Analysis: Patently FALSE. The Bible explicitly defines marriage as an inviolate covenant between one man and one woman (NIV text):
Genesis 2:23-24: 23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she (singular, female) shall be called woman,
for she was taken out of man (singular, male).”
24For this reason a man (singular, male) will leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife (singular, female), and they will become one flesh.
Matthew 19, 5-6: 5″and [Jesus is already speaking here] said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
The singular and specific sexualities drawn here by Jesus are absolute. There is nothing in the Hebrew or Aramaic languages that allow for reference to a man or a woman, specifically named as such, which would blur their sexuality.
So much for her first allegation. Now let us look at the second:
“And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage-theirs or anyone else’s -to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.”
Oh, really? I’m sensible, and I’m modern, and I want my marriage to look like the biblical model.
Analysis: Again, this is patently FALSE. Her second statement is ludicrous on its face. But she compounds her error by switching in midstream from the concept of marriage as defined as being between a man and a woman, to a concept defined as between ‘partners.’ This creates a slippery slope down which it appears to be her fervent desire that the reader will slide.
Her final fatal error is in trying to re-define the bible as a living document:
“Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history.”
Analysis: Still again, patently FALSE. Living documents are alterable. For the bible, this is impossible, given that the bible is held to be, by every known biblical authority, a canonically closed document, that is to say, unalterable, and not subject to arbitrary redefinition. Even the Jews define the Old Testament – “The Law and The Prophets” – as sacred and unalterable writing. By Christian definition – and who better to define their own manifesto than the Christian – the bible is the unalterable Word of God. Thus, she sets herself up for making the final ludicrous statement in her fundamental argument:
“[In that light,] Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married-and a number of excellent reasons why they should.”
In examining her article, most especially these first paragraphs, in which she sets up her failing argument, I find no substantive support for that statement, other than perhaps her agenda.
Finally, I will address what I think is the most comical error I have seen in years, regarding biblical ‘interpretation:’
“Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was “one spirit” and whom he “loved as he loved himself.” Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan’s death and, in grieving, writes a song:
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.
Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.”
What Miller attempts with this text would be laughable, if it were not that she is attempting to equate friendship with sexual desire, which makes it more pitiable than laughable. David is not suggesting that marital love is inferior to that of friendship, nor do his remarks have any sexual implications. What David is doing, in context, is simply calling attention to Jonathan’s incredible self-denial, in his commitment to his friend David. We must remember that Jonathan had long recognized David as the lord’s choice to succeed his father (Saul) as King, rather than Jonathan himself. The prophet Samuel had anointed David (1 Samuel 16: 1-13) for this purpose, Jonathan had recognized this, and so served David in both soldier-ship and friendship as the Lord’s anointed.
All normal heterosexual men enjoy the friendship and companionship of other heterosexual men. Whether in a bar on Friday night after work, either boisterously relaxing over a beer, or in earnest conversation or political debate, or whether with a friend over whose loss one would grieve, as did David for his friend Jonathon, they enjoy each other’s company. This is not to suggest that they would enjoy partaking in sexual activity with each other; the ninety-seven-plus percent of the male population who are straight decidedly would not. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEED71630F936A25757C0A965958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
Ms. Miller is a Senior Editor at Newsweek. She should possess the knowledge that would prevent her misinterpreting religous documents, including the bible. Biblical law, and Canonical law form the bedrock of credibility for our system of law and justice, for our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution. To attack it in such an unadvised manner, therefore, is to attack the fundamental concepts on which our country is based.
She should know better. So should Newsweek.
Here:
Your biblical quotes are, indeed accurate, and are often cited by those supporting alternative marriage. Biblical scholars are aware of these texts, which, on their face, seem to turn the sanctity of marriage on its ear.
<
p>The subjects you raise include Old Testament polygamy and concubinity, the Mosaic requirement for female virginity at marriage, equal yoking in marriage, a specific of Mosaic law concerning divorce, Mosaic law concerning provision for widows, and the sexual misconduct of Lot’s daughters. Let us examine all of these, and put them into context.
<
p>Polygamy and concubinity, while not specifically forbidden by God, were and are frowned on by Him. Lamech, the gr-gr-gr-gr grandson of Cain, was the first polygamist, and the first of many to violate God’s intent of one man and one woman in marriage (Gen. 2:23-4; 4:19). That Abraham slept with his wife’s servant to gain a male heir was his wife’s idea, not God’s. Further, in the recording of instances of polygamous marriage or concubinity throughout the Old Testament, you will note that offspring of such union were not, ultimately, Israelites, or in later years, were Israelites in rebellion against God.
<
p>Virginity before marriage was, and is still, a good idea. While Mosaic Law required it upon pain of death, that has long since not been the case. But it is only within modern times that virginity at marriage has not been expected, and then only outside reformed Christian circles. My wife and I came to our marriage bed as virgins, and our relationship has been and still is, monogamous.
<
p>Likewise, equal yoking in marriage, while not a demand requirement of the New Testament (1Cor.7:13, 2Cor6:14), is a good idea. It’s tough for a believer and a non-believer to truly have a peaceful marriage.
<
p>Finally, if your implication regarding the sexual misconduct of Lot’s daughters was somehow intended to demonstrate that the bible condoned it, I suggest you are mistaken. Further, their offspring became the Moabites and Ammonites, who warred with, and were looked down upon by the Israelites.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
I often pull facts out of my ass, too.
where you got them.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
Tempting as it might be. Too much effort.
in my infinite naiveté . . . 🙂
<
p>Seneca was an interesting philosopher. My favorite of his quotes (and one probably applicable in my own life!) is “There is no great genius free from some tincture of madness.” As he was Nero’s tutor and chief advisor, he should have known, if anyone did!
<
p>Best,
Chuck
Sure there are the classic passages cited by the anti-equality folks, but JESUS HIMSELF says not a wit about homosexuality. The one passage you quote of Him is in refernce to prohibiting divorce.
<
p>I would argue than endorsement of one kind of marriage is in fact more implicit than explicit and am dismayed you want to follow a Biblical model for your own. Apparently you would be OK treating your wife as property and even taking more than one if that truly is your standard.
<
p>There are absolutely philosophical differences as to how to interpret the Bible. I am one who believes that the Bible is living enough that while the fundamental messages of love, justice, and mercy are timeless, the details can and should be seen through the prism of the time written vs. the prism of our own time. In the United Church of Christ, we refer to this concept as “God is Still Speaking” and pride ourselves in taking the Bible seriously, but not literally. Never assume that your interpretation of the Bible is the only right one and that you have the monopoly on truth. That’s just plain arrogant.
<
p>I wouldn’t necessarily take Lisa Miller’s approach. She seems to try to make the Bible say something it doesn’t and not say something that it does. Personally, I’m fine with acknowledging that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but I have no hesitation whatsoever in pointing out that it was written down 2000-3000 years ago and as such of course some things should be ignored in favor of modern insight and values.
“JESUS HIMSELF says not a wit (sic) about homosexuality.”
<
p>You’re absolutely right; He doesn’t. His Apostle Paul does the heavy lifting for Him. Go and read the Pauline scriptures for yourself, then come back and tell me about it. And whatever He is discussing in Matthew 19, He certainly does a pretty good job of describing marriage by quoting Genesis, doesn’t He?
<
p>I’m not sure about your implications in paragraph two, regarding my wife, but after reading your post, she suggested that she would like to meet you on the corner of Second and Pine in Seattle (where she grew up) on Monday at noon, for the purpose of kicking your butt. My wife is not property. If you would like to believe that she is, I will wait here for you . . . She is only 4-10, but she speaks a number of dirty Japanese words; karate, taekwando — you get the idea.
<
p>Philosophy is an interesting subject. I have published two dissertations on the subject, neither of which amounts to what I believe earth-shaking text. May I admonish you on how little philosophy relates to biblical interpretation? No? Well, your decision limits your ability to study the scripture, in order to understand and correctly handle the scriptures, which is what Paul demands of his friend Timothy. I suggest,impertinently, that he demands it of us, as well.
<
p>As for your final paragraph, and your approach to scriptural interpretation, may I suggest that I do not have a monopoly on such, but that my work therein rather follows the work of the Divines at Westminster, 1643-47AD, when they wrote the Confession of Faith, and provided scriptural proof of everything they wrote. I have yet to find a single argument against their work.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
“His Apostle Paul”
<
p>Tells me everything right there about your familiarity with Biblical interpretation. Paul was not an apostle, never had met Jesus (or claimed to). You should know better.
Perhaps a little study would cure your disabuse with the Apostle Paul. Herewith a few starting points:
<
p>Rom.1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle …
<
p>1Cor.1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle …
<
p>2Cor.1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God …
<
p>Gal.1:1 Paul, an apostle – sent not from men, nor by man – bu5t by Jesus Christ and God the Father …
<
p>Eph.1:1 Paul, an apostle …
<
p>Col.1:1 Paul, an apostle …
<
p>1Tim.1:1 Paul, an apostle …
<
p>2Tim.1:1 Paul, an apostle …
<
p>Tit.1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ …
<
p>This salutation is not used in Philipians. Paul and Timothy were the authors, thus Paul uses the term “servants of Jesus Christ.” The same is true of Thessalonians, where the co-authors included Silas and Timothy.
<
p>For all of the Pauline scripture, where Paul was the sole author, his opening salutation defines him as an apostle of Jesus. In his conversion in Acts9, at vv.15, Christ declares that Paul is His chosen instrument. The Catholic and Protestant communities have long held that Paul is an apostle of Christ. Perhaps if you know something we don’t, you might share that with us.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
Paul never appears as one of the Twelve in the Synoptic Gospels. I don’t really care what Saul said about himself, he wasn’t an apostle except when he decided he was.
<
p>And if you want to believe that Paul was the sole author of the Pauline letters, you’re disagreeing with all but the most credulous biblical scholarship.
Once again, the words of Jesus Christ in Acts 9, at vv. 15, when Christ Himself declared Paul to be His Chosen Instrument.
<
p>I further commend to you the Zondervan studies, the Zondervan and Liberty Commentaries, and the Berkhof and Grudem Systematic Theologies. I commend to you the Roman Church, the Dallas, Trinity and Covenant Theological Seminaries, the Presbyterian General Assemblies, the Baptist Conventions, and the Lutheran, Wesleyan and Dutch Reformed Bodies Politic.
<
p>These worthies all seem to agree that Paul was the sole author of the singularly-authored Pauline Scriptures. Perhaps, if you have a more credulous series of resources, you could share it with us.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
Okay, I give you a credible (not credulous) source.
<
p> 1He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil[a] spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
<
p> 2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
<
p>3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
<
p>4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (Matthew 10 – NIV)
<
p>or, if you prefer:
<
p>13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
<
p>14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
<
p>15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
<
p>16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
(Luke 6 – King James)
<
p>Now, I was brought up to believe that Jesus’ chosen Twelve were the Apostles, and that “chosen instrument” is something different, and self-declared Apostles also something different.
<
p>In any case, given how easy it is to dispute the seemingly obvious question of who the Bible names as Jesus’ apostles, small wonder then that polemics about “what the Bible says about marriage” are riddled with questions.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) any of the original 12 disciples called by Jesus to preach the gospel: Simon Peter, the brothers James and John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot.
3. the first or the best-known Christian missionary in any region or country.
4. Eastern Church. one of the 70 disciples of Jesus.
5. the title of the highest ecclesiastical official in certain Protestant sects.
6. (among the Jews of the Christian epoch) a title borne by persons sent on foreign missions.
7. one of the 12 administrative officials of the Mormon Church.
8. a pioneer of any reform movement.
9. Nautical. a knighthead, esp. one having its top projecting and used as a bitt or bollard.
<
p>Paul certainly meets 1 and 3. And, while I do not dispute the text of Luke 6, I likewise do not dispute the words of Acts 9. And if you do, then what would you call Paul? Also, out of curiousity, where did you get the notion that Paul was not the sole author of the Pauline Epistles?
<
p>Best,
Chuck
And here it stops, this I know. If “Apostle” can have so many meanings, then why not marriage? If the Bible can be so unclear on a subject so simple, why take your word that the Bible intends to say what you tell us? That was the whole point of this thread.
<
p>Frankly, I would call Paul a latecomer who tried to establish Christianity as the kind of patriarchal hierarchy with which he was familiar, rather than the message that Jesus seemed to have hoped to spread. However, he was still a late-coming follower, and thus a disciple (and where was the first-known missionary? He mainly wrote letters to those people). I once saw a quote to the effect that “No sooner had Jesus knocked over the stool of organized religion, than Paul rushed forward to set it right again.”
<
p>As for your final question, I was probably first advised of the multiple sources of Pauline scripture in my introductory theology class in Catholic High School (psst, Aesop and Homer are similarly synthesized authors). While I don’t expect you to accept the authority of Wikipedia on this, do check the sources. Outside of that, try here, here, or here.
that nine of the thirteen Pauline Epistles were written by Paul, with a good-sized percentage of Catholic scholars holding out on 2Thess and Colossians. Of the four most in dispute, Ephesians is the one that puzzles me most, as to why its authorship would be in dispute. While it lacks the customary personal greetings of most Pauline scripture, and does not expound on some particular heresy or sin, it contains two primary characteristics that would make me lean toward Pauline authorship. The first is his opening doxology, (1:3-14), which in the original Greek, s all one sentence. The second is more in the nature of Paul’s methodical approach to explaining God’s purpose for the church, and the steps in which he perceives God will fulfill that purpose. Both these are in keeping with the Pauline style.
<
p>The so-called “Pastoral” epistles (Timothy 1/2 and Titus) also puzzle me as to the dispute over their authorship. Paul had left Titus in charge of the church on Cyprus, and Timothy in charge at Ephesus, during his fourth missionary trip (AD 60-62). It follows that he would provide pastoral instruction to both of them, and those who champion Paulne Authorship believe that both 1Tim. and Titus were written by Paul, in AD 63-65, most probably from Phillipi. 2Tim. is the only one of these for which I have seen credible doubt espoused, because of its authorship anddelivery so close to Paul’s execution at Rome.
<
p>And I have no disagreement on Aesop and Homer!
<
p>Best,
Chuck
I am fully aware of Paul’s writings, thank you very much, but as sabutai points out, he’s not a direct Apostle. I’m sorry, but you don’t go from being chief persecutor to chief spokesman overnight, any claims to have been blinded on the road to Damascus notwithstanding. I can just as easily claim to have had a vision and whether or not you believe me is your prorogative. (I don’t make such a claim, BTW). Point is that Paul was a fallible mere mortal like the rest of us. He is absolutely entitled to his opinions, but the rest of us are just as absolutely entitled to disagree.
<
p>Case in point you have said that your wife is not property and I am certainly happy to hear that, but the Biblical model, at least according to Paul, is that wives should gracefully submit to their husbands because the husband is head of the wife just as Christ is head of the Church. He also condones slavery in a nearby passage in Ephesians which by itself should kill any credibility he has in being an authority for the modern world. He was a product of his place, time, and station in his society. He was a Pharisee and a Roman Citizen. Everything about him suggests protecting the establishment, which was the opposite of Jesus’ objective of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.
<
p>Philosophy opens the mind to scripture rather than closes it. Never just read the words. You weren’t there and don’t know what context things were written in. Those things must be studied as best as possible in order to get their full meaning. There are wide ranges of opinions among scholars and theologians who do study this. Scripture says plenty and I don’t doubt the works of the Divines are well-sourced. Although even that is a few centuries old which to me means revisiting would be in order as a matter of principle. Keep in mind much is neither provable or disprovable so to simply say there are no arguments against it is rather weak.
which is entitlement to his opinion. Having said that, I will also say that I’ve made a rather long life’s work out of study of the scriptures — and I probably know less than I thought I did when I started. As a PCA ruling Elder, I use the Book of Church Order quite frequently, and one of its tenet premises is that good men will, from time to time, disagree. (If you ever attended one of our Presbytery meetings, you’d very quickly discover that to be true!)
<
p>Thus, sabutai certainly may believe what he wishes. And as this is, I believe, a discussion board, I think that is what we are doing, n’est pas?
<
p>Best,
Chuck
I’m a Congregationalist so I know exactly what you are talking about!
There is no question but that the Bible condemns male homosexual sex. Just why it does so-whether because the sexual act itself is immoral or because it was one of the practices associated with the pagans in Canaan-is unclear.
<
p>But you go further and say that the Bible defines marriage as “an inviolate covenant between one man and one woman.” The view that the Bible (at least the Hebrew Bible-the Christian Old Testament) defines marriage as monogamous is ridiculous. There are clear examples in the Bible of both polygamy and of concubinage. Let’s just look at Genesis. Jacob, of course, had two wives, Rachel and Leah, as did Lamech. Abraham had a concubine, Hagar. It also seems clear that in the time of the Patriarchs some sex outside of marriage and concubinage was permissible, at least for men. Thus the story of Judah and Tamar, in which Judah sleeps with Tamar believing she is a cult prostitute.
<
p>You may be interested to know that in Jewish law, polygamy remained technically legal until about the year 1,000 C.E. At that time, Rabbi Gershom issued an edict regarded as authoritative by the Ashkenazim (i.e., European Jews) essentially forbidding polygamy. Among Sefardim and others such as the Yemenites, polygamy is still technically legal. And some among the Orthodox believe that the laws of concubinage (pilegesh) make sex outside marriage permissible.
<
p>The citations you bring (Genesis 2) says nothing on its face about marriage, does it?
<
p>TedF
“There is no question but that the Bible condemns male homosexual sex. Just why it does so-whether because the sexual act itself is immoral or because it was one of the practices associated with the pagans in Canaan-is unclear.”
<
p>1Cor.6:9 basically turns your supposition on its ear. Paul identifies three kinds of what he refers to, here and elsewhere, as sexually immoral persons; adulterers, male prostitutes and males who practice homosexuality. (He completes his condemnation in Romans 1:26, where he addresses lesbianism.)
<
p>Paul’s use of the term “wicked” in 6:9 defines clearly the immorality of the acts he lists. This takes these acts beyond association with paganism into the realm of the forbidden. What is sensational about this particular Pauline Dissertation has more to do with God’s willingness to forgive the repentant, in vv. 6:11 (cleansed, sanctified, justified).
<
p>”an inviolate covenant between one man and one woman.”
<
p>I don’t define anything. The text of Genesis is quite clear on its face, saving me that labor. Christ Himself understood and espoused this, when he quoted it in my citation from Matthew 19. And whatever He was addressing, His citation is crystal clear, and I am mystified by your inability to grasp it as relavent to the sanctity of monogamous heterosexual marriage.
<
p>”It also seems clear that in the time of the Patriarchs some sex outside of marriage and concubinage was permissible, at least for men.”
<
p>”Permissible?” Permissible by whom? Certainly, there is no biblical evidence that the “Whom” you infer permitted it did so. The bible certainly discusses the fact that the patriarchs engaged in the cited practices, but it in no way endorses them, nor is there any inference that God endorsed such behavior. As to Abraham, remember, it was Sarah, not God, who gave her maid to Abraham. While this may have been custom, there is never an endorsement of such a practice by God, now, is there? I could continue, but you seem perfectly capable of researching at least the Old Testament.
<
p>”The citations you bring (Genesis 2) says nothing on its face about marriage, does it?”
<
p>I commend to you the text of Matthew 19:1-11, in which Christ clarifies the Genesis citation. Be very careful not to take biblical text out of context, or for that matter, out of the bible itself. Scripture always interprets scripture. This is why Paul admonishes Timothy, in the way that he does, when he demands that Timothy study the scriptures in order to understand and correctly teach (“divide”) the “word of truth.”
<
p>Best,
Chuck
<
p>
…in limiting my post to “the Hebrew Bible–the Christian Old Testament.” Though I read the New Testament in school, I disclaim any real knowledge of it. And as a Jew, I hardly would regard the sayings of either Jesus or Paul as religiously significant. Incidentally, this kind of disagreement between religious people is one of the central reasons why it is or should be impermissible to use this kind of discussion to debate public policy. I mean, you wouldn’t want me making public policy based on my understanding of the Bible, right? And I return the favor.
<
p>TedF
In Genesis18, at vv. 20, does God not speak of Sodom’s sin as great? In Chapter 19, at vv. 11, do not the Angels of God strike blind those Sodomites who demand to have sex with “the strangers” — the angels of God?
<
p>In Leviticus 18, at vv. 23, Does God not label homosexual intercourse as “detestable?” And at 20:13, does God not order the death penalty for participants in such an act, and state clearly that their blood will be upon their own heads — in other words, does He not condemn them?
<
p>I thought so …
<
p>As to your statement regarding disagreement between religious people, morality has been the basis for much of the body of common law since the beginning of mankind. Why then, should we suddenly turn a blind eye to morality when debating public policy, which is based in the law? It has not gone away, nor, as much as the secular community would wish that it would, it is not GOING to go away. Our Supreme Court building is ablaze with religious inscription. WOuld you tear it down, and force the law to blind eyes where all of morality is concerned?
<
p>Passing laws which are in and of themselves immoral makes no sense of any kind in a nation whose entire legal system is rooted in a common law based in morality. This is why there is such widespread opposition to abortion on demand, to no-fault divorce, to homosexual marriage, and to other laws or propoositions based in immorality. Give that such laws stand in opposition to that common law, I am puzzled as to why we, the people, would want to make them.
<
p>An old saw says one cannot legislate morality. That is true, but if the morality both predates, and forms the basis for our legal system, it cannot be legislated away, either. In our haste to accomodate everyone’s smallest whims, let us not throw out the baby with the bath water.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
I began my post by agreeing that the Bible condemns male homosexual sex, and I disagreed with you only insofar as you claimed, wrongly, that the bible forbade polygamy. So I’m not sure why you’ve directed this post at me.
<
p>But since you are, let’s go into a little more detail. In general, the biblical commandments were only intended for the Israelites. In other words, God isn’t commanding the Gentiles to keep the Sabbath, to refrain from eating pork, etc. However, there were seven laws, the so-called Noahide laws that applied universally, not just to the Jews. One of these is the law against sexual immorality.
<
p>Does this mean that from a Jewish religious perspective, it’s appropriate to legislate against homosexuality even for non-Jews? Well, I’m not Orthodox or an expert on Jewish law, but as I understand it, the majority rule seems to be that the Noahide laws are binding on everyone even today. But there is a basis in the authorities for an opposing view. Moreover, I don’t believe there is a biblical injunction against female homosexual sex. So again, it seems to me that you would find some religious people who will say that the Bible does not support, e.g., criminalizing homosexuality.
<
p>There are lots of reasons–constitutional reasons, reasons of public policy, respect for privacy–why I don’t think your views on homosexuality should be made law, which I don’t expect you to accept. But the particular reasons I am suggesting to you is that there are serious religious arguments, based in the text of the bible and thousands-years-old traditions, that suggest you’re wrong, and there’s no legitimate way to decide between that view and your view in a pluralistic democracy.
<
p>TedF
“Moreover, I don’t believe there is a biblical injunction against female homosexual sex.”
<
p>Only in the New Testament, at Romans 1:26. Like you, I find none in the Old Testament.
Sodon’s sin was inhospitality.
<
p>The Leviticus prohibition is specifically against prostitution.
<
p>Nice attempt at perverting Christ’s message into one of hate and intolerance, though. It’s telling that you think threatening to beat people up advances a Christian message.
First, Sodom’s sin was Sodomy. That’s where it got the name! What do they call it on your planet?
<
p>Second, please re-read Leviticus 18:22.
<
p>Third, I do not advocate violence against anyone. I do not hate anyone, and I do not lack tolerance for anyone. Nor have I perverted Chtist’s message, nor will I.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
It’s called sosomy because for so long people have assumed that such was the sin, but that doesn’t make it so. Lot is clearly outraged that these townspeople want to violate HIS GUESTS. This is a perfect example of needing to know the context in which scripture was written. In that time and place protecting and caring for people invited into your home was a sacred duty and neglecting such was just about the most egregious thing you could do. Certainly you know scripture well enough to remember what Lot offered as the consolation prize. He said that he had two virgin daughters and invited the strangers to “have your way” with them and I don’t think it takes much imagination to figure out what he meant. Why his daughters? Not because they were women, but because they were family. Protecting one’s guests was a higher duty even than protecting one’s family. Given that, do we really want to use this story as a morality tale for our own time?
Homosexuals walked the earth back then and histroy has proven homosexuals have been around since the beginning of recorded histroy and no doubt homesexuals will be around for as long as living creatures exist on this planet.
<
p>Given the undeniable fact that homosexuals have been a part of society (whether they represent 1% or 15% of society makes no difference) FOREVER, we have to decide whether we accept this undeniable fact and accept it…or we continue to condem, discriminate and punish them.
<
p>I’m praying to my Creator that you are on the wrong side of history.
Gay and Lesbian people have been with us since people started being people. And I acknowledge that my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are indeed wired differently, and that is a part of who they are. And I have no problem with accomodating them within our society.
<
p>But please remember that my post dealt narrowly with whether or not Lisa Miller exhibited credibility in her Newsweek article. I am not here to condemn, nor to defend, homosexuality. Law and Morality will have to do that.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
Usually disclosers are identifications of conflicts such as membership in an anti-gay organization (Mass Family Institute, MassResistance, Citizens for Limited Taxation, etc.). Your disclosure appears to be an attempt at establishing credentials. I wasn’t sure what “ruling elder” meant, so I asked an in-law.
<
p>She wrote back:
<
p>
<
p>What’s interesting to me, is, in what you claim to be an impartial biblical analysis, you talk about “normal heterosexual men,” downplay the percentage of homosexuals, and try to portray support for gays and gay marriage as (among other things) an attack on the Declaration of Independence.
<
p>The interesting part, is that, according to my in-law, the Presbyterian church calls for welcoming homosexuals and treating them with respect. The Presbyterian Church web site confirms that.
the other presby church. the one that has a decidedly unfriendly policy towards ho-mo-sukshuls.
oh yes, and they have a “minstry” called Harvest USA where they harvest the souls from gays who won’t repent their sin against the heterosexual order. ever see children of the corn?
the above posts, in spite of the obvious hostility of the latter two, and hopefully disabuse Laurel of her mistaken beliefs about the Presbyterian Church in America, and ‘huh’ of his mistaken belief regarding PCA Ruling Elders. Let’s do the last one first.
<
p>PCA RE’s are not anything like a local condo board. RE’s within the PCA are men who respond to a call to the service of the church, and who in fact are its humble servants. It is a sobering undertaking, is always undertaken with due humility, as befits a servant of Christ, and demands a huge workload on behalf of the church and congregation.
<
p>PCA RE’s are not compensated, nor are they rotating positions. RE’s are called for life, not for a few years. Once so called, the RE may not lay aside his mantle for any reason, save only relocation to an area outside that of his church, or if the regional Presbytery sees fit to remove him for cause. This usually requires a formal trial by a Judicial Commission of other RE’s and Teaching Elders (Pastors, if you will), appointed by the Presbytery. (In a positive note, I know of no RE’s who have been so removed, and of only two TE’s who were so removed, illustrating the degree to which a candidate is vetted by the church.)
<
p>At about the age of seventy, or sooner if physically prevented or handicapped in the execution of the very large taskload faced by RE’s, they may ask for transfer to what is known as Emeritus Status, when they may request relief from most of their duties, save counseling and study leadership, which he is expected to continue if at all physically and mentally capable.
<
p>Second subject. Laurel, we decidedly do NOT have an unfriendly policy toward anyone. It is, and has always been my personal philosophy, and that of our church, to “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” That is never an easy thing to do; we are human as well as servants of the church. But it is a task we pursue, always. And I’ve been on my knees more than once, asking the Lord’s forgiveness for not having followed that edict!
<
p>It is our considered opinion that the bible, which we believed to be the Inspired Word of God, considers the practice of homosexual acts to be a sin. Therefore, the PCA church does not accept into membership other than celibate gay and lesbian people. If you perceive that to be inappropriate, that is, of course your privilege, but please know that it is NOT our decision to do other than love the sinner.
<
p>And finally, as to Harvest, USA, they’re about as far removed from your unflattering accusations as your accusations are from reality. They try their best to help others, for which they are hated and bad-mouthed, attacked and beaten for their efforts. They hate no one, try to help everyone, and yet they are belittled and verbally abused from every side. They’re good people, trying to do a necessary job, and not getting much more than abuse in return. But, thus are the vagaries of the world, no?
<
p>Best,
Chuck
we know what you represent. you are not convincing anyone that your church or theology is gay-friendly, especially when your missive is tacked onto the end of a diary all about making sure we know that you find the bible to condemn homosexuality. get a brain.
We’re PEOPLE-Friendly. Become celibate, and you’re welcome to apply for membership. And try to remember that condemnation of the act is not condemnation of people, it is condemnation of an act.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
when you divorce your wife and become celibate, come back for more conversation. until then, you’re just a lazy hypocrite.
<
p>in the mean time, peter porcupine, a supposedly heterosexual married woman, is fantasizing about my sex life. according to your church’s policies, that’s a sin. run along now and get on her case about her sinfulness. if, that is, you have time from your exhausting schedule of gay bashing to worry about the sins of the vast majority that is heterosexual.
but I certainly wish it would be with less rancor on your part. I’m not bashing anhyone, and I don’t worry about other peoples’ sins; I have enough to worry about with my own.
<
p>Best,
Chuck
then stop treating gays differently than you treat yourself. are you celibate yet?
At the age of 66, I’m pretty darned close! 🙂
<
p>Have a good one, Laurel!!
Chuck
enjoy your life of dishonest double-standards.