If you believe God made man for woman, and woman for man, and that this heterosexual model is His perfect design and plan for the sexes you just may be a bigot. If the thought of men marrying men, and women marrying women makes you-- at the very least --cringe, chances are you're a bigot. If the sight of men kissing men, and women kissing women makes you turn your head in revulsion, you're definitely a bigot. At least that's what a great deal of Progressive Liberals, and Homosexual Rights advocates, believe. They may not always frame it in just that way, but if you're against homosexual marriage, to them you are a bigot. And if that source of bigotry comes from the faith you have in God, then your faith espouses bigotry.
Not once did Jesus speak about homosexuality being wrong. Not once that's recorded in the Gospels. Paul may have spoken against it, but the language is obscure... unclear. Leviticus speaks of men laying with men as being an 'abomination' and deserving of death, but if we're to condemn such today for homosexuality, we have to condemn and stone unruly children as well-- and all who eat shellfish. The sin of Sodom? It was their lack of charity toward the poor and the widow, and their lack of hospitality to strangers.
But what does the Bible have to say about homosexuality? The very word is nonexistent in the text of the Bible, except in a few newer translations, but those are suspect in "other areas" of doctrine, and cannot therefore be considered reliable as a whole. But the good ole King James has no such word in its entire text. That being said, what does the Bible infer about homosexuality?
Genesis 1:27 says this about Man's beginning--
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Why differentiate between 'him' and 'them'? I'll hazard a guess and say that Adam, the first created human being, was a 'him.' But Adam and Eve together, each equally 'Man' [the term being, as it is used, non-gender], and being more than one, they constituted a 'them'. Simplistic, I know, but my point is this, God created male and female for a purpose... for procreation. To subdue and fill the earth through child-bearing [vs. 28]. THAT was God's plan for Man; male and female.
Homosexuality defeats that purpose as no man could ever impregnate another man, let alone that a woman could impregnate another woman. It's simply not possible.
I therefore offer into evidence against Homosexuality and Gay Marriage, Genesis 1:27-28.
Supplemental and complimentary to Genesis 1:27-28 is Genesis 2:23-24, which states--
Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
Please note that nowhere in subsequent passages does God correct Adam. Adam has correctly identified God's perfect will towards sexuality and marriage-- One Man for One Woman, and vice versa. And solely within the confines of Marriage.
But the California Supreme Court has just ruled contrary to God's law. In affect, forcing the rest of the nation to recognize an aberrant lifestyle, and its mockery of God's perfect design, as "normal".
Well, homosexuality is NOT normal. If it were, it would account for a much higher incidence among the population than its current 3-5 percent [and that's being very very generous]. It is an 'anomaly' at best. And NOT ordained by God, whatever the state of California might have to say.
--------
This is just exhibit "A". More posts to follow under the ripped-off, though altered, title, "The Bible, and Homosexuality"
It's been my experience that not only are homosexuals mentally ill in their sexual perversion, but a great many of them suffer from extreme bitterness and a spirit of anger. They try to place the blame of their anger and bitterness on those of us who disagree with and verbally condemn their lifestyle, but that excuse doesn't hold water. I think what is far more common is that they hate their life - yet are physically addicted to it like a drug, and they are searching for happiness and thinking they'll get it through forced acceptance of their lifestyle.
I have plenty of people who hate me and condemn me because I'm a Christian and believe what the Bible says to be true. I still have joy and I have a blessed life. Sure, I have problems, and sure, it bothers me that people hate me because of my faith, but lashing out and becoming abusive verbally or physically isn't an option. That shows a lack of self-control and inner contentment (which I have not seen much of in radical homosexuality - nor do the statistics show it either).
Calling me a bigot doesn't make it so.
Ms Green said:
It's been my experience that not only are homosexuals mentally ill in their sexual perversion, but a great many of them suffer from extreme bitterness and a spirit of anger.
As hopefully we all know, one is not "mentally ill" based on a layman's "experience," but rather, mental illness is a clinical call to be made by a trained psychologist. Are you a trained psychologist?
If not, then your experience does not really matter, as it relates to grouping a whole group of people into a category like mental illness.
And, think about it: If you were told repeatedly, daily, by complete strangers, "Well, dang! All Christians are mentally ill and bitter, to boot!" and then, you were systematically deprived of basic human rights (you couldn't marry who you wish, you couldn't make medical decisions about your loved one, etc) and then, on top of that, you're told you're a disgusting human being because you are a Christian, perhaps being told that by your parents, who then kick you out of your home and disown you! - given all of that, do you think that you might suffer from at least a little bitterness?
Personally, I know many gay and lesbian folk. Some of our deacons at church, my daughter's Sunday School teacher, etc, are gay and lesbian. And not a one of them is the slightest bit bitter. Pretty amazing, given the crap they go through from well meaning but ignorant people like me, just a few years ago.
" Some of our deacons at church, my daughter's Sunday School teacher, etc, are gay and lesbian.
So you think fornication is ok, and that fornicators are good role models for your children. In fact, fornicators are deemed worthy of positions of leadership in your church.
I find that very disturbing.
How do Lesbians, let alone Gay men, fit the first half of that bill? Sounds like your church is into all kinds of extra-biblical stuff. Can a cross-dresser be a deacon at your church?
But that doesn't address the post itself
-------
Don't bring out the tired argument about marriage being only for procreation Eric. Christians have long abandoned that idea, marrying couples that were infertile, or past childbearing age. Of Course Christianity abandoned the bibles guidelines on divorce too. So why is the idea of homosexual marriage so anathema.
Neil has a good post on this issue and some of the comments deal effectively with the "infertile/past child bearing age" gambit. Here it is. Hope you don't mind, Eric.
Frankly, I don't see how it matters what drives public opinion, if public opinion is in the majority against a given issue. If every single opponent of "gay rights" derives their perspective from their faith, what does it matter? A majority opposes it and that should be enough.
Fortunately, the faith-based perspective meshes nicely with the scientific. Dan disparages Ms. Green's opinion because she's not certified in the field of psychology. But that's a field that I would not say is much more precise than your average weatherman. Lots of speculation from people who think too highly of themselves. Yeah, many are helped, but many are not. My personal uncertified opinion is that the psycho field had no answers for this condition and decided it was a lot easier to simply declare it to be "not mental". I've no doubt that someone will counter this with professional sounding mumbo-jumbo. It won't change the fact that normal is opposite gender attraction, abnormal is same gender attraction.
Using the hypothetical using Christianity in place of homosexuality is lame for the reason above regarding normal and abnormal. It's especially troubling coming from one who regards himself a Christian.
And one more thing for Bent: Homosexuals already have the right to enjoin their property and lives. The two old broads being touted for their long lesbian relationship have done just that. They share property and their lives and I've heard they feel they were pushed to get married for the propanganda bennies.
While I personally do not see the need to establish a protected group based on sexual preference when the existing law protects against much of the discrimination Gays seek to overcome, I'm not arguing against gays having the right, as you say, to civicly, and legally, join their property and lives. I mean, the milk is thoroughly spilled on this one, and trying to rebottle it is an exercise in futility. But that doesn't mean that I accept the idea of homosexual marriage as either moral, or ordained of God. I disapprove of it, but realistically, it is unlikely that the Church can stop it.
And simply because many "christians" have abandoned the biblical model of Marriage-- to say nothing of those who marry and don't even bother with church --doesn't change the fact that marriage was and is essentially about procreation, whether couples choose to procreate or not. But it's also about love, commitment, and a safe bet against sexually transmitted diseases [assuming couples are faithful to their vows and don't require blood transfusions or share drug needles].
What I object to is being called a bigot because my faith calls homosexuality an abomination against the natural use of human sexuality. We've had this argument before, but procreation among mammals requires a male and a female. However many happy and contented penguins you trot out as evidence that homosexuality is "normal" of some species the fact remains... gay penguins cannot procreate. Neither can gay humans.
Now, if gays wish to marry and remain faithfully and lovingly monogamous, more power to them. But spiritually speaking, they will not like what awaits them on the other side. God will not welcome them with open arms unless their sins are covered by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. And unless they repent of their homosexuality and cease and desist that practice, they cannot receive Christ.
You [rhetorically] can say that society is now enlightened enough to accept homosexuality as a "norm" and thus bigotry against it is a detriment to this brave new world we live in. But prior to the late twentieth century homosexuality was NOT an acceptable lifestyle in ANY society. To argue that bigotry is what homosexuals face today, is to say bigotry against homosexuals has existed from the dawn of time, and I don't see how anyone can argue that. Homosexuality is procreatively unproductive, and for centuries and millenia societies were sustained and advanced by the procreative efforts of men and women. It's not bigotry to desire ones culture to grow and thrive in the face of great odds.
But today it apparently is.
Many of our gay/lesbian friends ARE married, thank you very much. Not that it's anyone's business, here.
Nothing extrabiblical about that. As you well know, there's nothing in the Bible against gay marriage.
he American Psychological Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder for many years until they were strong armed into removing it from the list.
Doctors used to bleed their patients with leeches too, to remove the "bad blood."
We learn. We improve our science and studies. Psychologists/psychiatrists have decided upon further research that there was no justification for putting "gayness" in a list of mental health issues - no reasons except for personal prejudice.
You have a different legitimate opinion? List the peer-reviewed study that supports your medical theory. Otherwise, at least acknowledge that your bias against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters is religion-based, not science-based.
Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
Legislation: State constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman was approved by the Legislature April 19 and by nearly 75 percent of voters Nov. 2.
None of your gay church members are legally married according to the law of your state and according to God's law.
So, I repeat - fornicators are admired and exalted as leaders in your church? They teach your children? And you are ok with that?
You deny that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Do you also deny that the Bible teaches that fornication is a sin?
If there were no God, there would be no need for pschiatry at all. Atheism says everything happens by chance and there is no right or wrong - we're all just evolving in this survival of the fittest. So just as homosexuality would be acceptable, so would all other sexual sins , including pedophelia, bestiality, polygamy, adultery, fornication, etc.
How far behind can it be before these perversions are accepted as normal. How many of them will be accepted in liberal churches that call themselves Christian?
We know that most child molesters are married white males. So, given this, I suppose it is safe to assume that your pastor is going to be humping his 12 year old baby sitter this weekend?
And I reckon it's a safe bet to assume that your favorite married male deacon will likely be getting some cheerleader action after the big game this weekend at the middle school?
And how about your white married male sunday school teacher? You reckon he's going to want to bring one of those middle school boys by his house after church Sunday for a little extracurricular study on sexuality???
What a bunch of perverts and deviant freaks you have at your church!!
Pretty offensive when someone makes a blanket condemnation of a whole group of people - people that they don't even know and have no idea how wonderful they are! To make a blanket statement like that based on a misguided stereotype, why, that's just bigoted, isn't it? Wrong, offensive, un-Christian, uncharitable, graceless and bitter, right?
Yes, that is right. It IS wrong to make such a bigoted statement and I apologize for doing so.
And I pray that you would forgive me and that your sense of irony is not totally dead and useless.
"Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.
In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal."
If you have some science-based reason and studies you would like to produce to support your argument, Ms Green, feel free. I would gladly read any peer-approved science-based studies you can produce.
Do you any? Even one?
Absolutely true that none are married in the eyes of the state. But as God-fearing Christians, we don't care so much about what the state thinks as what God thinks (although we DO find it offensive and unjust when the state tries to regulate religious beliefs - what the heck is the state doing in the marriage business??).
If you would like to provide verses - even ONE - from the Bible where it shows that gays can't marry, feel free. But, as we both know, such a verse does not exist anywhere in the whole of the Bible. It is YOUR OPINION based on years of religious indoctrination based on human tradition that gays can't marry "according to God's Law." It is not a biblical fact. I'd be careful about speaking on behalf of God something that God has not said.
I don't think that God and His vision of morality changes with the times. I think that what changes with the times are peoples attitudes.
I can accept and tolerate homosexuals. They're people, and flawed just as I am. Many great contributions to the arts and sciences have come from homosexuals, for example, the concept of the computer that I am using to type this.
I cannot accept and tolerate homosexuality. It is a perversion. It's an abomination before God.
I think we need to speak out against the sin, but remember that the sinner shares something in common with all of us, for we are all sinners before God. Only His grace grants us the opportunity to repent and be saved.
Numbers-wise that is correct because there are many more heterosexuals than homosexuals. But percentage wise there is a much higher incidence of child molesting among homosexuals than among hetereosexuals.
As for the rest of what you said, it didn't really bother me one way or the other. I'm more interested in why you won't answer my question about fornication or admit that your gay members are not married, and why your church elevates these unrepentant sinners to places of authority and defends them.
And so...
None of your gay church members are legally married according to the law of your state and according to God's law.
So, I repeat - fornicators are admired and exalted as leaders in your church? They teach your children? And you are ok with that?
You deny that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Do you also deny that the Bible teaches that fornication is a sin?
Now, from Christian to Christian - or as fellow human beings created in God's image, if you reject my Christianity - I ask you to consider your remarks here in the last two days.
You have said of our gay and lesbian friends:
"mentally ill in their sexual perversion,"
"suffer from extreme bitterness and a spirit of anger"
"they hate their life"
You have called people you don't even know "fornicators," and you have conflated gay marriage with bestiality and pedophilia (both committed primarily by straight folk, I believe).
Now, I ask you, WHY would a gay person have any reason to find your logic anything but bigoted? Why would they have any reason to think that you love them as Christ has loved us? Why WOULDN'T they appear bitter to you when you make all these accusastions based on little or no information?
Do you even consider how you come across?
EVEN IF you think (as I once did) that gay sex ought to be included in among the other sins (lying, bearing false witness, hypocrisy, cheating, oppression, etc), why would you speak so unlovingly and harshly to folk? When was the last time you called a greedy person "mentally ill" or "perverted"? How much time have you spent on decrying religious hypocrisy or bearing false witness - sins that Jesus actually talked about?
Do you understand that many folk who talk like this (myself, for instance, for half of my life - God forgive me) come across as a bigoted, ignorant, bitter, hypocritical, unloving individual who would never convince a person unsaved of Christ's love or a fellow citizen that I'm anything but a religious bigot?
I ask these questions not to belittle you, personally, but in a spirit of christian love. I'd email you with this, but your email is not available. Besides, this isn't just about you. It's about all of us (myself included, at one time) who hypocritical demonize one segment of sinners in a manner and to a degree that comes across as being gay-bashers and gay-haters.
None of your gay church members are legally married according to the law of your state and according to God's law.
So, I repeat - fornicators are admired and exalted as leaders in your church? They teach your children? And you are ok with that?
You deny that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Do you also deny that the Bible teaches that fornication is a sin?
And I might add the question. Are you legally married to your wife, Dan? If so, why? If you aren't, do you consider yourself a fornicator?
Your personal attacks on me because I don't cower to political correctness is a common practice among homosexuals themselves. I get it all the time. It just seems strange coming from another person who professes Christianity.
If you can not or will not address the questions/issues I have posted at least 3 times, then I won't engage in this discussion anymore. It's a waste of time.
Is that what you consider a personal attack?
And I DID answer your questions, at least some of them.
I stated that some of our gay, lesbian and straight members at my church are married. On the lesbian, gay and straight members who are single, I have not quizzed them as to whether or not they have ever engaged in extramarital affairs. Have you quizzed your Sunday School teachers and deacons to see if they are involved in affairs? Have you quizzed them to see if they are greedy? To see if they are engaging in hypocrisy? Have you gone down through a check list of sins for your deacons, SS teachers and staff members to make sure they are not engaging in any sin?
Or do you have some reason to single out homosexuality? Bigotry, perhaps? (And again, this is not an attack on your person. It is a questioning of your position. You are the one advocating that I run quizzes to make sure that Christians aren't sinning.)
And, to answer another of your questions, yes. I am legally married to my wife. BUT, if I were getting married today, I would forego the state licensing and just get married at my church in the eyes of our God and our Christian Community. I no longer approve of the bigoted notion of the state approving and then sanctioning certain marriages but not others.
Yes, we agree at our church that the Bible does not teach promiscuity. We believe in marriage and chastity and our members are incredibly Godly and faithful in this regards (to the extent that I know). Our divorce rate is below the norm nationally, which itself is below the norm in evangelical churches! How about yours?
Did I miss any of your questions? Are you going to now stop complaining about "personal attacks" and answer my questions?
And I don't profess to be a Christian. I AM a Christian. Saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. Striving by God's grace to walk in Jesus' steps. How about you? Are you willing to walk in Jesus' steps? End attacks against stereotypes of people and treat all individuals - even your enemies - with love?
Many of our gay/lesbian friends ARE married, thank you very much. Not that it's anyone's business, here.
You qualified that statement:
Absolutely true that none are married in the eyes of the state. But as God-fearing Christians, we don't care so much about what the state thinks as what God thinks (although we DO find it offensive and unjust when the state tries to regulate religious beliefs - what the heck is the state doing in the marriage business??).
You care about what God thinks on this matter? Really??
"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'?"
To say that, when you consider your gay friends "married" to each other, you don't care about what the state says about the legal definition of marriage is one thing. To say that you are instead deferring to what God has revealed on the matter is absurd.
I don't think that God and His vision of morality changes with the times.
The Word of God says in Exodus that disobedient children are to be put to death? Do you think God and God's vision of morality has changed or do you think we still ought to put children to death?
The Word of God says in 2 Samuel 12, "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." GOD says that God gave David his wives. Plural. Hundreds of them.
Apparently God thought Polygamy was okay. And so, since "God and God's vision of morality" doesn't change, can I assume that you also think that polygamy is okay?
God also told people to do all kinds of horrible things - to go in to an enemy village and slaughter every one, even the boys (although they could save the virgin girls for themselves). And since "God and God's vision of morality" doesn't change, can I assume that you also think that slaughter of boys and kidnapping of virgin girls is okay?
The question for some of us is not whether or not God changes (I don't think God changes), but rather, how accurately are traditional interpretations of the Bible have been. Not every apparent teaching about God's nature in the Bible is a good interpretation of God's nature, or of right and wrong. Sometimes, the traditions of humanity are just wrong.
To say that you are instead deferring to what God has revealed on the matter is absurd.
No, for me to defer to what Bubba thinks is PC would be absurd. Instead, I must strive to read God's Word and pray for understanding and follow in God's Way as best I can by God's grace. For me to simply change my mind because Bubba thinks I've missed a meaning of a passage would be absurd. But I'm sure Bubba wants me to strive to follow God, not Bubba, and therefore would encourage me to continue after God, despite Bubba's human opinions.
They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.
Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.
This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
~1 Timothy 4
They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
Oh my goodness, what a perversion of God's Word to imply that this is referring to opposition to homosexual marriage.
That's it. I'm done. Dan is blinded. Have fun, folks. I'm out of here.
"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." Titus 3:9-11
And to highlight I Timothy 4:4 raises a question of why you earlier complained that someone else "conflated gay marriage with bestiality and pedophilia."
What, do you oppose bestiality? If "everything God created is good" is enough to convince you that homosexual relationships are fine if they're received with thanksgiving, why not be equally open about zoophilia?
Maybe, in rejecting society's norms regarding man and woman, you still have a long way to go in being open to the bigotry inherent in our norms regarding man and beast.
Either that, or you should admit that invoking "everything God created is good" says absolutely nothing about whether homosexuality is an abuse of what God has made.
That's it. I'm done. Dan is blinded. Have fun, folks. I'm out of here.
So, that's a NO? You won't answer my questions after I've answered yours?
Ms Green, just because this Christian happens to have a different take on the handful of verses that are offered up as the Biblical take on homosexuality does not mean I'm deluded.
Do you think that anyone who disagrees with you on any point is deluded and not a Christian? I'm not the one who has cast aspersions on a whole group of fellow believers, calling them mentally ill, fornicators, bitter, etc. I have critiqued your position and asked questions, answering your questions along the way. I have NOT been divisive. Asking questions is not being divisive. Casting aspersions comes much closer to being divisive.
That you are unwilling to answer questions makes me wonder - NOT about your faith, as many on your side seem wont to do - but about your position. If it can't withstand a few questions, perhaps it is time to prayerfully and humbly ask God about it?
Have you - any of you - ever prayerfully and humbly asked God to reveal God's Word to you on the topic of homosexuality, or have you merely assumed that your human traditions are right and then found a few verses to support your position?
It's an honest question from an honest Christian in search of an honest answer.
I've been where you have been. I've BEEN opposed strongly and disgustedly to gay marriage and homosexuality in general. I've prayed humbly and sincerely before God seeking answers (although, at the time, I was still clinging pretty strongly to my religious tradition bias AGAINST homosexuality). And, in seeking God's Will as found in God's Word, I have come to a different conclusion than Bubba and others here have.
WHO would you have me follow then? If I think God's Word supports gay marriage, ought I deny what I think God's Word says in favor of the traditions of Bubba, Ms Green, et al? OR, should I follow what I think God's Will is, as revealed (even against my will) in God's Word?
Q1: What personal attacks?
A1: "When you critique my positions, exposing my hypocrisy, that IS an attack on me. Or at least it feels like an attack on me. We're so often so closely tied to our positions that we have a hard time differentiating between attacks on our positions and personal attacks..."
Q2: I would gladly read any peer-approved science-based studies you can produce to support your position that homosexuality is a mental illness.
Do you any? Even one?
A2: "No."
Q3: I have not quizzed them as to whether or not they have ever engaged in extramarital affairs. Have you quizzed your Sunday School teachers and deacons to see if they are involved in affairs? In other sins?
A3: "No. But if someone 'acted' gay - you know, all 'swishy' and limp-wristed - we most certainly would be sure to ask them if they were gay before we let them teach sunday school or be a deacon."
Q4: Why would you isolate one sin (homosexuality) for scrutiny but not other sins - greed, hypocrisy, lying - sins that get MUCH more Biblical scrutiny and commentary directly by Jesus?
A4: "We think some sins are 'special sins' that are much worse than others, and being gay is just so yucky and disgusting that we need to be especially watchful to make sure none of 'THEM' are sneaking in our churches and trying to promote 'the homosexual agenda.'
Of course, on a more intellectual plane, we recognize that the suggestion that some sins are worse than others is not theologically sound, but still, some are just so gross!"
Q5: Who would YOU have me follow: What I believe to be God's Will based upon prayerful study and reasoning, or what you and Bubba advocate?
A5: "Well, what my tradition teaches, of course!"
Anyone care to correct me?
Christianity is opposed to homosexual unions. There are verses in the bible where its pretty clear. God wants man and woman to hook up. No other variations allowed. For me and I suspect Dan the hypocrisy comes in when Christian churches and believers focus on homosexuality as a larger or worse sin than others. Because the bible makes very clear that that isn't the case. It's just easier for preachers to rail against sins no one in their congregation practices. Greed, Charity, Kindness, those sermons can get preachers fired.
But to answer your loaded question, of course I believe you should obey God rather than man, myself included. That doesn't answer the question of whether, in this particular case, I'm mistaken in what I believe is God's revealed will regarding sexuality and marriage.
You genuinely "think God's Word supports gay marriage"? I can't fathom what actually passages of Scripture plausibly supports that position because, so far, your argument has been based on little more than fatuous question-begging.
No, for me to defer to what Bubba thinks is PC would be absurd. Instead, I must strive to read God's Word and pray for understanding and follow in God's Way as best I can by God's grace. For me to simply change my mind because Bubba thinks I've missed a meaning of a passage would be absurd. But I'm sure Bubba wants me to strive to follow God, not Bubba, and therefore would encourage me to continue after God, despite Bubba's human opinions.
It's worth noting that what you implicitly request -- the room to seek to understand God as best as you can, and to follow His will as you understand it and without regard to human opinion -- is NOT something you afford other people.
If others dare believe that Genesis 22, for instance, is historical, that God literally did ask Abraham to sacrifice his son, you have very recently accused them of quite literal blasphemy.
"I think to say that we MUST affirm that God sometimes commands people to kill innocent children does infinitely more damage to God's divine revelation than any approach I've supported and blasphemes God's very nature."
If you can stand to tell other people that certain positions are blasphemous, perhaps you should not be so outraged that others will tell you that they find your position on homosexuality to be preposterous.
If others dare believe that Genesis 22, for instance, is historical, that God literally did ask Abraham to sacrifice his son, you have very recently accused them of quite literal blasphemy.
What I said is, if you take this passage and use it to say that God sometimes commands us to kill children, I find that blasphemous. I find it blasphemous for someone to suggest that God commands - and expects people to follow the command - to kill children.
Do you think that God sometimes commands us to kill children and expects us to do so? If so, then you are right. I'm calling such an attitude blasphemous. If not, then I'm not calling such a statement blasphemous.
"What I said is, if you take this passage and use it to say that God sometimes commands us to kill children, I find that blasphemous."
What isn't clear is whether, when you write "us", you include Abraham. If you do, you should make yourself clear. If you don't, then you're changing the subject by invoking "us" to ignore the question of whether God actually did, historically, command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
If you could clarify whether you think it's blasphemous to believe that God commanded ABRAHAM to sacrifice his son, I'd appreciate it.
Regardless, you miss the point of my comment: however you make the distinction, you're attacking other people's beliefs as blasphemous -- as not just mistaken, but sinful.
You have no room to be so defensive when other people dare to find your position regarding marriage to be ridiculous and your arguments absurd. If you're going to dish accusations as serious as blasphemy, you better be willing to accept some criticism in return.
What I said is, if you take this passage and use it to say that God sometimes commands us - YOU AND I or Billy Graham or Bin Laden - to kill children, I find that blasphemous.
I have said that I don't know if God told Abraham this or not and that does not worry me nearly as much as someone today saying, "Well, you know, sometimes God commands us to kill children."
I don't know that I think it blasphemous for you or Eric or whoever to think that God commanded Abraham to kill his son and then, God said, "Just kidding! That was a test and you did fine..." IF that's what you believe, I don't find that blasphemous.
IF you believe that means that sometimes God commands us to kill children, I find that horrifying and an utterly wrong depiction of God's nature or God's intent.
I don't know how to be any more clear.
I'm fine with accepting the Bible as is, warts and all, but what I'm mainly interested in is, What does God have to say to me - to us - today?
I'm fine with mystery. I'm fine with saying, "I don't know why that is stated that way," etc. What I'm not fine with is making the suggestion that God might sometimes order us to kill children. I think this is against the norm of biblical teachings and ethics and contrary to the message of Christ.
And, as always, I must express surprise that this is even controversial. And sorry, Eric, is this is off-topic.
But let's get back to the topic at hand.
How does the Bible define marriage, Dan? Is its heterosexual nature ever, ever treated as negotiable?
If it doesn't, then on what possible basis do you claim that your support of an incredibly radical redefinition of marriage is the result of your attempt to follow God's will?
The Word of God says in Exodus that disobedient children are to be put to death? Do you think God and God's vision of morality has changed or do you think we still ought to put children to death?
No actually, I don't think that we should put children to death. I think that you are misinterpreting the literal words deliberately merely to be contentious and to justify lifestyles that we know to be named in the word of God as abominations.
First of all, the covenant in the old testament is a covenant with God's chosen people. It illustrates the way of holiness. It establishes a standard that no sinful man can meet.
The bible also tells us that "the wages of sin is death". Disobedience to the Father is sin, and sin is punishable by death. In God's vision ALL sinners are to be put to death. That includes you and me.
God's plan allows for mercy and grace though through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus. Jesus lived without sin and gave his life as a sacrifice so that His shed blood could satisfy the law for us all.
It is not possible for any man to live by the law. Jesus fulfilled the law so that we could be freed from it.
The Word of God says in 2 Samuel 12, "And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." GOD says that God gave David his wives. Plural. Hundreds of them.
Apparently God thought Polygamy was okay. And so, since "God and God's vision of morality" doesn't change, can I assume that you also think that polygamy is okay?
The Bible doesn't tell us that God commanded David to have many wives. God does say that he gave David his many wives, but then all that a man has is a gift from God. That doesn't mean that God approved of that arrangement.
The Bible is full of examples of the sinful nature of man, even of the men that he obviously loved. David also had a man murdered so that he could take his wife. Even in this case God "gave" David that woman as a wife. That doesn't imply that God condoned that action at all. He merely made use of it after it occurred.
God also told people to do all kinds of horrible things - to go in to an enemy village and slaughter every one, even the boys (although they could save the virgin girls for themselves). And since "God and God's vision of morality" doesn't change, can I assume that you also think that slaughter of boys and kidnapping of virgin girls is okay?
Do you recall the state of the people that God commanded should be put to death this way? As I recall they were a nation that had rejected God. In this particular case, God was using the Israelites as the instrument of His Earthly judgement.
The question for some of us is not whether or not God changes (I don't think God changes), but rather, how accurately are traditional interpretations of the Bible have been. Not every apparent teaching about God's nature in the Bible is a good interpretation of God's nature, or of right and wrong. Sometimes, the traditions of humanity are just wrong.
I agree with this. Our interpretations of his word are faulty at best. We are all of us sinners and none of us can perfectly know His mind or His Spirit. Only through prayer and the gift of grace can we approach it.
In any case, the Biblical concept of marriage is more than a secular ceremony, but also describes Christ's relationship to His Church (the Bride of Christ). This is ample reason for Christians not to want to see the meaning of Marriage changed.
Without directly quoting anyone, I'll address a couple of points some have made...
Dan says early on that there's nothing in the Bible against gay marriage. Naturally I disagree. Homosexuality is clearly a sin in God's eyes, and not just a run-of-the-mill sin either... it's an abomination, according to God.
Perri so succinctly sums up the limitations of The Law. The Apostle Paul in Romans 7:7 said, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." In Galatians 3:24 he tells us the Law was our schoolmaster... to teach us what was sin, and to prepare our hearts for grace. After all, a man who does not see his actions as sin will not see a need for grace.
Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law... not abolish it, for at the Great White Throne Judgment the unrighteous dead will be judged by their works... with THE LAW as the standard of perfection. God requires perfection.
Homosexuality is not perfection by any stretch of meaning. Homosexuality is a perversion of the natural order of human sexuality. And Leviticus clearly states what is NOT acceptable to God. It wasn't acceptable in the Old Testament days, and it's not acceptable today.
Within the text of the Bible homosexuality has been punished by God. Sodom may have been punished for any number of things [Jer 23:14, Isaiah 1:9-23], but only one verse speaks specifically to homosexuality... Jude 1:7
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Strange flesh can actually mean any number of sexual perversions including bestiality and pedophilia, but homosexuality is most certainly included-- and just to be clear, homosexuality IS fornication, because homosexuality is not recognized by God as Marriage. The people of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the cities about them may have been destroyed because of "unrighteousness" for a litany of offenses, a lack of hospitality and idolatry, but homosexuality was just as much a part of it as any of the others.
But Dan doesn't want to look at Jude. If homosexuality were an acceptable practice God would not have sent His angels to get ONLY Lot, his wife, and their two daughters out of His line of fire. Abraham argued for as few as ten righteous men, but there was only one... Lot.
I can't fault Dan for his attitude toward the homosexuals he knows, loves, and respects, that is the duty of ALL Christians toward ALL men. But Dan makes excuses for their sinful lifestyle, a lifestyle that God quite literally condemns-- naming it an "abomination." Knowing, loving, and respecting "good" [by human standards] people is one thing, but giving them places of authority within the Body of Christ... the BRIDE of Christ, is something altogether different. That in itself is a grave sin.
2 Corinthians 6:17 says,
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I WILL RECEIVE YOU."
The Church, like a bride, is to keep itself clean and unspotted by sin [fornication, for the purpose of this comment]. Ms Green is right, fornication is just as bad as homosexuality. It too goes against God's plan for men & WOMEN [and yes, Dan, the Bible DOES describe marriage as the union between a man and a woman] but homosexuality crosses a line of decency that even God singled out with distinctive language... abomination. Fornication is a sin, no doubt about it, but it is not singled out like homosexuality.
Homosexuality is something any citizen of this country is free to engage in. But it should not be a protected class of citizenry. It's one thing say we cannot discriminate based on race, but a sexual preference? What about NAMBLA? Will they be the next protected class of people in America? Where do we draw the line? How far away from God do we as a nation what to go?
Words mean things. "Marriage," for example, means the union of a man and a woman. There are all sorts of limitations - i.e., one per customer, age issues, incest. None of those deprive people of basic human rights.
"The problem arises when you assert that your religious beliefs should guide our civil laws and regulations."
Nope. I argue against the oxymoronic same-sex unions with secular reasoning. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. And the state has an interest in regulating the unions that by nature and design produce the next generation. Just because there are exceptions that don't produce children (gay couples, infertile couples, etc.) doesn't mean the rule doesn't apply. If it weren't for that the gov't wouldn't need to be involved at all. Gay couples can never provide a mother and a father to children. Never.
"As you well know, there's nothing in the Bible against gay marriage."
Thus says the false teacher. Let's see, does the Bible define what marriage is? It sure does: the union of a man and a woman.
Does the Bible say anything about homosexual behavior? It sure does:
- 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
- 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
- 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
- 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
Of course, that doesn't stop ignorant and/or rebellious people from using the logical fallacy of arguing from silence.
“Have you - any of you - ever prayerfully and humbly asked God to reveal God's Word to you on the topic of homosexuality, or have you merely assumed that your human traditions are right and then found a few verses to support your position?”
I’ve read the whole book many times, and read the relevant verses on sexuality countless times, in context, with research on the original languages where there is controversy. If you are hinting that God gave you special revelation that is a joke. Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Test what you “hear” in light of Scripture. Oh wait, you pick and choose what you like. How convenient.
Regarding the the APA, homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder due to the fact that it involves people who are attracted to the thought of sex with a member of the same gender. This is abnormal. If it were not, there'd likely be much more than 2% of the population with the same proclivity. Obviously not the case. Apparently the only criteria here is whether the subject is somehow distraught as a result. Seems to me, that there are certifiably crazy people who are quite happy, yet they are still considered crazy because of their abnormal perceptions. The APA bailed on these people for lack of viable treatment. They've simply excused themselves by their statements at the time of removing homosex from their lists of disorders. They, like Dan, have appeased these sinners. Not good for them or the appeased.
Finally, the reason homosex gets so much attention from the Church is that adulterers, pedophiles, thieves, murderers, liars, cat jugglers, none of these are trying to change Biblical teaching, Church law, and civil law to accomodate their sin. Trust that should they try, they too will get the same attention as our fallen homosex brothers and sisters.
One other thought . . . the stereotype is that extreme conservatives are legalists, but the statement above is legalism of the worst kind: Carefully defining sin so one can claim that the Bible doesn't specifically prohibit it.
That is transparently rebellious, of course, and displays contempt for the fact that the Bible teaches some specific laws but also many principles.
P.S. to Marshall - please share the Leviticus link you mentioned. That is an important topic.
Oh? Abnormality is how we define mental disorders in the highly studied and well-educated world of Drs. Arts and Green?
Like, left-handed folk are abnormal, therefore, mentally ill?
Or, fundamentalists are abnormal, therefore, mentally ill?
You know, I think you could probably make a case for that last one. Of course, Left handed folk are born that way so, while it is abnormal, there's nothing wrong with it and it does not indicate mental illness.
But for fundamentalists of all stripes (Muslim, Christian, atheist, etc), one might be able to do some studies and make the case that there is some thought process/mental processing types of dysfunctions present to explain their abnormalities.
But, since I have not seen any studies verifying that, I wouldn't go that far. It WOULD make an interesting study, though.
So how about it Dr. Arts, Dr. Green? You've been made co-presidents of the APA and you want to bring the mental status of homosexuals up for a vote based on the fact that it is abnormal (and just yucky!) - what evidence do you present? What case studies? What scientific reviews?
Oh! That's right, you don't need no stinkin' studies. You have the Obvious evidence that they are "abnormal." You're operating under faith-based science. We ought to just take your word for it that gays are sick, sick, sick!
So, what shall we do with these mentally defective abnormal sorts? Should they be able to vote? Should they be committed? Neutered so that they can't reproduce? Forced re-education?
Now that we've abandoned science and any fact-based reasoning, what treatments do the good doctors prescribe?
And what if others in the mental health field don't go along with Drs Arts and Green? Does that prove that they are abnormal, too?
Where does it end if we're going to abandon reason and science in favor of your flavor of religion as the model of How things ought to be done?
the stereotype is that extreme conservatives are legalists, but the statement above is legalism of the worst kind: Carefully defining sin so one can claim that the Bible doesn't specifically prohibit it.
HA!
This is rich. We're the legalists!
How does that quote go? On the essentials of faith, compliance; but on the debatable points, grace - something like that?
I have rarely met a less gracious, grace-filled group of Christians. Only one other that I know personally can compare, and that would be me, for the first half of my life.
But go ahead with your mocking and debasing of those who disagree with you and differ in opinion. Demonize, if you must. Fortunately for us all, God is a gracious God. Unlike us.
But, still, wouldn't we all be better off if we didn't use God's grace as an opportunity to swim in the slime of bitter bigotry and ugly Christian attacks.
I'll say it again: Carefully defining sins in a vain attempt to rationalize them is legalism of the worst kind.
I think Neil is right that you're engaging in legalism, and it's a particular sort of legalism that Jesus Christ specifically criticized:
"Again you have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil." - Matthew 5:33-37
Some were trying to bend the letter of the law to rebel against the spirit of the law, but Jewish Scripture taught against breaking certain oaths, not because it's okay to break other oaths, but because God commands honesty.
As this passage is from the Sermon on the Mount, I would think that someone who claims to esteem this sermon so highly would not have missed this lesson. Instead, it does appear that you're committing a variation of the very sin Christ condemned: searching Scripture for loopholes rather than trying to conform your beliefs and actions to what Scripture teaches.
God made us male and female so that a man would become one flesh with his wife.
I doubt that anyone who demands even more clarity than this on the subject of God's will regarding marriage is truly seeking His will: I suspect he's trying to justify his own.
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.
I fought with God and God won.
Neil said: "he launches into an extended series of name calling about how we aren't gracious."
Name calling? I said that you all were being ungracious, not unlike me not too long ago. That is a description of OUR behavior, not name-calling. And I included myself in that category, so it was hardly an attack on y'all.
Just consider this: I KNOW that you all think that we ought to be loving and gracious towards sinners, right? I KNOW that to be true.
I KNOW that you all don't intend to be hateful towards sinners - our lesbian and gay friends, included. I KNOW that you want to be loving towards them so that they can "be saved" and "freed from their sin." Am I right?
I know that to be true because that is how I was. I had no desire to be ANYTHING but loving towards any gay/lesbian folk around and HELP them to see the light.
Nonetheless, I said horrible, spiteful, bitter, hateful, bigoted, ugly things about gay and lesbian folk without ever really intending to. I denigrated their humanity (by doing things like making diagnoses of mental illness), wanted to deny them basic human rights, I mocked their "condition," I made gagging noises at the thought of two gay guys kissing (or worse!), I was cruel and ignorant in my behavior towards gay folk around me (even though, at the time, I didn't know they were gay).
There was NO WAY that they would ever consider anything I had to say as being worthwhile to them because I WAS a hateful bigot. Whether I intended to be or not. I recognize that now, although I didn't at the time.
So keep that in mind when you think I'm calling you names or attacking you - criticizing your position with legitimate facts and correcting your wrong statements is not the same as attacking or criticizing. And keep that in mind as you hope to witness of God's Good News - do it like I did it and you'll be failing as a faithful witness and failing miserably.
And finally, if you want to believe that those FIVE verses in the WHOLE Bible condemn gay marriage (even though it's not specifically mentioned) and you oppose it for religious reasons, that's up to you. But don't ask society to legalize your religious biases. If you can't offer any legitimate civic reasons, then get the heck out of people's bedrooms.
Peace out.
You say you "DID NOT want to believe that the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality," but God convinced you.
Please tell us, what specific passages convinced you that the Bible teaches that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent?
You now say that the position you once held is evil -- cruel, ignorant bigotry -- what you learned from Scripture must be pretty powerful stuff, irrefutable proof that you were wrong.
How cruel it would be to leave us so ignorant about such a potent word from God.
You think we're ignorant and cruel, and guilty of saying the worst things imaginable. But here you have an opportunity to bring us out of the slime of bitter bigotry and show us how we can change our horrible behavior.
You say you were in this slime yourself. You were blind, now you see; how callous it would be not to bring balm to those of us who so desperately need to be healed. Surely you're not so ungrateful to God for showing you the light that you're not willing to help Him enlighten us.
You are to love your neighbor, to love your enemy, and to love your brother in Christ: you have a duty to help us if you can.
So, help us. Please, don't leave this conversation without telling us what specific passages changed your mind on what the Bible says on sexuality.
Feel free to write me and I will be glad to tell you, if you really want to know.
And for the record, I did not say anyone here was ignorant. In context, I was referring to specific comments that were displaying ignorance of a given topic - making claims of diagnoses of mental illness, for instance.
The question is most certainly on-topic. If you think it's germane to make this controversial claim, the evidence for the claim is certainly likewise relevant. How can it be otherwise, that it's relevant for you to make claims about what the Bible teaches but not to support those claims?
And since you think that all of us here are in the wrong, you should be willing to show all of us how we're wrong, rather than limit this to a private conversation between two people.
When you so very recently pestered me to answer your question regarding my beliefs on the role of women in the church, you implied that I was hiding something by not answering:
"...I have to wonder why you are reluctant to share your position? It strikes me as curious."
"I wonder what it is you're hiding that you can't answer this simple question?"
What conclusion shall we draw if you continue not to provide support to your claim that the Bible teaches that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent?
If you felt you were free to assume the worst about me, that I had something to hide in refusing to answer your question, should we return the courtesy and assume that you will not answer the question because you cannot?
Or should we -- in our slimy, bitter bigotry -- treat you more charitably than you've treated me?
---------------
Marshall: "Neil has a good post on this issue and some of the comments deal effectively with the "infertile/past child bearing age" gambit. Here it is."
I read the linked post. If anything it underscores the fact that civilly and socially we should be encouraging gay marriage. If infertile couples marrying is a good example to other heterosexuals. Then encouraging monogamy and sexual responsibility in homosexuals seems a good idea too. We want to encourage gay men and women to find one partner and be monogamous.
---------------
EL: "...doesn't change the fact that marriage was and is essentially about procreation, whether couples choose to procreate or not."
Marriage has never been about procreation. It has been about property and inheritance. It is about making a public statement about two people/families/countries/businesses being joined together. To really find a marriage for procreation you have to reach way back to the dawn of time. 1) Ugg might have publicly grabbed a woman dragged her to his cave and screwed her insuring Ugg's kids were born. That'd be marriage for procreation. 2) Cain and Abel married their sister to ensure the species continued. Those are marriages for procreation.
---------------
Ms. Green: "Atheism says everything happens by chance and there is no right or wrong - we're all just evolving in this survival of the fittest. So just as homosexuality would be acceptable, so would all other sexual sins , including pedophelia, bestiality, polygamy, adultery, fornication, etc."
First I'm agnostic leaning toward atheistic. Your supposition is wrong. I have big problems with pedophiles. Bestiality is a moral danger. So is Polygamy, adultery and other forms of sexual irresponsibility. Not because they offend some divine order, but because they injure human beings and animals. Homosexuality does not though.
"Numbers-wise that is correct because there are many more heterosexuals than homosexuals. But percentage wise there is a much higher incidence of child molesting among homosexuals than among hetereosexuals."
This quote comes from a poor understanding of child abuse research. First would you consider a man who only hooked up with female sheep to be heterosexual? No. Because people into bestiality are less concerned with the sex of the animal and more concerned with the beastliness of the animal. The same is amazingly true with pedophiles. Pedophiles are less concerned with the sex of the victim and primarily concerned with the victim's age. Once you correct for this, it is apparent the child abuse is no more of less common in homosexuals than it is in heterosexuals. If however you goal is to demonize people then by not doing the corrections you have a nice scary statistic to place in your brochure or sermon.
In days and societies of the past religion and government were much more tightly bound. In the US today civic marriage and religious marriage are separate and dissimilar ceremonies/procedures. For society gay marriage is a good thing. You religions can do whatever you want.
THIS is not my blog.
At MY blog, it makes sense for me to ask you questions and expect an answer if you want to engage in conversation - even if it might be wandering off-topic. But it's not all about me and it's not all about you.
This is ERIC's blog, not mine. I will not be so rude as to presume I can run Eric's blog whichever way we want to go merely because you want me to answer questions that I've answered multiple times at multiple places.
So I repeat: Feel free to write me and I will be glad to tell you, if you really want to know. Conversely, feel free to start your own blog and ask me the question there. Or, if Eric wants me to and invites me to, I'd be glad to answer your question again here, but I would not make that assumption about someone else's blog.
I know sometimes I get carried away and wander off topic, but I don't do it deliberately and correct myself with an apology when I do. Good manners, son, good manners.
And I ask Bubba again:
...WHO would you have me follow then? If I think God's Word supports gay marriage, ought I deny what I think God's Word says in favor of the traditions of Bubba, Ms Green, et al? OR, should I follow what I think God's Will is, as revealed (even against my will) in God's Word?
-- Dan Trabue, June 19, 2008, 10:24 AM, in this very discussion, emphasis mine
If it was rude of you to ask me questions here, and to act as if you were asking the same question again, I certainly didn't see you apologize for it.
And let's not forget you took the same approach with Ms. Green.
So, that's a NO? You won't answer my questions after I've answered yours?...
That you are unwilling to answer questions makes me wonder - NOT about your faith, as many on your side seem wont to do - but about your position. If it can't withstand a few questions, perhaps it is time to prayerfully and humbly ask God about it?
Have you - any of you - ever prayerfully and humbly asked God to reveal God's Word to you on the topic of homosexuality, or have you merely assumed that your human traditions are right and then found a few verses to support your position?
It's an honest question from an honest Christian in search of an honest answer.
-- Dan Trabue, June 19, 2008 10:20 AM, emphasis mine
You then proceeded to take an "educated guess" as how Ms. Green would answer your questions.
It's funny how, only now, manners require us not to repeat pointed questions directed to each other.
I know sometimes I get carried away and wander off topic, but I don't do it deliberately and correct myself with an apology when I do. Good manners, son, good manners.
You haven't apologized yet, and you're in no position to tell anyone about manners.
I think you're guilty of hypocrisy quite often, but it's usually not so flagrant as this: you have done precisely what you criticize me for (and worse, to Ms. Green) in the same thread less than 36 hours ago, but now you say that it's rude of me to ask you questions here on ELAshley's blog.
That's lame, Dan.
Answer my question, please. Or if you really have answered it elsewhere, provide a link. If you can do neither, you should have never made such a controversial claim about what the Bible teaches.
"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.
I fought with God and God won."
Please, I invite you to address this in depth. You've made an incredible [to me and others] claim that through prayerful bible study God changed you mind?
I promise no personal attacks from me, and I ask that everyone else refrain from such as well.
What specifically made you change your mind? What verses? What special illumination? What? I've been all through the Bible myself... a number of times... and what you claim to have found is either not there, I've missed it. Please help us to understand how you can say that God showed you that "homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality."
Dan, lame dodges. Do you expect us to take you seriously when you imply that we're stuck in slime and bigotry but you won't reveal your secret Bible knowledge to help us be better Christians? And you want us to believe that you are fretting about a few more electrons on EL's blog? Please.
While you are at it, you can explain why your argument that "the Bible doesn't specifically condemn same-sex unions, so they must be OK" isn't a legalistic argument from silence. If you are going to keep repeating that foolishness you should at least try to defend it a little better.
Legitimate civic reasons: Heterosexual couples, by nature and design, produce the next generation. Gay couples can NEVER provide a mother and a father to children. There is no reason for the gov't to get involved in those unions.
Also, granting Civil Rights to sexual preferences is a horrific idea, and has already led to sickening changes in what is taught to children as young as kindergarten.
P.S. The Bible doesn't specifically say not to beat up gays. I use the principles of the Bible to realize that would be a bad thing, and I would seek to prevent anyone from bullying gays. But you would have no Christian argument for that, would you?
I invite you to address this in depth. You've made an incredible [to me and others] claim that through prayerful bible study God changed you mind?
I promise no personal attacks from me, and I ask that everyone else refrain from such as well.
Eric, you are a prince among men. Thank you for the gracious invitation.
Though I really don't want to pile on, I would like to make a remark or two regarding mental illness. It seems to me, in my entirely uneducated thinking, that some forms of abnormality would not require sheepskin for discernment. If a fellow will on occasion run as hard as he can a slam his head into a brick wall, I don't think I would need to consult any Doctor of Psychology to assume correctly that the dude has a problem.
In the same way, if 98% of the population is properly attracted to members of the opposite sex, a phenomenon consistent with their biological design, it's pretty fair to assume there's a problem with the remaining 2% who are attracted to the same gender. It conflicts with their design and the behaviors of the majority, thus, it is abnormal.
There is nothing slimy or bigoted about this. It is merely calling something by its name, a practice abandoned by far too many these days. Now this means of course that you might call me bigoted or cruel or some other negative word, but that is an emotional response to a very logical and objective action on my part.
I would also remind you of your trouble giving respect to the very wealthy or the very powerful, that is, high government officials and corporate heads. Yet, here, with the APA, you are willing to accept the words of the heads of this huge organization, one that deals with an area not completely understood by the best of them. It is mere denial on your part to dismiss the possibility that such an organization would be loathe to admit that they have no answers for this condition. In fact, they reek of liberalism as they have decided to remove it from the list of disorders rather than to deal with the challenges it presents.
"We want to encourage gay men and women to find one partner and be monogamous."
Yes. One partner of the opposite sex. The state is only encouraging hetero pairings as evidenced by the large majority that supports it everywhere the general public is given the opportunity to vote. The downsides to state sanctioning of "gay" marriage are many and I've listed several in three posts beginning here. But for all the problems one might point out in hetero marriages, the ideal is still what the state seeks to encourage due to the ultimate benefits to society derived from it. In other words, homosex marriages suffer from the same problems of the average hetero marriage, but also brings new issues to the table. And of course, homosex marriages will open the door to various other arrangements due to the argument in support would apply and this would further complicate and burden our culture.
I was raised in a normal Southern Baptist Church, which is to say, conservative and traditional. I learned the Bible very well, thanks to some excellent traditional sunday school teachers, youth leaders, and decent preachers.
We had Seminary students come to our church regularly and it was not unusual for me - as a teenager! - to know the Bible better than they did. Which is not me bragging on myself, but rather on my teachers.
We took the Bible seriously and read it religiously and prayerfully. Baptists, for all their faults, very often live up to their name as People of the Bible and I am thankful for their teaching me to love and honor the Bible and to take it seriously.
As a result of this teaching, I grew up quite conservative and traditional. I was in a Gospel/Rock band for ten years, from 19 to 29 years old. We traveled around preaching and singing for free (accepting offerings if offered) and giving away tapes of our music for free, too.
In fact, I was considered "progressive" at the time because of using electric guitar - that was sort of the definition of a liberal when I was a young man - in order to preach the Gospel.
Other than the Bible, I read Billy Graham, Leonard Ravenhill, CS Lewis, Dr Dobson, Jonathan Edwards, the Wesley Brothers, Corrie Ten Boom, the "Cross and the Switchblade," etc, etc. I listened only to Christian music - Steve Camp, Larry Norman, Rich Mullins, Randy Stonehill, etc, etc.
I apologize for going on so long about myself, but I thought I'd go ahead and give a full picture in an attempt to answer Eric's nice question.
I was a conservative's conservative. I liked Reagan in his first term (but had started growing disenchanted somewhere in his second term). I didn't read much beyond the Bible, but when I did, it was only "conservative-approved" reading. Religious rightwingers and old preachers.
I didn't go to college so that I could focus on serving God in the Band that I was in ("Remembrance"), besides, I didn't really trust colleges, as they were bastions of liberal nuttiness. I knew because Dr. Dobson told me so.
I was at church 3-5 times a week (Sunday school, church, sunday night church, wednesday prayer meeting, visitation night, youth or young adult meetings, etc) in addition to meeting 1-3 times a week for band practice (which nearly always included prayer and bible study time) and for traveling to do concerts. Additionally, the guys in the band met for a year or so at 5am-ish every morning for an hour or two of prayer time for the lost and those in need of God, for the sick and elderly, the needy.
Do you get the point? I was a conservative's conservative. Needless to say, while I professed and earnestly believed I loved gay folk, I thought "their lifestyle" was disgusting and that they needed to find God. It was obvious to me that they couldn't be Christians as long as they were gay.
That was Dan, from birth to about age 30.
Give the man some room.
When we (my wife and I) were about 33, we were still fairly conservative in many ways (we're fairly conservative now, in many ways, actually), we joined our current church home, Jeff Street Baptist.
We had for many years felt called to urban ministry and had been at another church "in the bad end of town," that had a history in the Civil Rights movement, but was still fairly traditional in most ways.
We were not looking for anything UN-traditional necessarily, but we were really longing to find a church that took the Bible seriously, one that attempted to live as the Early Church did, with a concern for the poor, living simply, living peaceably, a place that sought to be true to the radical truths of the Bible and Church.
We found that in spades at Jeff Street. But one problem I had with Jeff Street was that they were accepting of gays. At the time, I didn't even know exactly what that meant, but it was a HUGE red flag and I thought probably an insurmountable one.
But the pastor there was such a Godly woman and tremendous preacher, I was intrigued.
(I had to get over a little remaining Southern Baptist prejudice against women preachers, but it didn't take but 2 or 3 sermons to convince me that this woman was ordained to be a minister if EVER anyone was. Besides, by this time, I was thoroughly unconvinced of the biblical soundness on the prohibition of women pastors. Not because I even knew any women preachers, but again, out of taking the Bible seriously, I didn't find my traditional teaching against women preachers was borne out by the Bible.)
Besides the preacher, the whole church was just filled with Godly, Bible-wise folk earnest about following in the footsteps of Jesus.
But if that's the case, how could they be "accepting of gays..."? What did that even mean?
As it turned out, they were getting ready to do a month-long Bible study on the Bible and homosexuality. Before this, I would not have even attended such a series of meetings, because it was innately absurd. "The Bible is, after all, absolutely clear on the topic!" said I.
Nonetheless, because I WAS serious about the Bible and because I was willing to listen to what my new acquaintances had to say, I went.
Reluctantly, I prayed for God's Word to be made clear (although, why bother - it IS already clear to me that homosexuality is clearly wrong - over and over it is clearly shown to be wrong in the Bible!, I thought to myself as I prayed).
And now, the Bible part of our story...
Well, there are one or two places it appears in a couple of translations, (1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1, in the NASB) but the words translated "homosexual" there is not a clear translation. Turns out, there is a Greek word for homosexual and this is not the word they used in these two spots. There are two terms that have given translators troubles - neither being the word for "homosexual."
One is malakos, which means something along the lines of soft, as in this definition: "of persons, Soft, effeminate, esp. of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually"
The other word used is arsenokoites which is an obscure word which meaning is not clear. Literally it means male offender, or male "bedder."
One resource says, "Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix "Arsen", simply means "male". But a "male bedder" does not necessarily imply a male who beds males.
Anyway, there was a Greek word for homosexual and that was not what was used. This muddied the water some for me.
But what of all the other places where homosexuals are mentioned? Well, they were non-existent, as it turns out.
And remember, I was not inclined to believe my new friends on this point so I went home and researched it myself. The word, "Homosexual," just does not appear in the Bible.
Okay, but what about gays being an abomination? I thought, and all those other passages that talk about gays without using the word "homosexual"?
Well, as it turns out, they're mostly non-existent, too.
There are about five or six passages in ALL the Bible that one can honestly point to (if they are being honest about really striving to understand what the Bible truly says) and say, MAYBE this might be talking about homosexuality.
100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms. The fact that it is "only" 5 or 6 passages means nothing. How many passages does it take until God really means something?
100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
Dan plays word games once again. You don't have to use the word homosexual when you describe the behavior clearly (Lev. 18, Romans 1).
Was that supposed to be the clear evidence for us to liberate us from our slime and bigotry?
Oh, the irony.
There are two passages in all the OT that seem to address homosexuality. Leviticus 18 and 20.
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (Lev 18:22)
And
"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act." (Lev 20:13)
That's it, in ALL of the OT.
But what of Sodom? What of that other town where something similar happened? What of the condemnation of catamites? Clearly, these are ALL condemning of gays! I said.
Sodom and any similar stories, it was pointed out to me, is a story wherein some angels are visiting the town and ALL the men of the town surround Lot's house and demand the angels come out so that they could have sex with them.
And what is it when a group of folk try to force someone into sex? It's rape. Not homosexuality. And it was ALL the men in town, not the 2-10% of them who were likely gay. This was an attempted rape, not a description of gay activity and certainly not a description of a loving committed relationship.
If the situation were reversed and the townfolk had asked Lot to send out the WOMEN angels that were visiting, would we then say, "Why, that clearly indicates that heterosexuality is wrong!!" Of course not! Sodom is simply not about homosexuality.
THAT was a big Wow for me. I had thought going in to this study that if nothing else, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah - where a whole town was destroyed because they were gay! - would be clear. But I was also interested in an honest look at what the Bible has to say and quite frankly, they were right. The story of Sodom is NOT about homosexuality.
The twin realizations that:
1. There are hardly ANY passages that talk about homosexuality and,
2. That the story of Sodom was not about homosexuality...
really shook me. At some point along this ongoing study, it became clear to me that what I had thought was clear, was a whole lot less clear than I realized!
As if to pound this home for me, I discovered the passage in Ezekiel where God's own Self says, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.
God speaking directly about Sodom and never once identified homosexuality as the problem there. That was a stunner for me.
The OT and NT also both mention catamites, which are boy prostitutes. But here again, clearly boy prostitution is wrong, but just as clearly, boy prostitution is not the same as homosexuality.
Again, when the Bible condemns prostitution, we don't make the leap to assume, "SEE! Heterosexuality is therefore wrong!!" It's just not logical.
So, after striving mightily to find some passages in the OT to support my position, I was left with only the two Leviticus verses.
One does not go from one extreme (hating homosexuality, the sin and not having any respect for homosexuals themselves) to the other overnight, and Eric seems to sincerely want to know why I "switched teams," so I'm going into some detail to show why.
I apologize if this is overly long and more than what you were asking for Eric (or anyone else), but I was asked.
Right, because prostitution is a perversion of God's plan, just like homosexual behavior.
See Responding to Pro-Gay Theology for answers to Dan's incomplete understanding of Sodom (and presumably others). It is really quite thorough.
Well, this was a support at least, of my view against homosexuality. But one problem with Leviticus is that the laws are given, boom, boom, boom, with little or no explanation of what it means or why the law is there.
And so, an honest question could be asked, "What does 'lay with a man as a woman' MEAN? Does it just mean what it literally sounds like (anal penetration - sorry if that is too graphic)? What of other positions? What of women laying with women, is that okay? Is it talking about something other than just regular homosexuality - like the temple prostitution or catamites mentioned earlier?
While I was leery of this line of questions, I had to admit that one could honestly ask them if one is truly seeking to understand the Bible. I mean, a quick superficial read of that passage sounded like to me that it was just talking about gay behavior, BUT because I was taught to take the Bible seriously, I was not interested in a quick superficial read.
My friend, Michael has more info here about this point. Suffice to say that after looking into it more closely, I was no longer so sure it was just talking about general gay behavior. Which is not to say that I was convinced at this point, just that I had questions.
Although, I did find the two aforementioned words that are sometimes mistranslated "homosexual," so, what did that leave me in the NT?
As it turns out, even less than in the OT. Jesus is entirely silent on the issue. Whereas it seems many evangelical preachers can hardly go a week without bringing up the horrors of the "gay agenda," our Lord and Savior managed never to speak about homosexuality at all.
BUT, there IS at least Paul's admonitions in Romans 1. In addition to the "solid" case that I thought Sodom presented, there was AT LEAST this passage in Romans that I could point to and say, if nothing else, there is this passage clearly pointing to homosexuality as sinful.
Romans 1, in which Paul is pointing out how some have forsaken God seeking instead graven images, "and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
Seeking to be wise, they became fools...
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Clearly, I had always thought, this is a passage talking about gays AND lesbians. They, "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," as the NIV puts it.
But again, looking at it prayerfully and with a seeking heart (or at least half-heartedly - remember, for some 33 YEARS I had believed one way, I was NOT inclined to change my mind in the least on this point), I tried to see what God might say to me about it.
And I noticed that this passage points out that the "abandoning God's ways" leads to the above, but it also progressed to...
hey have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless...
By this time at my church, I realized that there must be some folk there who were actually gay or lesbian! As far as I knew, I had never known a gay or lesbian person, but I could tell from the church's conversation that "THEY" were there at church.
But it was a small church and I was already getting to know everyone (and some folk I had known before coming to Jeff Street). Who could it be?
There was absolutely NO EVIDENCE of "gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful" people at Jeff Street. They were the loveliest, most Godly, most Christian people I had ever met. How could that be?
After all, Romans 1 says that those who worship idols will progress to being gay and then on to this list (of what I thought were rather more mundane "sins" as compared to homosexuality. I mean, I knew PLENTY of gossips in every church I had ever been in, unfortunately, as well as the "merciless" and "slanderers," and so on.), but I saw no evidence of these sins anywhere.
Could it be that this passage is NOT talking about "just" being gay? Could it be that it's talking about something else? That old temple prostitution (which would make sense in connection with the lead-in passage about worshiping idols)? Or just sexual debauchery in general?
Besides, this passage talks about "exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones" and I realized by this time that, for homosexuals, "natural" relations ARE with the same gender. Taken literally, this passage would seem to suggest that gays would be WRONG to try to abandon their natural inclination in favor of one that is not natural!
But given:
1. The (surprising, to me) sparsity of passages on the topic,
2. The absence of the clear word even being mentioned
3. Jesus supreme silence on the topic
4. The context of the times and further exploration into the meanings of some words and situations, and
5. Just a logical look at the whole thing from a comprehensive biblical point of view
I, at first, found the case AGAINST homosexuality extremely underwhelming (that was my first step, I guess) and, eventually, came to believe that the Bible - that God - does not condemn loving, healthy, committed relationships whether gay or straight.
The handful of verses that are able to be cited (really just three passages) COULD possibly be talking about healthy gay relationships, but I don't think the evidence is there. Read those three-five passages: they're talking about depravity, sickness, bitterness, horrible actions - actions associated with hating God, with telling lies, with twisting words, with greed, with hatred, with viciousness.
THESE are not the traits of the lesbian and gay brothers and sisters I now know that I know.
They, instead, are filled with the fruit of the Spirit - "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" - THIS is the reality of the lives of the folk at my church, gay and straight - they are not slanderers or gossips, they don't rumor-monger or spread lies or twist words.
My friends who are married - gay and straight - are in loving, committed healthy relationships, this just does not strike me as what those three to five passages (in the whole Bible) are talking about.
I mean, how can someone who has been "given over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity" and who have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie," how can they ALSO demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit?
John tells us, "Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God" and I can assure you, these are a people who love at Jeff Street. Gay and straight. How can a house divided against itself stand?
Michael does a much better job of presenting the hard biblical case and, rather than duplicate that, I have offered you my story.
Michael, by the way, shares my story pretty closely. A married straight guy of some dozen plus years, he was raised believing homosexuality was wrong and had to be dragged into believing otherwise against his will to conform with God’s Will, or at least God’s Will as best we understand it.
Let the slings and arrows fly, dear friends.
The Bible ONLY refers to slavery in positive, "be submissive and a good slave" types of terms! Isn't that evidence enough to show that opposing slavery is against God's plan??
That is arguing from silence. That gay marriage is not mentioned in a society that would have no concept of such a thing is not evidence that God opposes it.
100% of the verses addressing slavery support it. The fact that it is "only" 165 or so passages means nothing. How many passages does it take until God really means something?
In 100% of the verses referencing selling your daughter into slavery God speaks favorably of it. The fact that it "only" happens once or twice means nothing. How many times must God explain the Right Way to sell your daughter until God really means something.
0% of 31,173 Bible verses even begin to hint that slavery might be wrong.
Therefore, given this clearcut preponderance of evidence from the Bible, one can ONLY reach the conclusion that slavery is a profitable and Godly (or do I repeat myself?) way to make a buck.
So perhaps, without the unnecessary auto-biography, Dan can show how the Bible allows what it previously denied. You've failed to do that, Dan. Miserably so. You've simply made assumptions. You demand proofs for those who debate against you. On this point, you provide nothing.
You are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible, your own walk with God, as I am mine.
(And again, if you are at ALL concerned about meeting our lesbian and gay friends with the love of Christ, you would be well served to quit calling them offensive names - "homo" - it's sorta like if I was trying to win you over, jerkwad, by talking down to you, mommas boy, by calling you all kinds of offensive names, Jesus-hater. It's just not a particular effective method of outreach. IF you actually care to reach out to folk. IF you want to be a jerk, then you're doing fine.)
He isn't the first who has, after meeting homo/les people to find that they aren't overtly monstrous or outwardly decadent in their behaviors.
I don't know about Michael, but in my case, when I started the Bible study, I still didn't know that I knew any gay folk. So, your argument that I only changed my view because I "liked" someone is just wrong. Factually wrong.
As to this:
He isn't the first to meet people who are "nice" and then was led to believe their behavior was acceptable.
Perhaps you misunderstood. Allow me to clarify. I didn't say that the folk at Jeff Street were "nice." I said they were Godly. They had/have the fruit of the Spirit, which THE BIBLE tells us is a sign that they are of God. They Love well, which THE BIBLE tells us indicates that they are followers of Christ.
Not "nice." In fact, sometimes they (like me) can be pretty crude and "un-nice," calling people on the carpet for injustice; insisting that the powers that be recognize the rights of the oppressed and marginalized.
So, what do you call someone who has been saved by God's grace? Who has repented of their sin and asked for forgiveness and made Jesus the Lord of their lives? And, as a result, they have begun to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit as talked about in the Bible?
I don't know what you call such a person, but I call them my Christian brother and sister.
But they haven't repented. They've only pretended that they aren't in sin as they continue in their sin. By pretending that they aren't in sin, they have created for themselves a false god.
And I haven't called anyone names, I've only used abbreviations. I don't feel compelled to misuse words like "gay" that they like to apply to themselves.
I'm sorry, Dan. We all need to do more seeking after God and less accusing of the other. Mom2
Oh, really? And you know their heart and are able to tell that they have not repented because... what? You're omnipotent?
Let's assume you are correct and homosexuality is a sin. Let's further assume that you are incorrect in thinking you "know" that they have not repented, but rather, they have repented of EVERY SIN they know of. They just didn't know their orientation was a sin.
Are you saying that people who don't KNOW of a sin and therefore who don't repent of it haven't really repented? Really? Have you considered the implications of such an outrageous position?
That would mean that each sinner - before he/she could be saved - would have to know perfectly each and every sin in their life so that they could repent of it. And if they were somehow mistaken - even on one sin, which they in their humanity did not realize - then they could not repent!
Who then, could be saved??
Consider this: What if YOU, oh wise Marshall, were wrong about your position on the Iraq War; suppose that God actually wanted you to oppose it strongly and by not doing so, you have sinned. Does that render your repentence null and void? Are you now, because you were wrong on even one point, doomed to hell forever?
Your position is not tenable.
Yes, I think some sins are pretty obvious. I think the notion that one should not support killing children (as in Hiroshima, as in Dresden) is extremely obvious and one that would be self-evident that you need to repent of. But somehow, Marshall, in all his wisdom, fails to see that sin.
We are finite, imperfect humans who are all struggling to find our way. Sometimes, we manage to get it wrong. Even the great Dan or Marshall.
Believe it or not.
It saddens me to see no Bible validation, only a dissatisfaction with God's views and a desire to have God agree with him instead of desiring to agree with God.
Did you read the part where I pointed out that I had no desire to change my position? That I ONLY changed it to allow myself to be transformed by the Word instead of being conformed to the world.
I know I wrote a lot and maybe you missed it, but there you go: To suspect that I changed my position from anti-gay to pro-gay because I wanted to personally believe that is simply a blatant mistake.
Now you know the truth.
Suggest I'm wrong, if you wish. Suggest that I've strived to find God's Will but made a mistake.
But DON'T suggest that I merely changed my position because I "didn't like" the anti-gay position. That's just not reality.
Another argument from silence. A few things to consider: One, homosexual behavior wasn't a big problem for the Israelites because they had the death penalty as a punishment for it.
Two, no one appeared to be challenging it, whereas today it is front and center. The pro-GLBTX groups brought up the subject and are demanding the change, so of course the churches need to respond. It is fallacious and disingenuous to pretend that orthodox Christians are just picking on GLBTX's. Tell the movement to stop trying to say it is Biblical, stop trying to force the agenda into the public schools and stop trying to silence orthodox Christians, then watch how quickly the issue would die down.
Three, Jesus wasn't silent. The whole book is his. Even the red letters specifically define what marriage is. Pro-GLBTX folks like Dan try to say that is NOT what marriage is, so it can be whatever we like.
“Besides, this passage talks about "exchanging natural relations for unnatural ones" and I realized by this time that, for homosexuals, "natural" relations ARE with the same gender. Taken literally, this passage would seem to suggest that gays would be WRONG to try to abandon their natural inclination in favor of one that is not natural!”
Here is where you get to demonstrate whether you really want to know what the Bible says. As I noted in Romans 1 and natural functions, the original word wasn’t relations, it was “functions” – as in physical functions. God was quite clear and specific with this text, so that anyone who really wants to understand it can do so.
There are at least five other things wrong with the notion that it would be wrong for gays to abandon their alleged “natural inclination.” For one, if everyone just follows their natural desires when it comes to sex, to whom is Paul speaking? There would be no one to talk to! And wouldn’t anyone charged with this sin just claim to be bisexual? See this for more - http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5301
To address your summary:
1. "The (surprising, to me) sparsity of passages on the topic," - How many verses does one need? There are only a couple about bestiality, so do you ignore those? You also ignore all the verses on God’s plan for marriage, which Jesus reiterated.
2. "The absence of the clear word even being mentioned" – This is fallacious. The behavior is described, presumably in anticipation of the word games people would play.
3. "Jesus supreme silence on the topic" – You tipped your hand. Jesus is God, so He authored the whole book. He reiterated in no uncertain terms what marriage was to be. He specifically validated the Law. So He was not silent. (Again, using your logic, He was silent on gay bashing, so that must be ok).
4. "The context of the times and further exploration into the meanings of some words and situations" – But you stopped researching. All of your objections can be thoroughly addressed
5. "Just a logical look at the whole thing from a comprehensive biblical point of view" – Not sure what that means. Here’s my comprehensive Biblical view:
a. 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
b. 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
c. 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
d. 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
“100% of the verses addressing slavery support it. The fact that it is "only" 165 or so passages means nothing. How many passages does it take until God really means something?” “0% of 31,173 Bible verses even begin to hint that slavery might be wrong.”
You need to do some more homework on the slavery topic. You don’t appear to understand the concept relative to U.S. style slavery and what the Bible really says about it.
Thanks for laying out your rationale for all to see.
For your many detailed posts, I thank you very sincerely.
I do have thoughts and criticisms, but I'll try to keep this as civil as possible.
First, Dan, about your past as a political conservative, I do wonder how deep those roots were in the first place. You now seem to think fiscal conservatism means subsidizing corporations, which implies that you missed the fundamental respect for a truly free market that you could find in the writings of Adam Smith, Hayek, and Friedman. In your criticism of American foreign policy during the Cold War, you seem to have rejected whole-cloth the conservative concern of the threat of Soviet Communism, a concern that animated Buckley and then Reagan: in downplaying the threats we face (then and now) you don't even seem to acknowledge that reasonable people to your right may be more concerned about our foreign enemies and it is that concern, rather than some barbaric bloodlust, that motivates our hawkishness. In matters of culture, you don't seem to have the respect for tradition that Burke and Chesterton had, the idea of Burke's that we "must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes," because radical change results in costly chaos and destroys much of the accumulated wisdom that brought us prosperous, reasonably civil society in the first place. And, I think our recent conversation regarding the Constitution makes clear that your rejection of the idea that its authors intended Congress to be limited to the enumerated powers given to it, didn't come from a close study of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or the other writings of Madison, Jefferson, and our other Founding Fathers.
You may have grown up immersed in politically conservative media, like Dobson, but if you hadn't read about -- or in particular, grasped -- the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism, then it might not have taken much exposure to an opposing view to cause a sea change in your belief system.
And, about your joining Jeff Street, what you write is somewhat vague and somewhat contradictory:
We were not looking for anything UN-traditional necessarily, but we were really longing to find a church that took the Bible seriously, one that attempted to live as the Early Church did, with a concern for the poor, living simply, living peaceably, a place that sought to be true to the radical truths of the Bible and Church.
It's none of my business, I'm not even asking for details, but it sounds like something drove you away from your old church before you found Jeff Street, perhaps some scandal or some hypocrisy: you writing implies that the church you left didn't take the Bible seriously and didn't seek to be true to Christianity's "radical truths."
And it's interesting, your focus on what you think are the radical truths of the Bible: "a concern for the poor, living simply, living peaceably."
None of this is really unique to Christianity. For Muslims, alms-giving is one of the central pillars of their faith; Stoics lived very, very simply; and plenty of Hindus are pacifists who seek to live peaceably.
What's really radical isn't Christ's ethical commands to us, but what He did for us:
The Incarnation, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection. The Atonement and the truly free gifts that it purchased, the forgiveness of our sins, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the provision of eternal life with the Father.
In your own emphasis, it sounds like Jeff Street minimizes the central doctrines of Christianity. In James 2, it's clear that we really should take care of the poor, but the New Testament is also clear that we should be careful to discern and firmly reject heresy: I Corinthians 15 rejects the denial of the resurrection of the dead, I John 4 rejects the denial of the Incarnation, and Galatians 1 rejects any deviation in general from the Gospel the Apostles originally preached.
The goal is a church where Biblical doctrine is affirmed and where people's needs are met -- and, of course, where God is worshiped, where sinners are called to repent and accept salvation, and where brothers and sisters grow in spiritual maturity. I thank God that I've found a church where doctrine and charity overflow, but I also understand that such congregations are far fewer than they should be.
Is it possible that you left a church where Christian service was underdeveloped, only to find a church where fidelity to Christian doctrine is downplayed? I can't answer that at all from this very limited vantage point, but if you did, that's a step forward. At best, it's a step sideways.
Now, about your argument regarding the Bible and homosexuality, I appreciate the detail of your answer, but I do have at least three serious criticisms.
1. It doesn't support the claim you made earlier, that "the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality." Whether your argument is persuasive or not, the most you can claim from your argument is that the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn homosexuality. This claim, you have repeatedly defended, but it's not a claim from which one can logically infer your earlier claim, that "the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality."
2. You keep comparing marriage and slavery without noting a very serious distinction the Bile makes about the two. That distinction is this: God made marriage, but man created slavery.
Biblically, marriage was instituted by God in Genesis 2, before even the Fall. There is no passage even suggesting that God instituted slavery.
The most you can say is that, in the Bible, God regulated slavery. A better analogue to slavery is divorce, another human invention which Christ said God merely permitted because of the hardness of men's hearts. In both cases, the OT regulations governing slavery and divorce were great improvements over contemporary practices in that they granted more dignity to the weaker party and protected the weaker party, more than in any other contemporary culture.
Like divorce, slavery wasn't part of the original plan. God's regulations made both human institutions more humane, and if we can make the institutions even more humane still -- or abolish them as in the case of slavery, or make them extremely rare as we ought to be doing with divorce -- I'm not sure what Biblical objections could be raised.
Marriage is another matter entirely: a divine institution, God's own creation, about which the Bible is very clear. We can seek to be more obedient to what the Bible says about marriage -- e.g., no sex outside of marriage, and mutual (but asymmetrical) submission within marriage -- but we have no warrant to redefine the institution or abolish it.
3. Your argument invokes a needlessly constrained criterion, selectively uses that criterion, and ignores the serious implications of that criterion. Ignoring the difference between what you've argued and what you claimed earlier, and ignoring your comparisons to slavery, I believe your argument has a fatal flaw: in ignoring what the Bible has to say about sexuality and marriage in general, you ignore the strongest argument against homosexuality, you show a selectiveness about how you use this flawed approach, and you start down a path that logically leads to a denial of truly essential orthodoxy.
First, the strongest argument against homosexuality is this:
a. The Bible limits sexuality to chastity.
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.
c. The Bible clearly defines marriage as lifelong heterosexual monogamy.
I think this argument is valid because what matters isn't only what the Bible explicitly forbids, but also the implications of the principles it invokes.
If a math teacher says, "the number 42 isn't prime because no even number greater than 2 is prime," the implication of the second clause (the "because" statement) tells you all you need to know about whether 18, 92, or 974 is prime. If a mother tells her child, "don't eat a candy bar because I don't want you to ruin your appetite," most children really know what that instruction implies regarding cookies and cake, too, whether they would like to admit it.
The implications of the three Biblical principles above lead inexorably to a prohibition of all sorts of practices. Not just homosexuality is forbidden, but also "swingers" and threesomes and the serial monogamy that comes through divorce and remarriage.
"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'?"
What this passage tells us and implies, tells us all we need to know about the impropriety of homosexual acts and the absurdity of the term "gay marriage."
The reason we were made male and female -- you, me, all your gay friends, everyone but the rarest genetic abnormality -- is so that each man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female).
The only exception Jesus mentions in Matthew 19 -- and the only exception the Bible ever truly condones -- isn't another "one flesh" configuration, but a total denial of one's sexuality through lifelong celibacy. The polygamy of David and Solomon led to much of their family's suffering; and Jesus explicitly says that divorce was an allowance to man's sinful stubbornness: "but from the beginning it was not so."
God's intent for why we are the way we are -- male and female -- doesn't need to be more clear to those who are truly interested in God's plans regarding sexuality.
Second, both on this topic and on inerrancy, you invoke a criterion that you apply very selectively.
To evaluate the traditional position condemning homosexuality, you've asked, does the Bible explicitly condemn it? But I can't tell whether you've ever done the same to evaluate Jeff Street's position, asking, does the Bible explicitly condone it?
(Likewise, on inerrancy, you demand a passage where every part of all 66 books of the Bible are declared inerrant, but I don't believe you can point to a single passage that asserts that there's an error in another section of Scripture, and I sincerely doubt you've ever tried an exhaustive search to find one.)
You reiterate that you were practically dragged, kicking and screaming, to change your mind on this subject.
Did you read the part where I pointed out that I had no desire to change my position? That I ONLY changed it to allow myself to be transformed by the Word instead of being conformed to the world.
The facts remain: you invoked a criterion that excludes the strongest case against homosexuality and there's no indication that you have ever used the same criterion to evaluate the opposite position.
The game looks rigged.
If you're sincere that you don't consciously intend to reach the conclusion you do, the methodology of your approach calls into question your ability to evaluate rational arguments.
Finally, this criterion -- judging our position solely by whether the Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality -- would logically lead to a denial of a fundamental doctrine of Christianity: THE TRINITY.
Nowhere do we find an explicit affirmation of a triune God. Instead, all we find are the claims that necessarily lead to the Trinity:
a. There is only one God.
b. The Father is God; the Son is God; the Spirit is God.
c. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father.
If you ever got around to applying to the Trinity the arguments you invoke against the prohibition of homosexuality and against the doctrine of inerrancy, you would end up denying the Trinity, embracing either polytheism (as the Mormons do) or some sort of unitarianism.
What more can I say? To say I don't find your argument persuasive is an understatement. In the end, I find it to be dangerous.
That is a problem.
And so, I fully understand where you're coming from and feel similarly towards your position.
We disagree, in other words. I have heard all the arguments you've made and believed them myself. I no longer find them convincing.
And so, I would like to return to an earlier question I asked of Marshall: We disagree with one another on this sin and probably several others. What now? Does that only leave us with the option of saying, "Well, since clearly he's wrong about this sin, then he can't repent correctly and therefore can't be saved."
Must I decide that you are hopelessly lost until you agree with ME (and vice versa)?
OR, can we say, "I disagree with you on your take on that particular sin. I think there are serious consequences in holding that position and it troubles me that you would continue to teach it. But you are still my brother in Christ?"
I lean towards the latter, much as it may trouble me and as imperfectly as I may implement it.
You, anyone?
Not mine. The Bible tells me not to be unequally yoked on spiritual matters with non-Christians. It isn't that we read a few passages differently, it is your overall pattern of deceptiveness with regards to the Bible.
For instance, the sin of bearing false witness, since I have clearly not been deceptive. I've poured out my heart and soul here to tell you honestly how I came to this view on this particular sin.
You are free to call me a liar or deceptive, but that does not make it so and I will still consider you my brother in Christ - just as I couldn't disown my own brother even if he told lies about me or chose to have nothing to do with me.
I mean no offense. I'm sure you make a great neighbor and such. This is just a simple logical exercise: Whatever you are, spiritually speaking, I'm not, and vice verse.
What's that make you, brother?
"Is it possible that you left a church where Christian service was underdeveloped, only to find a church where fidelity to Christian doctrine is downplayed? I can't answer that at all from this very limited vantage point, but if you did, that's not a step forward. At best, it's a step sideways."
On this subject, Dan added a reply to Marshall that's worth addressing directly.
Perhaps you misunderstood. Allow me to clarify. I didn't say that the folk at Jeff Street were "nice." I said they were Godly. They had/have the fruit of the Spirit, which THE BIBLE tells us is a sign that they are of God. They Love well, which THE BIBLE tells us indicates that they are followers of Christ.
I will reiterate that the Apostles clearly and strongly repudiated false doctrine and those who preached false doctrine.
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. - Galatians 1:6-9, emphasis mine
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already. - I John 4:1-3, emphasis mine
In the first case, Paul didn't write that the heretic should be accursed unless he seems to behave in a godly manner. And in the second case, John didn't suggest that teaching against the Incarnation is remotely ameliorated by Loving well.
Jesus Himself, who taught that we will know false teacher by their fruits, also warned against teaching others to break even the least commandment.
(And, most germane to this discussion, Paul's list of the fruits of the Spirit is preceded by a list of the works of the flesh, and these works of iniquity include sexual immorality.)
The New Testament is clear: doctrine matters.
In response to my comment, Dan, you wrote this:
I understand. Just as I find your position in opposition to gay marriage and the ill will you all display towards homosexuals and, really, anyone who disagrees with you to be dangerous to the faith. I think churches like the ones I grew up in and Christians like the one I was before are working to make the church an irrelevant and hypocritical country club and not much more.
1. I don't think I display ill will toward homosexuals just because I believe that homosexual relationships are outside of God's plan for man.
2. I don't think that "anyone who disagrees" with me is dangerous to the faith, and given our conversation in your blog, on the role of women in the church, I'm insulted that you would suggest this. I reiterate what I emphasized earlier: Reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable, and spiritually maturing Christians CAN disagree on precisely how a present-day congregation should reconcile these [sex-related] principles from the New Testament.
My concern isn't with disagreement per se, but with the way you justify your position: it's your argument that's the real danger.
I explained why your approach is dangerous. I don't think you'll ever start applying the approach consistently -- if you ever did, your own positions regarding both inerrancy and homosexuality would fall like a house of cards -- but if you did, your approach would eventually lead to a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity because there isn't a passage of Scripture that explicitly uses the term and affirms the doctrine.
More, in a moment...
But it's clear that your personal philosophy isn't rooted in Christianity. Instead, it's rooted in the radicalism of the modern left.
Your philosophy is informed primarily by radical political agendas such as socialism, pacifism, and social androgyny: at least these, possibly more.
(Whether these are tied by some common strand is a very interesting open question, but irrelevant at this point.)
Those parts of Christianity that can be made to fit your philosophy, you champion. Those parts that don't directly contradict these things, you believe but downplay. And those parts that do conflict, you actively reject.
Let me be clear, I don't think the Bible requires free-market fiscal conservatism, a hawkish foreign policy, or even domestic policies that promote traditional family values. The Bible is actually mostly silent on political philosophies outside the exceptional case of the theocratic state of ancient Israel, which God Himself instituted and through which God fulfilled the first covenant which has since been superceded.
A person's philosophy could be rooted in "mere" Biblical Christianity and then include a variety of political positions so long as they don't clearly conflict with Scripture. This philosophy could include many positions from the modern left.
But it remains that I cannot pretend to believe that your philosophy is primarily Christian. I cannot go along with the fiction that your blog is primarily concerned with the Christian Gospel. I cannot pretend that, though our political positions are often diametrically opposed, we both started with the Bible as the normative source of authority.
We may very well both be citizens of God's kingdom, but I can't help but notice your apparent tendency to invoke His decrees only when it suits your agenda.
Love for the Father and His entire family means that we should not whitewash one brother's attempts to distort the Father's message to advance his own goals.
The following statement of yours remains unanswered, however, in one very important respect:
"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."
The implications of this statement, if true, is tremendous. What this statement says is that through "prayerful Bible study," your mind was changed against your will. Correct me if I'm wrong [and breaking the whole statement down, I don't believe I am], but this statement implies there was something specific you read that forced you to change your mind... against your will. You didn't want to believe that the Bible said homosexuality was no different that heterosexuality.
I believe we've all been in the position of 'prayerful bible study', and I know what it's like when reading a portion of scripture you've read a hundred times suddenly opens up and the light of its truth just gushes out and illuminates your understanding. So please help me to understand what specifically did you read that changed your mind? Unless God spoke in an audible voice, he spoke to you through scripture, because without scripture to show you the door to new understanding, how can you be sure the small still voice you heard saying, "Yes, Daniel, this [passage] is why homosexuality is no different that heterosexuality," was really the voice of God, and not the enemy whispering "yea, hath God said?"
Seriously, and honestly Dan. Help me to understand. Your testimony is greatly appreciated but it leaves this point woefully unclear.
...
I also have to wonder whether your statement here is a Freudian Slip; admitting at the last that Homosexuality IS a sin, OR... what?
This is a most dishonest means of debate. I don't think I'm assuming too much to believe that your friends are still living the lifestyle if you refer to them as "married". Thus, they have not repented. I can't say with certainty which of them are only living as roommates and which are "married", but for the sake of debate and discussion, you waste too much time playing these types of games.
"They just didn't know their orientation was a sin."
More games. I find it very hard to believe that even your friends would insist they didn't know their behavior, not "orientation" (more games), wan't sinful, or at least proclaimed to be by those not out to make the Bible work for them.
"Are you saying that people who don't KNOW of a sin and therefore who don't repent of it haven't really repented?"
No. I'm saying they do know they are sinning but have chosen to buy into all the lame-ass justifications invented in order to feign compliance with God's Will.
"I didn't say he killed his wife."
A simple statement, but it has a different meaning depending on which word you stress...
I didn't say..., I DIDN'T say..., I didn't SAY, I didn't say HE killed his wife... and so on.
The Bible of course is not an oral recording, but sentence structure and passage context offer the same basic exercise.
Now, Leviticus 18 provides us a litany of "thou shalt not's" in regard to uncovering someone's nakedness, then says this:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you..." [verses 22-24]
Taken as a whole chapter there is but one theme: Sexual purity.
Taken in halves, verses 1 to 21, and verses 22 to 30, there is no contextual difference, despite a change in language... no more talk of uncovering someone's nakedness from verse 22 on... but we're still talking about sexual impurity. The chapter opens up with talk about where God had taken them from and where He intended to lead them, and what He expected of them in contrast to the practices of both places...
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do MY judgments, and keep MINE ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep MY statutes, and MY judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD." [verses 1-5]
Verses 24-30 are essentially the same.
"Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you..."
This entire chapter is speaking to sexual impurity. No question. And as it speaks to sexual impurity "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind..." is quite clear. Homosexuality was not to be condoned. Neither was Bestiality.
Move ahead approximately 2,000 years and Jesus gives the world a single message [Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself] and the clear consequences of failing to live up to it. Our Lord said not one jot or tittle shall depart from the Law until all things are fulfilled, which is still future.
But we are under Grace you say? Those who have put their faith in Christ, yes, but not the sinner. And another ancillary point needs to be made here: The Law was the Old Testament Israelite's only means of righteousness before the throne of God. Dietary laws, moral laws, sacrificial laws... all were necessary to be holy and righteous before God.
But not today. We do not have to abstain from pork, shrimp, fried catfish, and eel nigiri [yum!]... for RIGHTEOUSNESS. Our righteousness is now in Christ, not in keeping every little jot and tittle of the Law. But not all the laws were doled out simply because God decided he didn't want people to enjoy a rasher of bacon with their sunny-side's up or over-easy. He included them because pigs are, essentially, garbage disposals; and their flesh doesn't release toxins. If one wants to be healthy today one needs to adhere to the Jewish dietary laws described in the Old Testament... but not to be righteous. To be healthy. The moment Jesus rose from the dead, Catfish didn't miraculously cease to be scaleless bottom-feeders.
Homosexuality and Bestiality, likewise, are not made clean practices simply because Jesus rose from the dead.
This is a very simple truth. And until you can provide the scriptural evidence that caused the scales to fall from your own eyes I can't accept your conclusions, however impassioned or well reasoned.
As I said, I appreciate your candor, and your efforts, but there's still this big fat elephant in the room.
...
A little something I worked out many years ago:
"Every sin ever committed in the universe can be distilled down to 'Selfishness.'"
Wanting what we want whatever the Bible says. Whatever our consciences' say. Whatever any given societies' social mores or the laws of the land say. Selfishness is the deal breaker in every sin against the big two [Love God/Love Neighbor].
Lucifer's sin? Pride, you say? Sorry, but that boils down to selfishness too, whatever Isaiah says-- but if that's how God chooses to frame Lucifer's sin who am I to argue?
My point is this. I know it's attractive to want to be open-armed to everyone, and to a degree we should be. But there are lines God has asked us not to cross, things we are not to accept. False teachers, for one. False teachings. False Gospels.... False Conversions. On top of this Jude explicitly states we are to contend for the faith. And contentions are not without controversy... us's against them's. We are told to be separate. Touch nothing unclean.
I can't speak to the hearts of the Lesbians and Homosexuals in your church. But I can with sufficient authority say that God does not change. The Law has not changed. Grace abounds, yes, but Grace assumes we have turned our backs on the sin of our old-man, and embraced the new life of Christ indwelling in us.
Homosexuality is still an abomination in the sight of God. Jesus said so [not one jot or tittle shall depart from the Law 'til all things have been fulfilled.. which hasn't happened yet].
Can a person be saved while still in sin? Duh! But if a child of God refuses to turn from sins the Holy Spirit [equally God] finds equally offensive and abominable, that child of God will most assuredly be chastised, perhaps in a 'unto death' scenario. If Drunks can lose the taste and desire for alcohol, if drug-addicts can lose all desire to get high, that is the work of the Holy Spirit, how then do homosexuals pridefully revel and continue in their "abominable" lifestyle?
"If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."
--1 Corinthians 3:17
Please show to me the passage[s] that led to your change of heart/mind.
Quickly, though, Marshall said:
This is a most dishonest means of debate. I don't think I'm assuming too much to believe that your friends are still living the lifestyle if you refer to them as "married". Thus, they have not repented.
One can only repent of those sins of which they're aware. I, nor my friends, believe homosexuality to be something needing repentance. And so we have not repented.
If one does not know that something is a sin, then one can't repent of it. I think, for instance, that supporting this Iraq War is an egregious and obvious sin. But many here have not repented of it because they do not believe it to be a sin.
IF they are wrong about that, then they will go to their graves having never repented of their sins. By the reasoning of some here, they will die outside of grace because they never repented. Presumably, they would be hellbound for their ignorance.
I'm saying that I don't think it is a biblical teaching that one need be perfectly right on each and every sin in order to be saved. That is a kind of salvation by works (ie, one needs to have perfect knowledge of all sin) and none of us would be saved by that approach because none of us are omniscient.
So, there's nothing "dishonest" in my insisting that Marshall (or anyone else) is omniscient enough to know if these folk have repented. They/we HAVE repented of all known sins, as all Christians do when they come to Christ and make Jesus Lord of their lives. It's just that we don't believe the "sin" in question to BE a sin.
Just as you don't believe supporting the Iraq War to be a sin. If you're wrong on that point, I don't think that is just cause for me to assume you're not a Christian or that I should disassociate with you.
You've likewise played games to justify your position on war. In that discussion, you imply one goes to war for the sake of killing, rather than to engage in such actions for the stated purposes of deposing a madman, thwarting a threat, defending a people, etc. The only similarity between your blatant denial of the sin of homsexual behavior and what you would then call my denial of the "sin" of war, is that in each case you have failed to comprehend the issues sufficiently to expound upon them.
It's a nice exercise debating someone like you, so out of touch with reality, but one gets bored after awhile.
And, in the local church, I think it makes some amount of sense. If the church is prayerfully thinking, for instance, that slavery is wrong and thinks it is important enough that they want to come out as an Anti-Slavery church (as the Quakers and others did in times past) and one member is insisting that slavery is a good and God-ordained practice, then it might make sense for that church to say to that person, "We disagree with your position and believe it to be heretical, part from us."
But in the global sense, are we going to divide ourselves to death if we part ways over each and every little sin?
I love the amish, for instance, but they have historically done this to themselves repeatedly (as have many faith traditions) - "THOU dost believe in only ONE suspender while WE believe in TWO suspenders for holding up our trousers - THOU art an heretic, leave us!" (seriously!) Forever dividing over individual sins and differences of opinion.
I am not a creedy sort of guy, but I tend to think that if one can affirm the Basic Christian creeds, one is in the party.
I believe in God the Creator, almighty Creator of heaven and earth
And in Jesus Christ the only begotten son, our Lord,
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit
Born of the virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate
He was crucified and dead and buried
I believe that He who suffered
Was crucified, buried, and dead
He descended into hell and
On the third day, rose again...
I believe in the Holy Spirit
One Holy Church, the communion of Saints
The forgiveness of sin
I believe in the resurrection
I believe in a life that never ends
~Rich Mullns, Creed
What is there to divide over? Individual sins? Please, let us reason together as family.
Thanks for the pleasant conversation, Eric. Touch base next week.
[Sigh...]
I'm trying very hard to not take your sudden departure with any measure of cynicism, Dan. You've managed to evade the question yet again.
I hope you will return and give us an answer to one simple question:
What passage of scripture caused the scales to fall from your eyes?
That's just it: It isn't a little sin. The un-Biblical view is dividing churches and denominations. Those who preach the pro-gay theological view have a high correlation with other heresies (denying scripture, the exclusivity and deity of Jesus, etc.).
It is worth dividing over.
Neil, I'm been reading all these comments back and forth, and there have been some excellent points made by all of you. But I think these words are the wisest that have been said. In the Christian community, it IS worth dividing over. Churches that embrace homosexuality and no longer regard God's Word as authoritative are already in apostasy and need to be separated from.
These are sad and tumultuous times we are living in regarding our faith. It will only get worse, and we need to pray for Holy Spirit strength and guidance daily and ask for boldness to defend the faith. And we need to witness of the love of Christ who can forgive any and all sin if one will only come to Him in repentance.
How true. Amen to Ms. Green also. We indeed are living in dangerous times and I believe that the weather, earth quakes, wars and rumors of war could be messages to our times. I no longer care if I am made fun of, I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and think about what He endured. Our church is in the middle of Bible studies about these things. Mom2
Amen.
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you..."
2 Corinthians 6:14-17
[Christ] gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from ALL iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people..."
Titus 2:14
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind..."
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Amen, and Amen
Quickly, as to this "Dividing" stuff and Eric's quote:
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
That's just the thing, though. We're NOT unbelievers. Eric and the rest of y'all are NOT unbelievers and, just because I think you're horribly terribly wrong on a few sins and in attitude sometimes, that does not make you an unbeliever.
Similarly, just because you think I'm wrong on a sin does not make me an unbeliever.
But tell me this, then, if you think it worthy to divide with other believers because of their position on gay marriage: What biblical sanction do you have for such a position? What list of sins are found in the Bible that says, "These are the sins over which you should divide?" IS there any such list?
Of course, the answer is, No.
Also, I am still wondering if each of you think that, if a person is wrong about a sin, that means they'll die unrepentant and therefore doomed?
I don't believe you think that.
1. It is beyond Christian orthodoxy to make such a claim.
2. It is unbiblical to make such a claim.
3. It defies reason to make such a claim (unless you believe all of humanity is hellbound, since no one is right on every sin.)
No, I don't think you all think that (correct me if I'm wrong). What I think you think - my guess - is that you think SOME sins (let's call them O.S. for "obvious sins") are SO OBVIOUSLY sins, that EVERYONE ought to recognize that it is a sin and if anyone does not repent of THOSE sins - the OS - then they are not repentant and therefore not saved.
Is that it?
If so, you surely must recognize that there is no biblical support for such a position. If you think there is, all you have to do is provide me with a list of OS and show, "HERE is where the Bible points out the OS, so that you can be sure not to get these sins wrong."
Lacking any biblical support, surely you recognize that the list of OS would change from person to person (ie, be very subjective, based on human reason and emotion). For instance, I think support for the Iraq War or for bombing Hiroshima to be OS. Support for torture, too.
But, I am not of the schools that says that just because one does not repent of OS, one is not saved. I don't support that position for the same reason I don't support opposition to gays - it's not biblically supported.
This weekend, then.
Enjoy the family time.
That's fine, Dan, except that we're talking about homosexual behavior, not happy people. And as you have been educated over and over again, such behavior is indeed sinful and such is taught Biblically. You just refuse to face that fact. I think you suffer from hetero-guilt. It's much like "white-guilt". You've admitted to bashing homosexuals to some extent (something none of us have copped to because we haven't done it---at least Ihaven't), so now, as if you yourself were homosexual, you take up their bludgeon and hit us for standing up for Biblical truth.
You have argued against inerrancy on the grounds that no passage in the Bible explicitly states that every passage of all 66 books is inerrant. Never mind that inerrancy is a quite logical conclusion to draw from Christ's affirmation of the authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke, and never mind Paul's assertion that all Scripture is God-breathed: just where is the passage that explicitly denies inerrancy? Why don't you try proving that your position on this subject meets the standard you demand for ours?
Regarding homosexuality, you note that the Bible doesn't explicitly condemn "gay marriage." Never mind that the Bible's writers clearly presume that marriage is heterosexual, and never mind that Christ explicitly affirmed the claim from Genesis that we were made male and female for marriage where a man (male) becomes one flesh with his wife (female): just where is the passage where the Bible explicitly condones "gay marriage"? Here too, you don't seem willing to prove that your position meets the standards you demand for our position.
Now, you imply that a church cannot separate from those who they think are flagrantly indulging in what the church considers serious sin.
What list of sins are found in the Bible that says, "These are the sins over which you should divide?" IS there any such list?
Of course, the answer is, No.
It does not follow that divisions are therefore never necessary, and the process outlined in Matthew 18 implies that there will be circumstances where a brother will need to be considered "as a Gentile and a tax collector." Never mind that: just where does the Bible explicitly teach that schism, separation, and excommunication should be avoided at all costs?
Dan, it seems like you demand the most explicit Scripture passage possible for positions with which you disagree, but you'll make the most strained appeals to defend your own position.
You oppose war by invoking "overcome evil with good," but this begs the question of whether war is an unqualified evil, and it even ignores the context in which Paul immediately writes that the government doesn't bear the sword in vain.
And, here, you appeal to I Timothy and the claim that "everything God created is good," as if that conceivably implies that homosexual relationships cannot possibly be a perversion and abuse of the sexuality that God created.
I'll reiterate what I wrote earlier: The game looks rigged.
And this game-rigging does not seem like the behavior of someone who is careful to be consistent in evaluating all arguments against reasonable, rational standards -- a Christian who was dragged kicking and screaming to embrace homosexuality as morally equivalent to heterosexuality, because God really did point him to an irrefutable argument from Scripture.
Thus far, the narrative you give explaining where you were before you reached this radically androgynous position, isn't justified by the actual content of the argument for that position.
First; while I appreciate the lengthy description of his/your journey, in no way does his/your story provide anything that would compel someone to re think their position.
Second; I think it speaks volumes that when Dan chooses to "quote" the Apostles Creed, he gives Rich Mullins credit. (don't take this as Rich Mullins bashing, but he just set it to music)
Coming from Baptist/Anabaptist stock, I don't have any creeds memorized, since the churches I grew up in and have been part of do not include creeds in our normal worship or study processes.
No problem with that, I presume?
Still unpacking so I'll get back later. As to your other thought, Craig, it may not "win" you over, all I'm saying is this is what changed my view - and again, I will stand by my claim that it was mainly God's Spirit winning me over to this point of view, as I had no intention or desire WHATSOEVER (nor guilt, to address someone's suggestion - after all, I hadn't done anything wrong, I merely believed the Bible, God's Word, or so I thought - so I had nothing to feel guilty over) and the only thing that COULD have changed my mind would be God, so far as I can tell.
More later...
No, it could have been Satan. Just sayin'. How can we know? Test it in light of scripture.
There, we are taught, not only that Christ died, but that He "died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures," which places an emphasis on both the atonment and the authority of Scripture -- in this case, its prophetic authority -- with which you don't seem wholly comfortable.
It's definitely a discussion for another time, but it's worth noting that, as a non-creedal Anabaptist who makes a point of complaining when others introduce extrabiblical teachings as authoritative, you appeal to extrabiblical creeds as defining the boundaries of orthodoxy.
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.
You've stated that your position is, "the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality."
In defense of that position, you argue that the answer to the Anti-explicit question should be no rather than yes.
Let's ignore how strong or weak your argument is for that. The fact remains, you haven't done much about the other three questions.
You haven't argued that the answer for the Pro-explicit question should be yes, because there is no passage of Scripture that explicitly condones homosexuality: not one verse.
You haven't argued that the answer to the Anti-implicit question should be no; most notably, you haven't dealt with the clear claim in Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 that we were made male and female so that each man (male) would become one flesh with his wife (female).
And aside from brief appeals to passages such as I Timothy 4 -- really strained, question-begging appeals that you haven't attempted to defend -- you haven't begun to provide a remotely persuasive reason to think the Pro-implicit question should be answered with a yes.
The strongest arguments that answer these other three questions demolish your position on the Bible and homosexuality even if your arguments against Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 were persuasive. The most that your arguments do is say that the answer to Anti-explicit is no; but if Anti-implicit is answered with a firm yes, and if the two "Pro" questions are answered with a resounding no, the answer to Anti-explicit is completely irrelevant.
If Jesus Himself affirmed that we were made male and female for a marital institution that is clearly heterosexual, and if there are no passages that affirm homosexuality explicitly or even implicitly, it doesn't much matter if the passage in Romans alludes only to boy prostitutes.
In other words, an answer of no to the Anti-explicit question is not determinative. We would need to know the answers to the other three questions to determine definitively what the Bible teaches on homosexuality.
A fair approach to determining what the Bible says on homosexuality would ask the same questions of the Anti side as it would the Pro side.
A thorough approach would ask what the Bible teaches explicitly and what its principles require as implicit conclusions.
It seems that, since you asked only the Anti-explicit question, your approach was neither fair nor thorough.
Even supposing that this wasn't a diliberate attempt to rig the methodology to reach a particular conclusion, your methodology still was unfair and shallow.
So:
Why should we believe that your conclusion was the result of literally divine revelation rather than an extremely poor methodology?
"You've stated that your position is, "the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality.""
With no attempt to undercut Bubba's well-reasoned argument, if the Bible does indeed say homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality, then the scriptures are flawed. How so? Because there IS at least one fundamentally anatomical difference.