility that I or Eric or Marshall or ANY of us COULD be mistaken, but after prayerfully studying the issue, I was convinced that these passages were not talking about loving committed homosexual relationships – any more than the passages that condemn prostitution or having an affair with a relative are talking about committed heterosexual relationships
Sorry if I can’t point to a specific verse, but it came down to a negative – I was just not convinced that there are ANY passages in all of the Bible (including the three that seem to be talking about homosexual behaviors) talking about committed homosexual relationships and so to ask for a passage to explain why I changed my position is asking for me to prove a negative, which can’t be done.
If you ask for a single passage that clearly condemns genocide or clearly supports adoption, for instance, no one can do so. Why? Because the Bible is silent on the issue.
There ARE some biblical passages that support behaviors like standing in opposition to genocide or adopting children, but I can’t point to a passage that says specifically we ought not commit genocide, that adopting children is a moral good or that gay marriage is a moral good.
And that is why I come down in favor of gay marriage – because, 1. I think the Bible is silent on the topic and, 2. When the Bible DOES talk about relationships, it generally comes down in favor of committed, monogamous relationships.
I’m not sure if I can explain it any better. I am sure that my explanation would not convince you to change your position (it wouldn’t have changed MY position when it was the same as yours).
God is in the business of changing minds and attitudes, that would be something between you and God. All I’m doing here is explaining as best I can how I came from holding your position to holding my current position. I simply believe it to be the more biblically sound, more Godly position.
Your side:
· You’re concerned that I am mistaken about a specific sin.
· Further, you seem to believe that there is a specific (yet undefined) subset of sins that are Obviously Sins
· I’ve not yet seen anyone produce a list of this subset of Obvious Sins, but homosexual behavior is clearly on that list, and probably abortion
· And, if one is mistaken about one of these “obvious” sins, one is probably not a Christian and may be hellbound (or, for some of you, there is no “probably” about it: IF you’re mistaken about at least some sins, you are hellbound unless you realize that this is a sin and repent of it)
· So, it seems that you are concerned that all Christians everywhere agree on this undefined subset of sins – that they ARE sins and obviously so – and orthodoxy is maintained to your liking
My side, on the other hand:
· We’re concerned about hyper-judgementalism and religious hypocrisy
· We’re concerned that the religious of today make some of the same mistakes as the religious of Jesus’ day, as Jesus noted
They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger…
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
· The religious hypocrites of Jesus’ day were overly concerned with rules and missed the greater truths of love and justice; they piled rule upon rule on the people making it impossible to get into heaven
· All of this gets back to a works-based religion, one that says, YOU MUST follow the rules and follow them correctly OR YOU WILL BE DOOMED
· My side is trying to remind us that we are saved by Grace, not by works. Yes, yes, yes, one hundred times, YES, it is important what we believe, we ought not deliberately take things the wrong way and use grace as an excuse to sin, BUT when a people have studied and come to a conclusion on sin (keeping their minds and hearts always open to God’s instruction and the possibility of changing), IF THEY ARE WRONG, that does not equal DOOMED.
· My “side” is concerned that there are too many religious today who are well-prepared (and well-practiced) to condemn and cast out those who are sincerely wrong (or at least wrong to their way of thinking) on a particular sin. THIS sin – this hyper-judgementalism, hypocrisy and condemning spirit is a much more obvious and warned about sin than any position one may take on gay marriage. It concerns me that you all are “wrong” on the gay marriage issue from a biblical point of view, but what I’m really concerned about is this heavy-handed and divisive condemning spirit that Jesus clearly warns about.
So, to me, that seems to be the division between us – you’re concerned that we be Right on each sin (at least in this undefined subset of Obvious Sins) and I’m concerned that the church is engaging in the exact same sort of hypocrisy that was so often condemned by Jesus in the Gospels – for laying upon people rule after rule that they must be perfectly orthodox on or they are heretics.
As Paul notes in Romans 2, "Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."
What "same things"?
"…being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful..."
All have sinned, and fallen short of God’s glory. We ALL are going to be wrong on some sins, but we are saved by God’s Grace, not by our works. So yes, we should strive for “getting it right” on each and every sin. But we should also realize that we aren’t going to all get it right and, when we or our church family are genuinely mistaken on a sin (what WE think is a sin – realizing that we could be wrong), we must embrace and exercise the same Grace that is offered to us.
Let’s strive to leave the hypocritical sort of judgementalism to the Pharisees, we’ve been warned enough against it already.
Your methodology isn't fair, because, for instance, while you think it's important that there are only a few passages that explicitly condemn homosexual behavior (or arguably some particular subset of that behavior), you have no difficulty with the complete absence of any passage that explicitly condones such behavior. Verse-counting is only invoked to evaluate the position that homosexuality is condemned, but not the opposite position.
(You can claim all you want that you weren't trying to justify the position you have now reached -- and that claim could even be true -- but notice this: Verse-counting the "anti-explicit" helps your current position, as the verses are "4-6, tops" rather than dozens, but verse-counting the "pro-explicit" verses hurts that position: zero is a much smaller number than four. Deliberate or not, your choices regarding your methodology all had the result of unfairly aiding the position you now hold.)
And, your methodology isn't thorough because, while you look at the verses that explicitly address the subject at hand, you haven't wrestled with the verses whose underlying principles greatly impact this subject. Most notably, you don't deal with Genesis 2 and Matthew 19.
And that is why I come down in favor of gay marriage – because, 1. I think the Bible is silent on the topic and, 2. When the Bible DOES talk about relationships, it generally comes down in favor of committed, monogamous relationships.
Ahem.
Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
It seems like you haven't; or if you have, you're not willing to wrestle with the implication that God made us male and female for the reason of marriage, where the man (male) becomes one flesh with his wife (female).
You can review the findings of your methodology all you want, but again: if that methodology is neither fair nor thorough -- and if its flaws all favor one particular position, deliberately or not -- why should we attribute your change of heart to the work of the Almighty?
More interesting is your apparent selectivity when it comes to the teachings of Christ. You place great importance on the Sermon on the Mount as "Jesus' Way" but not on what Jesus taught in that very sermon regarding the authority of Scripture's every penstroke, much less what Jesus taught in the upper room regarding the reason for His impending death.
Here, your stated concern is for "the exact same sort of hypocrisy that was so often condemned by Jesus in the Gospels – for laying upon people rule after rule that they must be perfectly orthodox on or they are heretics."
They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger…
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
But Jesus condemned other things, too, like the legalism of those who would look for loopholes in Scripture:
"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'If any one swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, 'If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it; and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. - Matthew 23:16-22
This is in the very same chapter you quoted, but you don't seem concerned that your looking for loopholes -- surely the prohibition of homosexuality didn't account for "faithful, loving, committed relationships" -- is precisely the sort of approach Christ here condemned in equally strong terms.
Do you think maybe he was only condemning legalism in regards to oath-taking?
And, in emphasizing what Jesus Himself taught, you still have not dealt with the implications of Matthew 19, where Christ affirms the claim in Genesis that we were made male and female for a marital institution that is quite clearly heterosexual.
Given your approach to the subject of what the Bible says on homosexuality, I don't see how you can possibly reject adult incest as Biblically impermissible.
Do you believe adult incest is Biblically impermissible? If you do, on what possible basis do you hold that position? What would you say to an ostensibly Christian couple -- siblings in their thirties who consider themselves married -- who is in a "faithful, loving, committed" relationship?
Do you even think such a situation is Biblically impermissible?
I ask because YOU brought up the subject:
Could I be mistaken? Could I have somehow convinced myself to believe something I didn’t WANT to believe? It’s always a possibility that I or Eric or Marshall or ANY of us COULD be mistaken, but after prayerfully studying the issue, I was convinced that these passages were not talking about loving committed homosexual relationships – any more than the passages that condemn prostitution or having an affair with a relative are talking about committed heterosexual relationships
Maybe you're not being clear, but are you saying that passages such as those in Leviticus 18 do not forbid all incestuous relationships? Is "having an affair" impermissible but a committed relationship is okay?
Those who affirm the traditional understanding of marriage warn that the arguments employed to endorse homosexuality open the door to endorsing all sorts of other behaviors. Your statement here seems like tacit proof that we're right to make such warnings.
When you write that the passages that condemn
9. At this point, although I did not know who they were, I was aware that there were lesbian/gay folk at my church and this description simply did not fit anyone at my church"
Ironic how you so quickly contradicted yourself. Obviously they have changed the truth of God into a lie by daring to suggest that He did not refer to their particularly manifestation of the sin of homosexual behavior when he outlawed the behavior in general. Yeah, you're dealing with loopholes and legalism for sure.
We are not guilty of that which Jesus spoke against by simply pointing out the obvious. No hypocrisy, for we don't claim to be free of our own shortcomings. And we aren't overburdening anyone by simply re-iterating what is plainly stated. But it is this particular sin that is being forced upon our culture, both civic and religious, as being "OK" and our opposition does not put us in the same camp as hypocrites. Shame on you for saying so.
The hypocrisy is in the acceptance of Grace for one's own sins but the rejection of grace for the supposed sins of others.
I don't know if you fall in that category personally, Marshall. You tell me: Do you think that SOME sins (ie, the sins of gays) will condemn them to hell if they don't repent of them - even if they are unaware of the activity as a sin, all the while thinking that OTHER sins (your sins, supporting the Iraq War, for instance) will be overlooked if you were mistaken on that particular sin?
Or, do you think Grace covers are unknown sins (ie, "sins" we commit not knowing them to be sins)?
If you are of the Grace camp, then you are not a hypocrite. If you are the Condemning camp, then you are a hypocrite.
Seems to me.
I think that not every negative or positive behavior is covered in the Bible. Genocide is never mentioned directly, for instance. Not littering is not covered directly, I don't believe. Driving responsibly is of course not covered biblically.
Nor is gay marriage.
In those cases where a bad behavior (sin) or a good behavior is not covered in the Bible, we have to use our own judgment based on our own reason as well as solid biblical principles.
It makes logical sense to not litter nor drive irresponsibly. I think a case can be made that incest between adults is a negative although that can get subjective real quick (who is family? My sister is off limits but how about my second cousin? My third or fourth cousin?)
This is just basic biblical and logical thinking, I don't believe I'm in an unusual position on this point (ie, that not every behavior is covered in the Bible and we have to make some judgments all on our own).
Gay marriage is not covered in the bible. Your case - the one I used to believe - no longer convinces me. Hang on to it if you want. I'm not convinced. In fact, I'm convinced of the opposite, that gay marriage is a good thing ordained of God.
You can believe it or not, just don't try to legislate your religious beliefs.
This may be worth discussing another time, but I'd love to see your argument from Scripture that merely supporting the Iraq war is a sin. As it is, it does seem that your standard for sin isn't the Bible, but rather your leftist philosophy.
1. DO YOU think there is a category of sins for which you will not be forgiven if you take part in them unawares of their sinful nature?
2. If so, what possible biblical reason would you have for including gay marriage in that category?
3. If so, how do you think you're saved? What if YOU'RE mistaken about a sin that should be obvious to everyone?
4. Did anyone EVER answer the slave question? The Bible never condemns slavery and each and every verse that talks about it at all (a MUCH larger number than the homosexuality issue) speaks of slavery in positive terms. IF we are limited to Biblical revelation as the End All of Revelation, what possible reason would we have for opposing slavery? We would do so in OPPOSITION to "God's Word" if you are of the camp that says one can't step beyond the bounds of Biblical morality.
But my opposition to the Iraq War is not limited to Biblical opposition. Different topic, better not go there.
My point in using the Iraq War was to suggest that IF YOU WERE MISTAKEN about that being sinful and it turns out that it was sinful, then you have committed sin for which you have not repented. ARE YOU DOOMED by your failure to repent for sin unknown?
Do you believe adult incest is Biblically impermissible? If you do, on what possible basis do you hold that position?
Your response contains everything but an actual answer.
(You do this often, particularly when it appears the answer is inconvenient. In the past I asked whether you thought Christ's death and the forgiveness of our sins are causally connected; rather than actually answer the question, you stated that the two are "of a piece", both parts of the larger Gospel message but never addressing whether one part causes the other.)
The closest you come to answering my questions regarding the morality of adult incest is this:
I think a case can be made that incest between adults is a negative although that can get subjective real quick (who is family? My sister is off limits but how about my second cousin? My third or fourth cousin?)
"A case can be made."
Is this case rooted in Scripture? You don't seem to think so, writing that "not every negative or positive behavior is covered in the Bible."
(Incest CERTAINLY is covered in the Bible: Leviticus 18, for instance.)
And do you personally accept the case that is made against incest, or are you just observing that others can and have made a case against it?
You don't make your position remotely clear.
If your case is built, not on what the Bible teaches, but on extrabiblical principles, well: you do have a habit of being selective about when it's okay to appeal to extrabibilical principles.
But let's move on.
I've answered questions galore, it would be nice to see a few answers to my questions (I imagine some attempts have been made, there's a lot to wade through here... Humor me):
There are numerous questions you have not answered. For instance, my questions about your position on incest were acknowledge and addressed, but your comment doesn't contain anything resembling clear answers to my questions.
You have YET to acknowledge, much less address, my contention that your argument about the permissibility of homosexuality employs a methodology that is neither fair nor thorough.
(I'm tempted to think that you moved this discussion to this thread to avoid answering that.)
In reiterating your claim that "Gay marriage is not covered in the bible," you have yet to address the obvious reply that has been made more than once, that the Bible defines marriage as intrinsically heterosexual, so that "gay marriage" is about as sensible as "promiscuous chastity."
And, here, as you move from what the Bible teaches to prudential matters regarding what can be deduced from human reason, it is worth noting your original claim.
You wrote, "the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality."
The Bible says no such thing, you've offered no real argument to defend this very strong claim, choosing instead to argue the weaker claim that the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn every form of homosexual relationships, and you haven't retracted the claim, either.
Truly, Dan, I appreciate the countless keystrokes that you've put into this lengthy conversation, but it's not as if what you've written has been a substantive defense of your claim regarding what "the Bible says", and it's not as if your responses have always addressed the substance of the question being asked or the criticism being offered.
We all understand that you changed your mind, but you still won't address the fact that the only mentions of marriage in the Bible are explicitly hetrosexual. If, as I have heard others argue, you are contending that they just didn't have "committed, loving, homosexual relationships like they do now" then I guess we can ignore that whole "nothing new under the sun" thing. I'd still love for you to hear how you deal with the incest (bestiality etc) question. If you are going to be consistant, there is no way to draw the line between homosexuality and incest.
As to your false dichotomy regarding catagories of sins. The Bible is fairly clear that we have the ability to discern sin within our selves. Despite that ability, we choose to rationalize or ignore sins that we enjoy. The good news (Gospel) in this is that Christ (Theanthropus) came, died and rose, in order to purchase freedom for all, from all sin. The grace is out there for us, whether we accept it is a whole other matter. Just because we don't believe (or acknowledge, or agree with God) about the sinfulness of a certain act or attitude or behavior, does not mean that it is not sin. It seems that Matthew 25 makes it very clear that there will be numerous people who believe that they will enter the Kingdom of God, but who were in denial about unforgiven sin.
Finally, you forget that now we see through a mirror dimly, it sure seems as though your whole "conversion" is based on what you (with your imperfect sight and knowledge {as we all have at this point}) can see in others, not so much what may actually be there
One of your more intelligent assertions, EL.
Think about that.
;-) Yer a hoot.
As to your false dichotomy regarding catagories of sins. The Bible is fairly clear that we have the ability to discern sin within our selves.
But I would like you to show exactly where in the Bible that it is "fairly clear" that we will have the ability to discern sin within ourselves with no errors.
That seems to be an outstanding claim: That we will always be able with complete certainty to know that which is sin for us. You don't think there is ever the case that an individual might be doing some action that is a sin of which they're unaware?
YOU have never held a position that you later decided was a wrong position??
Excuse me, but that strains credibility. At least speaking for myself, I am nowhere near that perfected, but maybe it's just me. In MY life, there have certainly been times when I was in the wrong ignorantly. That I committed sins not knowing they were sins.
Am I unique in the human race in this regards?
Although, I guess your point is (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Bible says we will know perfectly EVERY possible sin and therefore, if we commit any sin, it is deliberate.
Is that really your position?
About sin, you ask:
1. DO YOU think there is a category of sins for which you will not be forgiven if you take part in them unawares of their sinful nature?
The short answer is no, which is why your follow up questions ("If so...") don't apply. Sin is willful disobedience of God, and if a person is genuinely ignorant of God's law -- or a particular of His law -- then I believe a just Judge will take that into account, if that man's ignorance is not inexcusable. After all, we have a duty to seek God's will.
You don't think there's a list of obvious sins? Exodus 20 certainly comes to mind, and I see here again you demand a "list" from Scripture as if nothing else will do. I'm not sure Craig implied that we have perfect knowledge of God's law, but the Bible does teach that we have sufficient knowledge to be judged as sinners under the law.
That's the entire point of the opening passages of Romans. First, it teaches that pagans are condemned, because "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" (Rom 1:19). It then teaches that, as beneficial as God's covenant has been, the Jews likewise are unrighteous, "that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin" (Rom 3:9).
In the broadest sense, the Bible is clear that none of us can make an appeal to ignorance of the law.
On the particular subject of homosexuality, one might be able to say that the some of the unchurched really might not know any better, but that's not who we're talking about here.
You know that Jesus affirmed that we were made male and female for an explicitly heterosexual institution of marriage, and yet you say that the Bible is silent on "gay marriage" as if it doesn't define marriage such that the term "gay marriage" is a contradiction. I have trouble believing that you really don't see just how specious your argument is.
Your argument is so weak, premised on a methodology that is neither fair nor thorough, that I think it does take an act of will to make yourself believe it.
That would make your position a willful act of self-deception, and that cannot be anything but a deliberate sin.
But now that I've addressed your questions (and on the issue of slavery, pointed out where I've done so before), let's see what new reason there will be that the substance of my central criticism will be ignored.
If one doesn't repent of their sins, how can they be forgiven? I believe we show our faith by repentence, that is, being born again and our old selves dying away for God.
I won't say that there doesn't exist a homosexual who doesn't know God's Will on the subject, but I will say that it is quite unlikely that YOU know any of them. This topic is SO out in the public arena that it is near impossible that all of them in THIS country must be aware of its sinfulness. What we're dealing with is their willful denial of this fact, as well as yours. This isn't like trying to determine if one is stealing for taking a watch found on a road in the middle of miles of nothing where ownership can't be established. Engaging in homosex is spelled out as wrong in the Bible and everyone has been pubicly reminded of this for years. So, from this point, one must do the study and decide, but one cannot say they didn't know. Thus, the question is a distraction from the topic at hand.
As for the war in Iraq, my support for it is definitely not sinful in any way, shape or form. The cause is noble and just, the progress is tangible and helpful for the indigenous peoples and victory will have lasting benefits for all, whereas leaving will not in any way. The harm caused by leaving, as well as the harm that would have continued had we not gone in, makes your position very wrong, if not outright sinful.
"But I would like you to show exactly where in the Bible that it is "fairly clear" that we will have the ability to discern sin within ourselves with no errors."
And the above quote shows yet again Dan demanding that which he continues to avoid offering. Shame on you, Dan.
"I would like you to show exactly where in the Bible that it is "fairly clear" that we will have the ability to discern sin within ourselves with no errors."
Jesus said,
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into ALL truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."
--John 16:7-14
If the Holy Spirit resides in ANYONE, including homosexuals, He will urge them to flee their lifestyle and empower them to do so. To help with that the Holy Spirit has empowered several organizations to meet the needs of individuals who feel the guilt of their sin and desire to live holy before God... Exodus International is just one such organization.
If the Holy Spirit resides in you, it is impossible for you NOT to know the truth of every sin in your life. To say otherwise is to call God... Jesus... a liar.
But why should we assume YOU are correct? Why might it not be that I am correct and YOU are mistaken?
I believed one way, prayed about it and studied God's Word carefully and God DID shew it unto me. IF God is showing me ALL truth by God's Spirit, then thank God! I've seen the light, the church SHOULD support gay marriages.
Why should I believe your understanding and who are you to tell me that my understanding is wrong?
If you are mistaken and you (the generic "you," not specifically Eric) are sinning in your approach to homosexuality, are you doomed?
You may not agree with my position, but you can not tell me why I hold them and this is the arrogance against which I would warn.
Sin is willful disobedience of God, and if a person is genuinely ignorant of God's law -- or a particular of His law -- then I believe a just Judge will take that into account, if that man's ignorance is not inexcusable. After all, we have a duty to seek God's will.
Then at least on this point, you and I agree. One is NOT judged for their ignorance. And if one has sincerely studied and prayed about a subject and they have come to a different conclusion on an action's sinful nature than Bubba or Dan, that does not mean that they are acting in ignorance.
Because a sin is "obvious" to Dan or to Bubba does not mean that everyone will agree that it is obvious. I and my church have done a heckuva lot of serious soul-searching on the topic and we have come to the conclusion that the Bible does not support our former position.
We have not done so out of ignorance, nor out of guilt, nor out of wanting to be accomodating, nor for ANY reason other than striving to discern God's Good and Perfect Will.
So it sounds like perhaps Bubba and I agree that if one has done this and come to a conclusion that Action X is not a sin and they do not repent of that action (it not being a sin, there is no need to repent of an action) then God will not hold someone accountable for not being able to perfectly discern God's Will. God's grace covers our ignorance.
But what of the others (or even Bubba - maybe I'm not reading you correctly)? Do you think that folk are forgiven for actions of ignorance?
It sure sounds like we have some folk who'd rather stone than extend grace, but I would love to hear that we're all on the same page.
Marshall said:
This topic is SO out in the public arena that it is near impossible that all of them in THIS country must be aware of its sinfulness.
I am not at all clear that Marshall is understanding a word I'm saying. It almost sounds like he's choosing to be willfully ignorant (and, as Bubba noted earlier, we may well be held accountable for our willful ignorance).
Yes, Marshall, this topic IS out in the public arena and everyone is very familiar with your position. But just because we are familiar with the position of the Marshalls of the world does not mean that we AGREE that Marshall, et al have rightly divined God's Word.
It is entirely possible, don't you realize, that some of us have not relied upon Marshall's pronouncement of what is "obviously" sin and studied God's Word ourselves and we have come to a different conclusion than Marshall in all his wisdom.
And so, I still wonder: Marshall, if YOU are mistaken about a particular sin, are you doomed?
This is basic Christianity, why is Bubba the only one willing to answer this question in simple Yes or No terms?
I've done my best to make sure to give you the benefit of the doubt, not to presume, for instance, that your poor methodology was deliberately chosen because it favors the position you have now reached. But for all your verse-counting of how few passages in the Bible condemn homosexual behavior, you haven't yet acknowledged how few condone such behavior. (The answer is zero.) And for all your close analysis of Romans and Leviticus and their explicit condemnation of particular behavior, you have yet to address Genesis 2 and Matthew 19, passages that implicitly prohibit homosexuality by explaining that we were created male and female for an intrinsically heterosexual institution of marriage.
And you still haven't even acknowledged that, even if the proof you offer is persuasive, all it proves is that the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn every homosexual relationships. You have never proven nor retracted the much, much stronger claim "the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality."
If you really want the benefit of the doubt that you still so emphatically demand, maybe you should take greater pains to demonstrate that you really are arguing in good faith.
you have yet to address the obvious reply that has been made more than once, that the Bible defines marriage as intrinsically heterosexual
Says you. We have prayerfully and seriously studied God's Word and find that case not supportable.
Just because the only way marriage is referenced is as being between a man and a woman (or between a man and multiple women, or being between a soldier and the kidnapped virgin of the family that soldier just slaughtered) does not mean that those are the only ways marriage can be interpreted.
The only way slavery is mentioned in the Bible is in favorable terms and yet we know that THAT does not mean that the only way that slavery can be interpreted - as a moral good.
The Bible does not cover every topic. Sometimes we have to figure things out on our own by God's Grace, with God's Spirit leading our study, using God's Word for insight.
I don't know how else to address that - we disagree with your interpretation that marriage is intrinsically heterosexual. The Bible makes NO SUCH DECLARATION, you are making assumptions that are extrabiblical in nature. As am I.
We all do this when a topic is not discussed in the Bible, we have to.
I only have so many hours in a day, and I have been quite busy addressing your questions as I have opportunity.
I don't really get your point here and thought I had answered this question.
As you point out, the Bible does condemn incest and I agree that this is true. I do think incest to be wrong.
What's your point? I have already addressed this.
Yes, the answer is likely zero. AS I HAVE STATED REPEATEDLY, gay marriage is a topic about which the Bible is silent. When I say "Silent," I am indicating that there are ZERO passages talking about gay marriage.
I have gone over and gone over this.
When there are topics about which the Bible is silent, we must strive to discern God's Will on that topic the best we can.
You all (and myself at one point) came to the conclusion that on the topic of gay marriage - about which the Bible is silent - that it is wrong, based on a few verses that hint to you that gay marriage is wrong.
I and my church came to the conclusion that it is a good, holy and blessed thing.
These are the conclusions we came to after prayerful contemplation and study on a topic about which the Bible is silent.
How much do you want me to address it before you consider it addressed?
You have never proven nor retracted the much, much stronger claim "the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality."
What I actually said, in context was:
I only changed my position in honest and prayerful Bible study and even then, it was against my will. I DID NOT want to believe that the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality.
And to be clear, the Bible does NOT say that homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality. Doubtless, this was one of my many comments I wrote (in trying to deal with the many questions and thoughts about my position) sloppily.
It is my conclusion (on a topic that is not mentioned in the Bible) that gay marriage is a moral Good and, so my opinion is that in God's eyes, there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality as far as their sinful nature. That is MY OPINION, and NOT what the Bible says.
My apologies for making a misstatement, it was unintentional.
Your methodology appears to be neither fair nor thorough. And for all that you've written, you have not addressed the most substantive criticisms of your position...
You'll have to do this poor old man a favor and repeat your concerns about my methodology. I have waded through the many comments on this topic and have not found what concern you're raising.
I'm sure it is there, but I'm missing it.
And if there are other "more substantive" points which you think I have failed to address, please list them again.
I feel like I have strived fairly mightily to answer many points raised and I apologize if I have not gotten to them all, but we all have time constraints.
I would still appreciate some clear answers to some of my questions that remain mostly ignored (although some attempts have been made). I understand time constraints, but when some folk (like Marshall) merely keep repeating their same statement without addressing the central concern, it sounds like willful ignorance.
But, as you note, I'm asking for the benefit of the doubt, I'm more than willing to extend the benefit of doubt to others. Still, eventually some answers to my questions would be appreciated.
First, the strongest argument against homosexuality is this:
a. The Bible limits sexuality to chastity....
I would suggest that the Bible is all over the place in terms of sexuality, but I would agree that the gist of biblical teaching on sexuality is towards chastity and within the bounds of marriage, which is a good and blessed thing.
Bubba continued:
b. The Bible defines chastity as celibacy or marriage, as in Matthew 19. That is, obedience to God requires either complete abstinence from sex or limiting sex to marriage: there are no third alternatives.
Again, I agree that this is the gist of Biblical teaching on sexuality.
Bubba continued:
c. The Bible clearly defines marriage as lifelong heterosexual monogamy.
HERE is where I disagree. You have made a leap of logic. You went from,
The Bible's ideal on sexual behavior is that it is to be explored within the bounds of marriage only
To...
Marriage can only be biblically confined to male/female.
Those ARE the only examples given (well, other than male/female/female and male/slave girl), but that does not in and of itself say that "AND THIS is the ONE and ONLY way marriage may be considered. Male/Male or Female/Female is right out!"
Again, it is like slavery: The ONLY times slavery is talked about within the Bible is positively. But that does not mean that the ONLY WAY to think about slavery is positively.
It is a leap in logic that is not warranted or required. Or desired.
This statement by Dan, in my mind has been one thing that will bring the judgment of God. THERE IS A WAY THAT SEEMS RIGHT UNTO MAN, BUT THE END THEREOF IS DEATH.
It is bad to be wrong, but to be proud of our own knowledge instead of the fear of the Lord is a frightening place to be. I fear Dan has no teachable place within him. Mom2
Amen. It's like Marriage: The ONLY times [Godly] Marriage is talked about within the Bible is positively [one man for one woman]. But that does not mean that the ONLY WAY to think about Marriage is positively. Again, I say Amen. The Bible only talks about marriage in terms of one man and one woman... positively. The negative of this is obvious [though not to you]: GAY marriage is bad... an Abomination. Just as the American institution of slavery was bad... an abomination.
Says you. But not the Bible, not God.
And so, if you are wrong about this and you are sinning in your actions towards homosexuals, are you hellbound?
You got it completely backwards. Earnestkly seeking God's will, under God's grace, and perhaps being wrong, will not bring the judgment of God.
Playing God will bring the judgement of God. Harming a single hair on the head of anyt who come to Christ! Daring to make an idol of the Bible! Daring to put oneself and one's personal understanding (misunderastanding, too) of Scripture over God's grace! All but enshrining one's own view, and similar views held by others -- when NONE of us know JACK -- THAT brings the judgment of God.
Re, "It is bad to be wrong, but to be proud of our own knowledge instead of the fear of the Lord is a frightening place to be. I fear Dan has no teachable place within him. Mom2"
Right. Back. Atcha. You are proud of your own knowledge! Dan and I usuallyt admit that what we have is not knowledge at all but FAITH that God's love, God's grace, God's Godness TRUMPS ALL -- especially the small ideas of small people who choke off God's Godness with their own small ideas.
The ONLY times [Godly] Marriage is talked about within the Bible is positively [one man for one woman].
This statement is not factually correct. Surely you know that God "gave" David his MANY (ie, more than one) wives? Sometimes, polygamy is talked of positively in the Bible (2 Samuel 12, for one spot).
Which is not to say that I support polygamy, just correcting your factually incorrect statement.
It is one thing to suggest that you and your heretical church have studied and prayed and therefor feel justified in your position on the subject of homosex marriage. It is completely another thing to fail to address the counter arguments to barrel scraping attempts to justify that position. Condemn me if you like for assuming your thoughts. I don't care. The responses to "gay theology" have been too thorough to accept that supporters have gotten their justification from God in any way, shape or form. No. I reject that entirely because the responses to "gay theology" have not been challenged. (That is, "well we just don't believe that" doesn't cut it.)
Regarding Bubba's comments in relation to your methodology, they are no farther than the previous post from which this discussion began, if not this post itself. Take the time. He nails it in a manner to which you haven't come close.
I appreciate your clarifying that your position is not that "the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality." Even in context, I think it was reasonable to conclude otherwise: ELAshley and Marshall both thought that that was your position, and the three of us explicitly quoted this statement some nine times between this thread and the last one.
I also appreciate your clarifying that you agree the Bible condemns incest, and that you also believe incest is immoral. The relevance for this: the case against incest is weaker than the case against homosexuality -- there are, for instance, even fewer passages condemning incest -- so it's not clear why you accept this weaker argument against incest but not the stronger argument against homosexuality. I honestly wonder if your position on incest would change if your church had ostensibly godly couples who happened to be siblings.
About my criticism of your methodology, I gave at least two lengthy explanations, one at the end of the last thread, here, and one in this thread, here. Ctrl-F the phrase "neither fair nor thorough."
Now, I also addressed your continued invocation of slavery: slavery is a human invention, biblically marriage a divine institution, and that makes a difference.
Moreover, you're just completely off-base when you write this:
The only way slavery is mentioned in the Bible is in favorable terms and yet we know that THAT does not mean that the only way that slavery can be interpreted - as a moral good.
Your earlier blog entry on atrocities in the Old Testament, here, made statements that would undermine some crucially central events of Judaism, specifically the sacrifice of Isaac and the plagues of Egypt, the latter of which has been celebrated yearly in the Passover for literally millennia. This betrays a basic misunderstanding of our faith's Jewish roots, and so too does your comment here.
"The only way slavery is mentioned in the Bible is in favorable terms"? That's simply not true, and the Israelites' bondage in Egypt is such prominent proof to the contrary that it shouldn't need to be presented.
About the zero references to "gay marriage", I think you miss my point. My point is, you seem to believe that the relative scarcity of passages that condemn homosexuality -- 4 to 6 rather than dozens -- is a point against our position. If that's true, then surely the complete absence of passages that condone homosexuality -- zero rather than even 2 or 3 -- is a point against your position. You don't seem eager to judge your own position by the standard you judge ours, and that goes back to my criticism of your methodology.
Finally, you write:
Just because the only way marriage is referenced is as being between a man and a woman (or between a man and multiple women, or being between a soldier and the kidnapped virgin of the family that soldier just slaughtered) does not mean that those are the only ways marriage can be interpreted.
You miss the claim that is made in Genesis 2, and that Christ explicitly affirms in Matthew 19, and the consequences of that claim.
"Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
This isn't just an observation of an instance of marriage that happens to be heterosexual, but the assertion that man was created male and female for marriage that is clearly heterosexual.
There's no logical way a person can honestly affirm the truth of this claim and then turn around and call "gay marriage" an unqualified moral good.
God has the prerogative to tell us why He created us male and female, and He has done so, so that "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh". Homosexuality is clearly a deviation from this intent. Since this intent is God's intent, this deviation is rebellion against His will and, therefore, a sin.
Re, "but I also know that he has other attributes that we can't overlook."
God has attributes that neither your nor I can even fathom.
Re, "I have some good thoughts toward you, but I think you would rather believe what you want to believe than to look at the whole nature of our true and loving God."
I have good thoughts for you, too, dear. But if you think you have even the thinnest grasp of what the whole nature of our true and loving God is, I think you're mistaken, sadly.
Re, "Just as I had to spank my children for disobedience or rebellion, I believe that God will also."
So God may. But not -- ever -- on your judgment or any other human beings. Not ever.
Re, "I know I'm just a human with my understanding, so if you want to disagree that is ok."
I know it's OK. And I do, to my bones. :-) But notice: we who dare to get out of the way of God's unfathomable love and grace aren't the ones "standing guard" at the door of the church. As if anyone could! That's people from yer side of most current issues. Somebody should issue Ms. Green, EL and MA, for example, uniforms and sidearms. They think they have them already.
That's truly classic, ER. And just like Dan, you fail to realize that you are guilty of that which you accuse us. More to the point, we have every right, and to a very large extent, an obligation, to preach the Word, even in the face of those who clearly misunderstand it. Indeed, to correct blatant falsehoods is imperative for the sake of those who come later. So go ahead and keep your guns cleaned if you truly believe you've anything to fear from Bible-believing Christians. But so far, it has been the lefties who have been the most militant.
In order then, you said:
an attempt to discover what the Bible says about homosexuality needs to answer four questions:
1, which I will abbreviate as "Anti-explicit": Does the Bible explicitly prohibit or condemn homosexual relationships?
2, "Pro-explicit": Does it explicitly permit or condone such relationships?
3, "Anti-implicit": Does its principles implicitly lead to its prohibition or condemnation?
4, "Pro-implicit": Do they implicitly lead to its permission or condoning?
The historical consensus is that the answers are, in order, yes, no, yes, and no.
My answer would be no, no, no and no. As I have said, I believe that the Bible is silent on gay marriage. I think there are some few verses that are probably talking about SOME illicit gay behaviors, but I don't think those verses are a strike against ALL homosexual relationships, any more than I think the passages addressing incest or prostitution are strikes against ALL heterosexual relationships.
I think perhaps you're making too much of my so-called "verse counting." My point was not that "There are very few verses that deal with homosexuality in the Bible, therefore gay marriage is okay."
In noticing the numbers (or lack thereof) I was merely expressing how the process began for my change from one belief (anti-gay marriage) to another (pro-gay marriage). I was struck, "Oh. There are hardly ANY passages that actually deal with this topic," as I began studying it and that came as a shock. If I was mistaken about how thoroughly drenched the Bible was in its opposition to homosexuality, then perhaps I'd better be more careful about making claims to that end.
That is why I referenced the numbers of verses.
What it came down to, for me, was that I don't believe that there are ANY verses that deal with homosexuality in the context of healthy, committed relationships. I believe the bible is silent on the issue.
Does that deal with this matter or is there some other angle on the whole pro-explicit, anti-explicit, etc approach that you feel I've not addressed?
Your methodology isn't fair, because, for instance, while you think it's important that there are only a few passages that explicitly condemn homosexual behavior (or arguably some particular subset of that behavior), you have no difficulty with the complete absence of any passage that explicitly condones such behavior. Verse-counting is only invoked to evaluate the position that homosexuality is condemned, but not the opposite position.
And I must apologize again, but I'm just not sure of your point here. My position is that the Bible is silent on gay marriage and healthy homosexual behavior. There are no verses pro OR con, to my understanding.
What is your point? (And again, I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious).
And, your methodology isn't thorough because, while you look at the verses that explicitly address the subject at hand, you haven't wrestled with the verses whose underlying principles greatly impact this subject. Most notably, you don't deal with Genesis 2 and Matthew 19.
Again, I don't get it.
It is YOUR position that Genesis 2 and Matt 19 define marriage beyond any other definitions. That when these two passages mention "man/woman," that this is the be all and end all of the definition of marriage.
That is YOUR understanding of those verses.
But it is not my understanding of those verses.
I don't get why you'd think I should go with YOUR understanding over MY understanding.
The Bible says, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
But the Bible also says, "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day...", but that doesn't mean that the one and only explanation of that is that the world was created in six literal 24 hour days.
And the Bible also has Jesus instructing his followers, "Sell your belongings and give alms," but that does not mean that the one and only way of interpreting that verse is that we must sell all our belongings and give the money to the poor.
Similarly, I just don't buy YOUR interpretation of that verse. Not anymore. You are welcome to it, but I think it is a wrong interpretation.
But it seems that I've already dealt with all of this before: What am I failing to address here?
D'oh!
Still, the DIRECT teaching from the Bible when it comes to slavery tends to be, "Deal with it. Be a good, obedient slave that you might be rewarded and God get the glory." There IS the exception that, when Israel was enslaved and they called out to God, God heard and delivered them.
And so, I still wonder, on what basis would we say today that slavery ought to be opposed and that people ought NOT say things like, "Just be a good slave"? Paul's teaching on the subject is clear and direct.
Why would we buck what Paul (inspired by God) would teach?
Because times change. It is now beyond any shadow of doubt that slavery is a horrible wrong and ought not be encouraged at all. We can't stop at the direct biblical teaching ("Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them." 1 Tim 6). THESE are the things to teach slaves? To honor their masters - especially their Christian masters and serve them even better?
In God's name, No! We MUST not stop at the clear NT teaching on slavery - we need to move beyond that if we are to follow Christ more fully.
God only has to say it once, Dan. God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He doesn't have to drench the scriptures with prohibitions against homosexuality. He did it in Leviticus 20:13, and that should be enough. but "apparently" it is not enough for you. You apparently want the clouds to part and the audible voice of God speaks in clear unambiguous English that homosexuality is an abomination.
The very fact... FACT... that nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality EVER mentioned in a positive light [without condemnation, or spoken of favorably] should speak volumes. But it "apparently" doesn't register even a whisper in Dan's hearing... it's apparently not even a blip on Dan's moral radar.
The very fact that God punished homosexuality, in part [Jude 1:7], should speak volumes, but apparently it does not even register on Dan's threshold of perception.
To quote the body of this post; and though it does not come from the lips of God, it is nonetheless valid:
"It should be enough that I have said you may not."
It should be, but apparently it is not.
When God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden he said, in effect, "Do not cross this line." It was an imperative. A statement of absolute prohibition. Why? He only told them once. "Do not eat of THIS tree. Eat if you dare, but I said "Don't." I mean what I say, and say what I mean. Eat of that tree, and you will surely die."
The prohibition in Leviticus come AFTER-- some five-hundred years AFTER --the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of fornication [homosexuality by virtue of unmarried sex with a member of the same sex], and "going after strange flesh" [homosexuality because they departed from the course of nature, and went after that which is unnatural], which also includes several other "unnatural" sexual practices. There was precedent for the punishment of this kind of sin before He ever came out and said:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death..."
The simple truth is-- and I hate to be blunt, but I feel it's necessary --the vagina is the only orifice designed by God to receive the penis. NOT the anus. NOT the mouth. And since the practice of homosexuality "depart[s] from the course of nature, and [goes] after that which is unnatural" [Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown Commentary, 1871], homosexuality is against God's design, and against His moral law in terms of sexual purity.
But I wonder if your answer really matters. I say that because, regarding slavery and I Timothy 6, you seem intent, not simply to say that we should do more than what the passage says -- that we should oppose slavery politically while Christians who find themselves in that situation really should serve wholeheartedly -- but that we should do the opposite of what the passage says, that we should do something like encouraging slaves to revolt and attack their masters.
THESE are the things to teach slaves? To honor their masters - especially their Christian masters and serve them even better?
In God's name, No!
Never mind that Paul was adamant about this particular instruction:
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brethren; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching which accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. - I Timothy 6:1-5, emphasis mine
It seems that your approach isn't merely to say that we are left to our own prudential judgment on subjects on which the Bible is silent (e.g., adoption), but to say that we should overturn its loud-and-clear teachings when we don't like them.
You invoke this pick-and-choose approach to address the issue of slavery so that you can subsequently argue for applying that approach to other issues.
In which case, what does it matter what the Bible says about homosexuality? Even if the Bible was so perfectly clear that you couldn't slither around its meaning -- and I would argue that, particularly with Matthew 19, the Bible is perfectly clear to those who aren't being willfully obtuse -- that wouldn't mean that you would revise your position to fit the Bible's clear teaching.
No, there's nothing that would stop you from saying that a clear prohibition of homosexuality is yet another area where we must -- what's the euphamism? -- "move beyond" Scripture whose authority Jesus affirmed, ostensibly to follow Jesus more fully.
I can almost here you ask the rhetorical question, "This is what we're supposed to teach gays? That God made us male and female for marriage, and marriage is where a man becomes one flesh with his wife?"
"In God's name, No! We MUST not stop at the clear NT teaching on homosexuality - we need to move beyond that if we are to follow Christ more fully."
Your argument about slavery -- and what you concede is the New Testament's "clear teaching" -- is to justify a rejection of clear teachings in other areas: you now argue that there is no such clear teaching regarding homosexuality, but you've set up a method to reject that teaching if it comes to it.
That you do all this ostensibly to follow Christ is probably the most disturbing and disturbed detail.
That is YOUR interpretation and you are welcome to it. I'm not forcing you to change your hunch as to what that means.
I disagree.
So, if you are WRONG about your hunch, are you hellbound, Eric? Am I hellbound if I'm mistaken?
Must we be right on every sin in order to be saved? Is there a special category of sins that are worse than others that one can't be mistaken about?
And yet, we know that is not the case. I was fully in your camp. I fully agreed that the Bible taught homosexuality was wrong. I was not being deliberately obtuse. I was seeking God's will prayerfully and seriously (although I was certainly leaning AWAY from changing my mind).
AND YET, after prayerful consideration and study, I no longer felt that position (God is opposed to homosexuality in general) to be the true biblical, Christian position. I was not/am not being willfully obtuse. That is just not true in the real world and my case is a perfect example of it.
I think the problem is that you all (and me at one time) were SO thoroughly convinced of your position that we could only conclude that someone who disagreed was doing so for less-than-honest reasons.
"They didn't REALLY change their position because they prayerfully studied it. They REALLY must have WANTED to change their positions. They felt guilty. They were gay. They had gay friends." You seem convinced, in spite of clear evidence in my personal history, that no one could possibly come up with an opinion other than the one you hold.
And yet, reality shows this not to be the case. There are those of us who are devoted followers of Christ who have prayerful and seriously managed to come to a conclusion other than the one you hold.
And so, if we are sincerely mistaken (or if you are), are we hell-bound? Are you hell-bound for committing the sin of arrogance and/or bearing false witness (in stating "the Bible is perfectly clear to those who aren't being willfully obtuse" when that is observably NOT the case)?
Anyway, you claim that it's "observably" true that you're not being willfully obtuse regarding Matthew 19. You know what would qualify as evidence? Not merely the claim that "we know that is not the case," but your actual position on what Matthew 19 teaches.
Guess what's missing from your most recent comment: your actual position on what Matthew 19 teaches.
I'm arrogant or dishonest only if it's true that there's a reasonable alternative interpretation of Matthew 19 that permits one to conclude that homosexuality is biblically permissible.
Are you so eager to accuse me of arrogance or bearing false witness -- a veritable twin spin of Dan Trabue's favorite hits -- that you overlooked providing your actual interpretation of this passage? Or do you want to argue that the actual interpretation isn't relevant?
? I ask because I think it IS relevant. Jesus had infinitely more to say about religious hypocrisy and judgmentalism than he had to say about homosexuality.
We disagree on the Bible's teaching on homosexuality. That's not going to change.
But what COULD change, if we let it, is how we approach the Other. How we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we disagree. I am much more concerned about this lack of love and human decency than I am about what someone might do in their bedroom.
And you know WHY I'm concerned? Because it is a central focus of the Bible.
"They will know we are christians by our love."
"Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble,"
"We should love one another."
"And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us."
"God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other."
"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought."
"Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity."
"Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."
And, of course, you know I could go on all day. The commands to demonstrate our Christianity by our love for one another and our unity are rampant in the Bible (as opposed to opinions about gay marriage).
But what does that mean? That we should never have any disagreements? No, I don't think so. There are clearly passages that also demonstrate Christians rebuking or correcting one another. I'd suggest it's all in HOW we disagree.
We don't need to make the assumptions "If he disagrees with me and my church, he's not a Christian!" or "If he disagrees with my opinion, then he clearly is rejecting God's Word and is only doing so to be a troublemaker, to do the work of the devil..." and more in that genre of disagreement. The demonization and besmirching of the Other is where I think we all need to make our changes. I can disagree with your sinful position in opposition to gay marriage without considering you a heathen. We can disagree with one another in love, but it takes effort. It's much easier to just make the assumption that they Other is lying or is deliberately trying to do evil or undermine the church.
But we're called to do what is right, not what is easy.
We don't need to make the assumptions "If he disagrees with me and my church, he's not a Christian!" or "If he disagrees with my opinion, then he clearly is rejecting God's Word and is only doing so to be a troublemaker, to do the work of the devil..." and more in that genre of disagreement. The demonization and besmirching of the Other is where I think we all need to make our changes.
Paul used almost precisely that sort of language to rebuke those who would reject his teaching regarding how Christian slaves should behave, as I showed above.
And the fact of the matter is, you've had no problem calling us graceless and ungracious, and of saying that we are in a slimy, bitter bigotry. So far as I can tell, you've never retracted the comment, you've just excused by saying that you're also referring to your old, unenlightened self -- paying a dime of humility for two bucks' worth of vitriol.
Even now, you accuse me of arrogance or bearing false witness. If all these things are justifiable under the umbrella of Christian charity, maybe you should explain exactly what it is we're doing that doesn't qualify, and precisely why it doesn't.
Or, maybe, for the sake of Christian brotherhood, we could stick to the substance of our disagreement.
I have asked, for instance, for your interpretation of Matthew 19.
"that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'"
As I've repeatedly noted, gay marriage was not on anyone's radar in the Bible. It's a point on which the Bible is silent.
Like slavery being an abomination. Like drunk driving. Like waterboarding.
These are all issues that the Bible does not speak about. So one ought not say, "Well, look, the word we get from Paul is that slaves should respect and honor their masters and be good slaves. There's NOT another different word on slavery in the Bible, therefore, that should be the church's position on slavery."
No! Just because standing opposed to slavery is not mentioned does not mean that standing opposed to slavery is wrong. Just because gay marriage is not mentioned does not mean that embracing gay marriage is wrong. Just because driving responsibly is not mentioned does not mean that we ought not encourage driving responsibly.
Just because a behavior is not addressed in the bible does not give us license to assume that that behavior is to be opposed.
I feel like I've repeatedly addressed y'all's Matthew 19 question and have not been heard or understood. I apologize if I haven't been clear, I'm trying my best.
But their sin can and will keep them out of heaven.
Now, it seems obvious to me that your real concern here is not how homosexuals are being treated by us, but rather how YOU are being treated by us. You stance on homosexuality is wrong. Period. We disagree and show you many proofs but you refuse to see. You choose to remain blind. You choose to do nothing to keep your Gay and Lesbian "brothers and sisters" from spending an eternity in hell. That's on you, not us.
As to Eden. The Scriptures are quite clear. There is only one way to interpret it. Eve was created for Adam. In terms of the physical, Vagina for Penis [again, apologies for being crass]. And Celibacy is the Rule outside of Marriage. That is clearly God's perfect will for men and women. Anything short of perfection is sin. And God hates sin. And He has said that sin will not glory in His presence. Sin must be cast out from His presence.
But there is a remedy. And that remedy is the shed blood of Jesus Christ, son of the living God; and God Himself in His own right. Imagine that! God loved us so much He allowed Himself to be killed by His creation, fallen into sin, that He might take away their sin...
You can't fix what you won't acknowledge. Every homosexual whose heart hasn't been completely hardened knows, in his heart, that his lifestyle is wrong. If his conscience is not completely seared, he knows. And he is without excuse because of it.
But you, Dan, enable their sin, excuse it, celebrate it, and allow them to enter hell unfought for... unchallenged.
That, I believe, is the greatest shame of this thread.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death..."
--Leviticus 20:13
I appreciate your doing so, but I find your interpretation to be wholly implausible.
MY interpretation of Matthew 19? It's that marriage is a good thing. It's one reason why we're here in this world - to share it with another. That's why I support gay and straight marriage for those whom it is appropriate.
Matthew 19 doesn't just teach that we're "here" for an institution of marriage that has so vague a composition.
Jesus didn't merely explain why we were created, but why were created MALE AND FEMALE. You have diluted a claim about the reason for our existence as sexual beings into a claim about the reason for our existence, full-stop.
And Jesus didn't just mention the institution of marriage, He described it as clearly and explicitly heterosexual, in which a man (male) leaves his family to become one flesh with his wife (female). Christ described the institution in such a way that it intrinsically excludes same-sex couples, but you act as if He merely invoked the institution without describing it, such that His invocation of marriage leaves open the question of what precisely He means by it.
"God made us male and female for marriage, in which a man becomes one flesh with his wife."
This is what Christ taught. Your interpretation requires a woefully incomplete summary -- "God made us for marriage" -- where there is nothing about how He made us (male and female) or about the composition of marriage (man and wife). There is nothing in the passage that indicates those details are parenthetical, unimportant, or negotiable.
This so-called interpretation does strike me as a deliberate attempt to obfuscate on a very clear claim from Scripture, to edit out from Christ's teachings precisely those claims that demolish your position.
And I don't do so out of willful ignorance but out of careful and prayerful study and contemplation.
Earlier, Bubba, you said:
I've already answered whether I think there are sins for which we will not be forgiven if we're ignorant about their nature. Your question of "are we hell-bound?" seems like nothing more than restatement of the same question.
I continue to ask because of Eric (and perhaps others') position, as Eric states here:
But their sin can and will keep them out of heaven.
I believe (CORRECT ME IF I'M MISTAKEN) that Eric thinks merely being wrong about a sin is enough to keep one out of heaven. Or at least being wrong about the "sin" of homosexuality.
It is this lack of grace and hypocrisy (ie, accepting God's grace for your sins and even for your ignorance but refusing that same grace for others) that I think the greater issue here.
Do you not find that sort of hypocrisy troubling?
What I don't get is why you keep asking me about this "greater issue" when your problem's with ELAshley. He hasn't answered your questions to your satisfaction, so you're going to keep asking me those questions until he does?
Odd.
Anyway, if your interpretation of Matthew 19 is based on "careful and prayerful study and contemplation," perhaps you could explain why you think it's permissible to dismiss as unimportant what Christ said about the quality of our existence -- that we were not just created, but created male and female -- and what He said about the composition of marriage, that it involves a man (male) becoming one flesh with his wife (female).
The only reason I can find is the question-begging reason: you dismiss those aspects as unimportant because doing otherwise demolishes your essentially androgynous approach to marriage.
If you have a better reason, one rooted in Scripture, I think you should present it, because your current claim -- that you really, really, really didn't want to change your mind on homosexuality but the evidence was so strong that you had no choice -- isn't all that credible. I cannot accept on faith that evidence is that strong; I ask you to show me the evidence.
Based on what evidence do you think that when Jesus said, "Sell your belongings and give alms" that he didn't mean literally we should sell all our belongings and give them to the poor?
On what evidence do you think that when Paul commanded slaves to be obedient to their masters that we can then choose to encourage slaves to refuse to be subject to their masters? (Or is it the case that you STILL think slaves should be subject to their masters)?
What reasons - biblical or otherwise - do you have for diverging from these clear biblical teachings?
Answer that and I'll answer your question.
More to the point, I've asked repeatedly. Twice in the last thread I've noted that your argument doesn't address Matthew 19, and I did so here three times before you even acknowledged the point.
After that, you asked why you should accept my understanding of the passage over yours, but you didn't actually give your understanding of Matthew 19.
I asked for it, and you explained how you weren't being deliberately obtuse, but you still didn't provide your interpretation of the passage, so I asked for it again, twice.
You finally did give your implausibly androgynous interpretation, but you didn't explain what justified your downplaying Christ's assertion about why we were created male and female. And rather than defend your interpretation by actually justifying it, you then asserted that it was the result of "careful and prayerful study and contemplation," never mind the actual details of that study.
All the while, you repeatedly raised the issue of slavery, which I repeatedly addressed (in comments you haven't yet tackled, for the most part). You raised the question of sins committed in genuine ignorance, and I answered that question, too, but that's not enough: you're apparently going to keep asking me this question until ELAshley answers it to your satisfaction.
You say you missed my criticism of your poor methodology the first two times I gave it, so I had to link to my earlier answers for you to address them.
And in the midst of this, you even gave a mini-sermon about how we're supposed to disagree in Christian love, all while you accuse us of slimy bigotry and you accuse me in particular of arrogance and/or lying.
Consider all these digressions and evasions. Consider all the hoops I've already jumped through to demonstrate good faith sufficient to get you to answer questions that are absolutely central to the issue of the Bible's position on homosexuality, questions that ought to be easy if your claims are true about the careful study of Scripture that led to your "conversion" on this issue.
And now that you've actually acknowledged Matthew 19 in this discussion, and now that you've actually made clear your position, I have to answer another two, three, or four questions for you to justify your position?
I don't think so.
Answer my question first.
Do not raise any other irrelevant questions. Do not bring up any other digressions. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Do not begin another sermon about charity toward your fellow Christians when it would be a positively uncharitable act of evasion on your part. And don't you dare suggest that I'm hiding something by not answering your latest round of questions when you've been more evasive than all of us combined.
I have been far more patient with you than I would most other people, in most other circumstances. In light of Matthew 7:6, I have probably been more patient than I should be.
My patience is at its end.
Christ asserted that we were made male and female for marriage, and He described marriage as a one-flesh relationship between a man and his wife.
What is your interpretation of this passage?
It's that marriage is a good thing. It's one reason why we're here in this world - to share it with another. That's why I support gay and straight marriage for those whom it is appropriate.
I think this interpretation is absurd in ignoring the quality of our creation (male and female) and the composition of marriage (male and female), and it is completely unjustifiable by both the context of this passage and indeed the context of all of Scripture.
My guess is that's why you argue we should "move beyond" passages regarding other issues, not so you can use your prudential judgment to decide about issues on which the Bible is silent, but to overrule the Bible on issues on which it's crystal clear. You literally neuter the passage, not because Scripture or reason demands it, but because your position demands it: you're letting your position on gay marriage decide how to interpret the Bible, not vice versa.
If I'm wrong, you're welcome to correct me by demonstrating that your interpretation of Matthew 19 is inevitable, logical, or at least somewhat plausible.
No more games, Dan. Please justify your interpretation of Matthew 19.
I thank you for when you have addressed my questions but I'm not especially sorry that I am not able to answer each and everyone's every question in a timely manner, given a limited schedule and the reality that I am only one person.
I feel like I have given a good faith answer multiple times and I'm sorry you don't see it that way.
Answer my questions and I'll be glad to give it another stab. Otherwise, I'll pass on the repetition.
If you are having trouble keeping up with the many threads of this particular exchange, you can help that by keeping things simple: in this case, you can answer my question about Matthew 19 before we digress to discuss two other passages wholly unrelated to the subject of marriage and the Bible.
And if you appreciate the fact that I've answered so many of your questions, you can demonstrate your appreciation by answering mine.
I understand that we are all constrained by time, and I was quite patient when you were offline for a week, but I first raised the subject of Matthew 19 on June 21st, in the other thread, and you're not asking me to be patient while you find the time to answer my question: you're asking that I answer other questions as a precondition to your answering mine.
No dice, Dan. I will ask you again to justify your interpretation of Matthew 19, and I believe you should address my request first, before expecting me to answer any more questions of yours.
Ignorance of a sin does not keep anyone out of Heaven. When a person kneels in their heart to the Lord Jesus Christ and admits his failure to live holy and worthy of God, and humbly asks the Lord to save him... EVERY sin is forgiven, the Holy Spirit takes up residence, and the sinner is saved and sealed unto the day of redemption. Nothing he says or does can pluck him out of the Father's hand.
However. Unrepented sin is dangerous. Very dangerous. The Christian will not lose the gift of salvation, but it could very well strip him of any reward he may have to that point earned. No, this is not a salvation by works, but faith WITHOUT works is dead. The Christian should, every night before laying down to sleep, confess any and everything the Holy Spirit brings to remembrance. And the Holy Spirit WILL prompt the earnest soul of everything that needs taken care of.
For those who fail to listen to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, they WILL be chastised... and for the Christian there IS such a thing as a sin unto death.
As to homosexuality. Since it is a perversion of God's ordained ideal, the Spirit WILL prompt the sinner caught in the gay lifestyle to repent and leave it behind him.
To be ignorant of a particular sin? I suppose it happens. Especially if a church family fails to teach against that sin. Like Jeff Street.
How can any homosexual learn that his lifestyle is an abomination to God if the pastor and the congregation routinely support and affirm their lifestyle-- bending, torturing, waterboarding the scriptures to accommodate their sinful lifestyle.
But in the final analysis, the Holy Spirit lives within us to guide us into all truth. Provided the teaching in the church doesn't squelch the teaching of the Holy Spirit, every Christian who earnestly seeks to be holy will know the truth, and that truth will make them free.
If a homosexual is truly saved, he will either leave the lifestyle at the prompting of the Holy Spirit, or God will deal him in other ways, and he will live a defeated life. The chastisements of God are not pleasant. AND the scriptures do say that many who are saved from the wrath to come will stand ashamed before God... and receive no reward. Better to be a busboy in God's dining hall than a prince in hell, eh?
As for those homosexuals who aren't saved, shame on you, Jeff Street, and every other "church" in America that tells them their sin is a-okay with God.
That's where I stand. That's where the Bible stands.
No Dan. Bubba is right. You have consistently failed to address the very dangerous ground upon which YOUR argument rests. Your "androgynous" interpretation of Matthew 19 verses Jesus' explicitly defined ideal for marriage.
Answer the question, please. No more games.
I have answered probably dozens of questions multiple times. I have asked about six-eight questions and have barely received an answer.
I'll be glad to answer as soon as I get at least one more question answered - any of these:
Based on what evidence do you think that when Jesus said, "Sell your belongings and give alms" that he didn't mean literally we should sell all our belongings and give them to the poor?
On what evidence do you think that when Paul commanded slaves to be obedient to their masters that we can then choose to encourage slaves to refuse to be subject to their masters? (Or is it the case that you STILL think slaves should be subject to their masters)?
What reasons - biblical or otherwise - do you have for diverging from these clear biblical teachings?
(And it's not like it's that big of a deal for me to answer your question, I THINK - I think I understand now what sort of answer you want. As I said, I thought I HAD answered most relevant questions asked of me. I did not address the Matt 19 question immediately because I did not think it germane to the question at hand. But now I think I understand what sort of answer you're looking for, or maybe not, we'll see...)
Eric, you also said:
But in the final analysis, the Holy Spirit lives within us to guide us into all truth. Provided the teaching in the church doesn't squelch the teaching of the Holy Spirit, every Christian who earnestly seeks to be holy will know the truth, and that truth will make them free.
And I believe that is EXACTLY what has happened with me. I VERY EARNESTLY and prayerfully and carefully sought God's Will and to know God's Truth and to be Holy as God is Holy and I believe I now know that truth - as well as any of us know anything here on this side of the veil.
You just said so yourself, Eric. "every Christian who earnestly seeks to be holy will know the truth" [emphasis mine] - that is ME!
That is exactly what I did! So does that mean you think God has revealed God's Truth to me? If that is the formula ("every Christian who earnestly seeks to be holy..."), then brother, I'm telling you that is what I did.
"I did not address the Matt 19 question immediately because I did not think it germane to the question at hand."
This is incredible. Matt 19 directly adresses the subject of God's Will for marriage, and you say is isn't germane to the question at hand? The question is, and has always been (in this post and the last) how you justify your belief that God might support homosexual marriage! Yet this piece of Scripture isn't germane! Incredible!
How then, are your questions regarding slavery, selling one's belongings, or even whether or not ignorance of a sin condemns us are even close to relevant to this discussion?
You're dodging, plainly and simply. My feeling is that you are beginning to sense the wrongness of your position but are afraid to admit it. I don't blame you. On the surface your position seems "Christian" as you side with those you don't wish to see hurt. Yet, such support for that which is plainly sinful is far more hurtful to your friends.
You say you've arrived at your position through prayerful study. Keep praying, you've been misled. Pray about what has been expressed and explained here, for I believe the concern for you, and definitely for those you protect, is real. Unlike yourself, apparently, those with whom you've debated this subject do NOT believe in letting others go on in their misinterpretations. That wouldn't be Christian.
In answer to this question, and this question only... ONLY... I'll answer with another very "germane," question I insist you answer.
Your Question:
"Based on what evidence do you think that when Jesus said, "Sell your belongings and give alms" that he didn't mean literally we should sell all our belongings and give them to the poor?" ???
My answer? My very "Dan-esque" answer?
Based on what evidence do you think that when God said to Moses, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death..," that He didn't mean literally that those who engage in homosexual activity should be put to death?
What a brightly blazing hypocrite you are Dan. To dance on the point of a frightfully sharp pin to the detriment of your own soles, in defense of a nuance that simply does not exist. You demand, demand, demand answers, but only grudgingly offer any of your own, and only when badgered into it.
If you cannot honestly, and plainly answer questions there's no point to continuing this debate. You are congenitally dishonest in your arguments.
Furthermore, the scripture says to "...believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
The Holy Spirit will never contradict Himself in what he reveals to the hearts of men. He cannot say homosexuality is evil to one, and say it is acceptable to another. One of us is wrong. And consensus is on the side of Bubba, myself, Marshall, Ms Green, Mom2; and not solely because you are outnumbered here.
If you are saved, Dan, you will not go to hell for standing in the wrong place, but you will suffer loss.
Since you have already stated that you will not be swayed, why do you then continue to argue. The Holy Spirit inside me says I am right on this issue... I will not be swayed.
We are at an impasse. And will likely remain at an impasse. You will not answer direct questions, and I tire of answering direct questions. Your rhetoric is deceitful, and like Bubba, I'm tiring of it.
But don't think for a moment I'll surrender a single inch to the lie YOU believe.
For clarity's sake, I am not angry with you, nor have I said anything here IN anger, or in an attempt to slander you. YOU are the reason we are at this impasse... Because you won't debate fairly or honestly.
And as I stated on another thread, this post is not the end of the line for me on this topic. I'll not quit posting on this until I feel I've exhausted the subject.
And when that time comes, I'll simply move on to another topic. There is a lot of evil to combat in this world, and your position on Homosexuality not the least of it. There is greater evil in the world than this.
You write that you have "barely received" answers to your questions, but that's simply not true, most certainly not as far as I'm concerned. I've answered most of the questions you've asked me; as of right now, your complaint hasn't been that *I* haven't sufficiently addressed your questions, but that ELAshley hasn't. There's nothing fair or charitable about your making your problem with him a reason for not answering questions from me.
(And I see that ELAshley has now answered your question regarding sins committed in ignorance: you are left with one less excuse to evade the issue.)
I've been answering your questions; it's only fair that you answer mine without any further preconditions.
I agree with Marshall that this particular claim is bogus on its face:
I did not address the Matt 19 question immediately because I did not think it germane to the question at hand.
You have no problem digressing into issues regarding alms-giving and slavery; even now, your very important questions are about these side issues. Matthew 19 deals with marriage directly. I think it's absurd for you to say you didn't immediately see its relevance, as if you were trying to stay on-topic.
More to the point, you have said time and again that Jesus never said anything about "gay marriage." But in Matthew 19, Jesus did explain the composition of marriage -- man and wife, a composition which excludes same-sex configurations -- and even tied that composition, not merely to our being "here in this world," but our being male and female.
You didn't immediately see the relevance?
We're supposed to believe that?
And your basing your refusal to answer my questions on the idea you've clearly been arguing in good faith up to this point?
This ridiculous claim that you didn't think Matthew 19 was germane gives the lie to your posture as one who has been wholly willing to argue in good faith.
You have no reason and no standing to demand that I answer your questions first.
I asked my question first; I request that you answer it. Drop this obvious and clumsy attempt to evade the issue; quit putting up more hoops for those of us who have jumped through plenty already; answer the question at hand.
What possible justification do you have for neutering the text in Matthew 19?
Answer the question.
Is it honestly the case that you all do not see that my "digression" into issues of alms-giving and slavery IS EXACTLY an answer to your questions? Do you not realize that? Consider this:
Friends' Question:
Matt 19 says, "for this reason, man and woman will leave their parents and become one flesh..." - HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THAT?
Dan's Answer:
How do you interpret the command to sell all your belongings and give alms? How do you interpret the rules to be good slaves?
Friends' Response:
Wha..? Why, I don't really see what that has to do with anything, but if I were to answer those questions, I'd say that I don't think that Jesus means we ought to sell EVERYTHING we have because there are examples in the Bible of people having homes and some resources, so I don't think He was suggesting that we sell everything. On the slavery question, even though the Bible doesn't condemn slavery outright, there are passages that talk about "in Christ there are neither slave nor free," that talk about that of God which is in every human and, logically, it is just an offense to our human nature to try to enslave that which is of God.
Dan Answer:
So, in other words, you interpret individual passages in the Bible through the whole of the Bible and using your God-given reasoning?
Friends' response:
Yes.
Dan's Answer:
Me, too. In the case of Matthew 19, that is one place where it uses the example of man and woman getting married (becoming one flesh, actually). Gay marriage is not covered at all in the Bible, was not a reality in those days. And so, it obviously is not mentioned in that passage. Any more than slavery is called an abomination or that speeding in one's car is condemned.
As previously noted, the Bible does not cover every topic - especially those that weren't a reality at the time. The Bible simply does not cover how wrong it is to drive excessively fast in a car because cars did not exist at the time.
So, in looking at the whole of the Bible, we find a few passages that mention man and wife type marriages (which makes sense, since that was the norm) and it talks about those in terms of keeping them healthy, with "healthy" being monogamous, loving, not oppressive, egalitarian, faithful, committed, etc.
In looking at the whole of the bible, we find that there is no difference between those who are in Christ - no male nor female, no Jew or Gentile, and no gay or straight, seems logical to us (although that is something I would infer, not stated).
In looking at the whole of the bible, I find nothing condemning either heterosexuality or homosexuality in themselves, but abuses of heterosexuality and homosexuality are talked about and warned against.
So, in looking at the whole of the Bible, the Good and Holy way to experience sexuality, it seems to me, is within the context of a faithful, loving, committed, monogamous relationship - a marriage.
Now, just because gay marriage was not a real possibility at the time - people tended to be oppressive towards any expressions of sexuality beyond heterosexuality - the Bible naturally doesn't mention gay marriage, but that seems to be the appropriate place for our lesbian and gay friends to express their sexuality in a healthy way.
A question: IF ONE DOES NOT FIND THE BIBLE TO BE OPPOSED TO HOMOSEXUALITY IN GENERAL, then what conclusion would one come to insofar as how homosexuals should live with their sexuality? In the context of marriage, is the conclusion our church has reached. Because we value marriage as a healthy, Godly way to do families and to experience sexuality.
Really, IF ONE does not begin with the assumption that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality and if one values marriage, it is really the only logical conclusion one could come to and the Bible in no way would conflict with that.
IF ONE DOES start out with the presumption that there is something innately wrong with homosexuality, then I fully understand how you would (I would) think that Matt 19 perfectly and completely defines marriage to the exception of any other way. But that is presuming there is something innately wrong with homosexuality.
My questions WERE my answer.
It is a beautiful and wonderful Book - God's Word to us! - but it was written over thousands of years by many authors, in many contexts and times and handed down orally oftentimes and add to that our own flawed and imperfect understanding and reasoning and WE WILL AND DO have many, many different ways of looking at the Bible and we are all entirely capable of getting it wrong, when it comes to understanding it. That is why there are so many different interpretations on various topics. NOT because some people are evil and desire to twist God's Word to fit their agenda (although I'm sure that happens occasionally), but because the Bible comes with no instruction manual and we are not perfect in our understanding.
As to your apparent problems with my asking questions sometimes when YOU all ask questions: Jesus answered questions addressed to him with questions in return, sometimes. His purpose when he did this was, at least at times, to get the questioners to think about what they're asking and to have them answer the questions themselves. I'm striving to emulate our Lord in that regards. I hope you'll forgive me this little approach to dialog.
Considering your very recent accusation that tug thinks he's God, I was hoping you'd avoid trying to make the comparison between yourself and our Lord.
Much more, later today...
We ARE to strive by God's grace to walk in His steps and try to emulate Jesus, nonetheless.
I'm sure you agree with me on that point.
Suppose I said, "Look at what Jesus has to say in Luke 12 - Sell your belongings and give alms - in view of that plain scripture, what do you think that has to say about capitalism?!"
Some would be tempted to say, "Why, it has very little at all to do with capitalism. Why do you ask?"
It's like that with gay marriage and Matt. 19. "In view of that plain scripture, what do you think that has to say about gay marriage??"
Why, it has very little to do with gay marriage, beyond the notion that it is a strong endorsement for marriage.
Do you all get why I think that is an entirely responsible and full-fledged answer, or are you thinking I still haven't addressed the question? My problem is that I'm saying, "The Bible doesn't have anything to say about gay marriage," and you're responding, "But look at this verse, what do you think it has to say about gay marriage??"
Nothing, directly.
I can't point to a passage in the Bible that is supportive of gay marriage because the topic is not addressed in the Bible.
Instead, just as with the slavery issue, I look at general morality teachings - how ought we treat one another? What is the best way to deal with our sexuality? What is and isn't permissible?
And looking at the whole of the Bible, I think that sexual acting out that harms people is sinful. I DON'T think gay marriage is talked of in the Bible and I also don't think that gay marriage is harmful, instead, I think marriage is a good thing for gays and straight folk alike.
Now, have I already answered my own question to you about slavery and giving alms, or do you have a different response than what I have suggested and would you like to answer it in your own terms?
Sorry I was away for so long this has gotten out of control. Your response to my comment mystifies me. Not in the least because you chose only to respond to one small piece of the entire comment.
You have made an arbitrary distinction of different categories of sin. My point (I belive supported Biblicaly) is that there is one category. Sin. failing to do what God would have us do. To use an (imperfect) example. If you were driving 45 mphon a road with a 25 mph speed limit, you are speeding. This is true whether you have seen a sign or not.
Essentially you are arguing "ignorance of the law" is an excuse. The first question that comes to mind is "How do you KNOW that your freinds are ignorant? The answer is, you don't.
I'll let the rest go because you haven't dealt with it when anyone else has asked either.
Sorry about two in a row, but a point of clarification. When you speak of slavery, which type are you speaking of. The Hebrew model of slavery, which was (among other things) a means of repaying debt as well as punishment, but was also tempered by the fact that one could "buy" their way out of slavery or be restored under the jubilee. Or are you by chance speaking of the conditions which slaves lived in the US. Or the more deplorable conditions the French kept the Haitians under. The fact that some (wrongly) invoked the type of slavery depicted in the Bible to justify opressing people does not mean that they are the same thing.
Perhaps, those who used the Bible to justify slavery in the US simply didn't know that slavery was a sin. That would (based on your earlier reasoning) give them a 'get out of jail free" card.
You are correct in concluding that the God (through the written scriptures) gives us general principals to cover those thinsg not specifically mentioned in the Bible. The problem is that the general principal of marriage is pretty clearly laid out, you just don't like it. While (I realize I'm treading on thin ice here, so please don't read anything into this beyond what I am saying.) it could be argued that the Biblical principle on dealing with others has room for a system of slavery (in place of or a suppliment to the penal system) similar to what the Hebrews practiced.
The problem is that you are using one (loaded) english world to describe a number of different systems some of which were/are more reprehensible than others.
Apples meet Oranges
It would be blasphemous to copy His claims about Himself and apply them to us.
Now, answering questions by asking questions isn't objectionable as blasphemy. But in this case, it's still farcical that you would justify your questions by arguing that you're following in the grand teaching traditions of Jesus Christ.
Just late yesterday you were telling us that you didn't think Matthew 19 was even all that germane to the discussion, but now you say that the questions you raised, in response to my request to justify your bizarre interpretation, was an attempt "to get the questioners to think about what they're asking and to have them answer the questions themselves"?
The claim is not credible.
All that said, I appreciate the explanation for why you were asking those questions. You write, "My questions WERE my answer."
The problem is, they make for a terribly poor answer.
You wrote that the passages about slavery and alms-giving prove that "you interpret individual passages in the Bible through the whole of the Bible and using your God-given reasoning."
That's fine. We agree on that point.
But that doesn't prove how a holistic view of the Bible and the use of reason leads to your position.
You later write that "the Bible can be interpreted many different ways. It is not always 100% clear."
That's fine; no disagreement there, either.
(It's worth noting that many disagreements aren't really over the contents of the Bible, but are due to the different assumptions people bring to the Bible. Catholicism elevates the Pope's official interpretations over the text itself while Protestants affirm sola scriptura. Some Christians believe the Bible is an inerrant revelation from God, others believe that it's an error-prone record of purely human origin. They reach different conclusions because of these different starting points rather than substantive disagreement about the contents of the text.)
But, yeah, you're right, people disagree.
But that doesn't prove that your particular interpretation is reasonable.
You might as well argue, "People sometimes get things right, so I'm right in this case."
(Or, alternatively, "People are capable of making mistakes, so therefore you're mistaken in this case.")
You're making assertions that are true, but they lead you NOT ONE STEP CLOSER to justifying your particular interpretation.
The rest of your response to your hypothetical friends engages in question-begging that ignores the actual content of Matthew 19.
In the case of Matthew 19, that is one place where it uses the example of man and woman getting married (becoming one flesh, actually).
No, it doesn't. It doesn't use an "example" of a man and woman becoming one flesh. It defines marriage as the one-flesh union of a man and his wife, and Christ even ties that composition of marriage to our being created male and female.
So, in looking at the whole of the Bible, we find a few passages that mention man and wife type marriages (which makes sense, since that was the norm) and it talks about those in terms of keeping them healthy, with "healthy" being monogamous, loving, not oppressive, egalitarian, faithful, committed, etc.
AGAIN, the Bible does more than this. In Matthew 19, Christ doesn't merely "mention man and wife type marriages" but rather describes marriage as intrinsically heterosexual, tying it back to our very creation as a two-sex species.
There is a significant disconnect between what Matthew 19 actually says and your summary of what it says. There is, simultaneously, a significant correlation between that summary and what the summary must be in order for your position to be remotely plausible.
It seems most likely that you're making your summary of Scripture fit your position, rather than start out with a summary that is faithful to the text and then drawing the conclusions that follow.
You write, implausibly, that Matthew 19 contains nothing more than a "strong endorsement" of marriage.
I believe that it clearly contains far more than that. The passage defines marriage, as lifelong heterosexual monogamy.
And its intrinsically heterosexual composition is explicitly tied to our creation as male and female.
There's perhaps one more way I can drive this point home this evening, in a moment...
Dan, how do you define marriage? If it includes heterosexual and homosexual pairings, does it exclude polygamous relationships?
If it does, on what basis does your definition exclude polygamy?
And looking at the whole of the Bible, I think that sexual acting out that harms people is sinful. I DON'T think gay marriage is talked of in the Bible and I also don't think that gay marriage is harmful, instead, I think marriage is a good thing for gays and straight folk alike.
If marriage is a good thing for gay couples and straight couples, is it also a good thing for trios and quartets? If not, why not?
Or if so, I would ask you to define marriage so that it's clear what configurations -- if any -- are actually excluded.
Thanks.
(And yes, Bubba, to answer your last question, my definition of marriage excludes polygamy - although the BIBLE does not do so - that would be another extrabiblical but correct position to take, I believe.)
I do wonder, Eric, what you would have had me done differently?
I believed as I was taught without question for ~30 years. I listened to my pastors and youth leaders and SS teachers when they taught on the subject. I read and listened to what Dobson and the other Christian leaders across the nation had to say.
And then I prayerfully listened to another point of view - prayerfully, carefully and with no desire to change my opinion nor do anything but seek God's will, to be "holy as God is holy."
According to your statement earlier, I have done all that I should have done. And yet I have come to a different conclusion than my brothers and sisters in Christ here.
I have tried - AM trying to still - listen to God's voice and follow God's Will and in so doing, this is the path I've taken because it is where I feel led by God to go.
What would you have had me done differently? What would you have me do differently now?
Looking at the whole of the Bible, particularly NT, I'm certain that sexual acting out of any kind that is outside the traditional marriage of a man to a woman is sinful. To support your statement would take as much space as has already been taken, and fail just as badly.
"I also don't think that gay marriage is harmful..."
If there's no sex, perhaps. But improper use of standard equipment is physically harmful and the behavior itself is spiritually harmful as it is sinful.
"I think marriage is a good thing for gays and straight folk alike."
True, if they all do it the way God desires, that is, with a member of the opposite sex.
---the above was snarky-
-below won't be---
"...my definition of marriage excludes polygamy..."
How could this possibly be? Sincerly, how?
"And then I prayerfully listened to another point of view..."
And then sadly, like too many others, you were taken in by well crafted, but self-serving interpretations and explanations. The problem, though, is that those explanations have been expertly exposed for the weak arguments they are. They have been countered by explanations for which there have been no answers by the pro-homosexual side of the debate. They have been only dismissed and ignored, or worse, the scholars presenting them have been. This I know from researching anything that has come my way. I've never seen the pro-homosex proponents deal with the corrections to their position. Ever. I implore you to consider that it is not God that has led you to this position.
"What would you have me do differently now?"
Study more of those who dispute the homosexual "per"-version of Scripture. You must keep in mind one absolutely all-important distinction: The pro-homosex side is looking for permission, the traditionalist side is looking only for truth. I can say this with a perfectly straight face for the simple reason that the traditionalist has not interpreted to justify his own desires as has the pro-homosex side. In other words, I do not profit by my position in this debate except that God's Will is understood. Not true with the pro-homosex side.
Keep studying. I assure you with every fiber of my being that you are misled.
For now, it's enough to know your definition without knowing the justification behind it.
Let's look once more at the passage in question, Matthew 19:4-5. In response to a question on divorce, Jesus answered the Pharisees in this way:
"Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
There are two assertions bundled into this phrase, and these assertions are logically connected with a "therefore" or "for this reason". Here are the phrases:
1: God made us male and female.
-therefore-
2: A man should become one flesh with his wife.
We could abbreviate the second phrase by referencing the institution of marriage:
1: God made us male and female.
-therefore-
2: People should get married.
But this shorthand makes sense only if marriage is understood as intrinsically heterosexual. And here's why.
Let's replace the first claim with some other claim from the account of creation that we find in Genesis:
1: God created the birds of the air and the fish in the sea.
-therefore-
2: People should get married.
And again:
1: God rested on the seventh day.
-therefore-
2: People should get married.
Or we could invoke a true statement that has nothing to do with Genesis or any other part of the Bible.
1: Vests don't have sleeves.
-therefore-
2: People should get married.
There's no logical connection between the two statements. The "therefore" makes no sense. God's resting on the seventh day is obviously tied to commandments regarding the Sabbath (e.g., Ex 20:11), but it has nothing to do with matrimony. Vests really don't have sleeves, but that provides no motivation for the moral imperative to marry.
What we have is a literal non sequitur. The two statements could still be true, but they are no longer connected, and the "therefore" becomes nonsense.
The same thing happens if you replace the second claim:
1: God made us male and female.
-therefore-
2: You should not make graven images.
And again:
1: God made us male and female.
-therefore-
2: You should love your neighbor as yourself.
We really should love one another, but that fact has nothing to do with our being made male and female. Again, we created a non sequitur by breaking the logical connection.
So, seeing all this, let's turn back to our shorthand:
1: God made us male and female.
-therefore-
2: People should get married.
I believe marriage is intrinsically heterosexual, so I could rephrase this shorthand this way:
1: God made us male and female.
-therefore-
2: People should pair off, in male-and-female pairs.
You deny an intrinsic heterosexual character to the institution, defining marriage to include gay couples while excluding polygamous trios and quartets, so your restatement would be this:
1: God made us male and female.
-therefore-
2: People should pair off, and it doesn't matter the sexual configuration.
The problem is that this is a non sequitur: the "therefore" doesn't make sense.
If you had defined marriage even more broadly, the non sequitur would have been more apparent. As it is, the only conceivable connection between the claims is that, becuase there are two sexes, marriage is limited to groups of two, but since those groups aren't limited to one of each what is the connection? We have ten fingers and ten toes: why shouldn't that lead to the conclusion that marriage should involve ten spouses? We have 32 teeth, so should we forms groups of 32?
If I were a gay man who loved two other men, and they loved each other, and we all wanted to get married to each other, we're supposed to kick one man out of our small-t trinity? All because God made women as well as men? That's not persuasive.
By radically redefining marriage, you turn Christ's claim about marriage -- that it's logically premised on our being made male and female -- into a non sequitur.
In order to think that your redefinition is plausible, we must conclude that Jesus taught literal nonsense, asserting a connection between marriage and our creation as male and female when no such connection exists.
To put it another way, there's an implicit "bridge" that connects the two statements:
1: God made us male and female.
-therefore-
2: People should get married.
The bridging statement is this:
1.5: God made men and women for each other.
There's no alternative that is remotely as plausible a bridge between the two statements. This logical bridge asserts the complimentary nature of the sexes; if God made men and women to be complimentary, then same-sex coupling is a perversion of God's will and, definitionally, a sin.
Dan, your summary of Matthew 19 is absurd for multiple reasons. As I show above, by asserting that marriage is not limited to the union of man and wife, you turn Christ's invocation of our creation as male and female into a non sequitur. But beyond that, how Christ describes what marriage is makes its composition clear:
A man (male) becomes one flesh with his wife (female).
This ain't an example of marriage, it's a description. The description is male-female which necessarily excludes same-sex couples, just like a description of birds as having feathers and a beak would exclude catfish and aardvarks.
You note, rightly, that any passage of Scripture must be seen in the light of the entire Bible, but you haven't explained how the context of the entire Bible changes this basic understanding of Matthew 19: pronouncing that it conceivably could, you seem to think that's enough to prove that it does.
And you note, rightly, that reasonable people's interpretations of Scripture can vary to some degree, but you haven't explained how yours is plausible, much less persuasive.
For all that you've written, you still have not justified your bizarre interpretation of Matthew 19.
Your last comment includes your reiterating just how serious and sober-minded you were in examining the question. After explaining how deeply entrenched you were in theologically conservative Christianity, you explain the change:
And then I prayerfully listened to another point of view - prayerfully, carefully and with no desire to change my opinion nor do anything but seek God's will, to be "holy as God is holy."
You've actually reiterated this claim of careful objectivity -- that you were even fully against changing your mind and that God had to drag you to your new position, essentially kicking and screaming -- far more (and far more readily) than you've justified your new position. It's apparently more important to you that we believe your sincerity than it is that we believe your argument.
But in your hypothetical conversation with your "friends" answering the questions you posed earlier, you deny that any of us could have possibly been logical and objective in reaching the opposite conclusion. Defending your church's position, you write:
Really, IF ONE does not begin with the assumption that there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality and if one values marriage, it is really the only logical conclusion one could come to and the Bible in no way would conflict with that.
IF ONE DOES start out with the presumption that there is something innately wrong with homosexuality, then I fully understand how you would (I would) think that Matt 19 perfectly and completely defines marriage to the exception of any other way. But that is presuming there is something innately wrong with homosexuality. [emphasis mine]
You demand what you do not give to us, namely the benefit of the doubt, that one could logically believe that, for instance, since Christ described marriage as heterosexual and even premised that description on our creation as male and female, that description was far more likely to be a definition of God's will for what marriage must be than a mere example of what marriage can include. You deny that such a position is logical and could be reached without begging the question by assuming the conclusion.
Never mind your claim that Christians can agree to disagree, Catholics and Baptists and everyone else: you believe your androgynous definition of marriage is the only logical conclusion from Scripture.
That's fine; my position is the complete opposite, that the Bible is clear that marriage is heterosexual and that your assertion to the contrary is preposterous.
But if you weren't going to give us the benefit of the doubt, I wish you hadn't wasted so much time demanding the same from us. If you think that yours is not only *a* reasonable position, but the only reasonable position, I wish you would have spent more time justifying that position.