1. I personally believe that for how severely emotionally attached some Christian social conservatives are about this issue it is less likely that homosexual relationships were left out of the Bible due to a meek, historical fear of endorsing them. Assuming that the morality of homosexuality hasn't changed in 2,000 years, why has its significance?
This is one of the most brazen coups I have ever had the chance to witness--probably in history. That is the idea that "all of a sudden" Christians are obsessed with homosexuality.
The Christians didn't "start it"--gay marriage activists did! In the history of the country (not to mention civilization), gay marriage is the newcomer--not opposition to it. 15 years ago nobody in the United States was thinking about this issue.
That is why its significance has "changed"--because there is, as we know, now something that never existed before in probably the history of man: an active gay marriage lobby (post-Roe to boot).
Either way, because the Bible does not state in any deliberate or meaningful way the proper Judeo-Christian ethical viewpoint on homosexuality, we have no trustworty moral opinion from God on the subject.
"Meaningful" is a word you'll have to give account for yourself for on Judgment day. You're in effect saying that the Bible condemns homosexual relationships but that that doesn't "mean" anything to you. This is perfectly fine. You don't have to believe in the Bible at all but you can't re-interpret it in such a radical way. In all of modern and ancient Jewish and Christian tradition the verdict is overwhelming on this. The Bible is explicit.
As for "deliberate" this is even less convincing. The Bile is more deliberate about homosexuality than about many other things including bestiality and incest. However you would never make a similar claim about the both of them (and ironically, rightly so).
2. Your "plain" reading is perfectly valid. I offered an optimistic and historically consistent interpretation just in case you wanted to believe that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality in light of the overwhelming textural evidence I've provided in this thread;
It is certainly "optimistic" but we must disagree with the "historically consistent" part. That is fractured and based on rank speculation. Not even Bishop John Shelby Spong--the most optimistic reader of the Bible in our time--argues that the Bible allows homosexual relationships. He simply calls it outdated.
We cannot re-interpret the Bible based on what we want it to say!
in case you wanted to believe in an omni-benevolent God that isn't on Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell's payroll.
God defines "benevolence"--not us.
The Bible says that the human heart is wicked and deceitful above all things. In other words--we are the first people we deceive. The problem is people forget that the nature of a deception is that it is easy to believe!
Because God does not exist in space or time, He can see an infinitely bigger picture than we can. So when we start to talk about "fairness" and "justice" and "benevolence" the question arises--how do we know what those things are?
I can see now that there will be no meeting of the minds here and that my hopeful, though indeed contentious, interpretation of this Jesus narrative was in vain.
Ultimately this is not a "scholarly exercise" it is a search for the truth with the assumption that truth matters (i.e. has eternal consequences). Again we cannot re-interpret the Bible to say what we want it to say! Actually I am quite surprised you were so explicit about that.
Though speculative, the interpretation is still more soundly developed than any so-called 'evidence' of moral condemnation towards homosexuality from the Bible.
That sentence cancels itself out to begin with--in addition to being untrue.
If it is speculative it is not sound. Additionally it is this new interpretation that is on the defensive. The Bible is very explicit about the matter and it takes a herculean effort to make it say otherwise--which is why there are gay and lesbian scholars who refuse to take that position (and look elsewhere for inspiration--which is perfectly fine by the way).
It can hardly be debated in this sphere, but I think the silence of the Bible--and in this particular case of Jesus--on homosexual relationships speaks volumes more than the misinterpreted and sometimes irrelevant passages often cited to justify discrimination.
3. I see no reason why the Ephesians passage or any other reference to marriage in the Bible in which God's purpose is allegedly revealed must include a man and a woman getting married.
This one is even clearer.
The husband and wife roles are very clearly defined repeatedly. The positive inference here is inescapable that there is a distinction between men and women and that they have different positions within a marriage and that this has spiritual significance.
Indeed, the position of Christ and his church is described as one of "headship". A "union of two people who love each other" has no foundation for the concept of "headship"--and indeed does good violence to it.
And we have not even gotten to the imagery of a "harlot" or a "seed" in Revelation. Both preclude the church being a figurative "man". I have not even scratched the surface. The Bible runs so far with the imagery (male and female) it is probably the most extensive analogy in the entire Bible.
. That an opposite-sex marriage was used for this metaphor only demonstrates that ~2,000 years ago same-sex relationships, as well as homosexuals, were as rare as they are today.
As a matter of fact, they were much more common! That we know!
Truly, there is no functional relationship between opposite-sex partners and marriage.
There is! This has been so from the dawn of the custom in Biblical or extra-Biblical history. It is wrapped up in the very definition of the concept.
Also, race and sex are not analogous. There are clear physiological and biological differences between men and women. There are none between what we call "races".
Another beautiful passage on marriage in the Bible is the beginning of John 14, in which Jesus describes the Kingdom of Heaven and his Church as his "Father's house" which he will make ready for our coming. This is a direct allusion to the marital tradition of Jesus' time, in which a man would build an addition onto his father's house for his spouse. In addition, Jesus claims that it is his "light" which will let us know the way to his Father's house, and this references the traditional role of the man's wife, who would keep lit a lantern in her window to indicate which room of her father's house she lived in, so her husband could come and get her when he had finished building their new home. This passage is a clear example of Jesus generalizing marriage beyond a property arrangement, beyond gender roles, and beyond sex and sexuality. I think it is a model for how we could choose to view marriage for the purpose of glorifying God.
There is nothing wrong with expanding a reading of the Bible but the Bile takes precedence over modern sensibilities. I think the Bible is nowhere near as anxious about such social theories as activist academics are. The Bible is very personal and very individualistic--because societal change begins in the heart of the individual.
4. If you have read all of the authors I listed above and found them to be biased, that is truly unfortunate. I find them to be sufficiently objective and rational, however.
But didn't you just say that your argument was tailored to a specific conclusion (i.e. what one might want to believe)? Or did I misinterpret what you were saying?
That is the antithesis of "objective and rational".
Indeed, an argument from silence is their main tool--i.e the idea that the Bible "couldn't conceive of loving, gay relationships".
" In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it."
The full weight of scholarship is firmly against them and they gain a foothold only by sheer audacity--not to mention increasing media attention (much like the Jesus Seminar).
The problem is that the Bible is probably the single most studied manuscript in history. An eager, post-modern media alone has made challenge possible--not scholastic merit at all.
Have you even read the extensive replies to this radical new position?
I have seen no evidence refuting their conclusions, and when it comes to scriptural evidence I think the onus is on those would seek defame and disciminate against their fellow man.
Seriously?
Have you read none of the replies? From a scholarly point of view this is not "honest" at all. You certainly are free to believe what you want to believe but you cannot say that these are strong scholarly positions.
Mr.Helminiak's book is not an argument in itself. The book may have convinced you but does that mean that it is true? That is not the standard of truth!
I urge you to read the extensive replies to Mr. Helminiak and others. If you want suggestions I would be glad to give them to you.
Either way on judgment day you cannot hold up Mr. Helminiak in your defense! You need to study the text for yourself.
I will never understand why intelligent Christians, when confronted with the truth, insist on the darkest, most dehumanizing interpretation popularly available.
Because we understand human nature.
This is the seminal difference between "liberals and conservatives" if you want to put it that way:
"Conservatives" believe that human nature is at its core evil and "liberals" believe that humans are basically good.
It is unfortunate that a religion that began with a man transgressing every social taboo, raising up and embracing every outcast, and teaching that nothing is unclean or impure, should be rife with those too scared to stand up for social justice and admit the inadequacy of hate and false piety.
This is a wild (but not new) reading which makes Jesus out to be a social activist (who neglected to condemn slavery by the way--which by this definition is a full-blooded endorsement!).
Jesus was overwhelmingly concerned with the eternal. It is unlikely that were he here today he would be posing naked for PETA campaigns (and I'm a vegetarian by the way) or campaigning against "global warming".
Human beings are evil and rebellious against God and Christ came to show us the way back (that is to say that we are the ones in trouble). The Kingdom of God (which is real by the way--and is not just a "metaphor" for "community") begins in the human heart.It begins with a renewing of the mind--but not on our terms. We don't get to define the problem--God does.
I would urge you to do two things:
--Ask yourself where you get your moral code. Do you think you should obtain your moral code from the Bible? Or should you get it from elsewhere and then apply it to the Bible?
--Go back and read the Bible for yourself--minus the supposition that you need expert help to figure it out.
After that go read the sound commentaries that lay out just how radically divergent the revisionist position is on the matter. I mean there are just tomes upon tomes laying out how Mr. Helminiak and others have not only gone astray scholastically--but willfully so!
In the end you cannot fool God.
You appeared to admit to me that you re-interpreted the Bible to say what you wanted it to say. I actually did not expect you to say that which is why I keep asking for clarification.
If so however, that is willful disobedience that you alone must give account for.
Again, you are free to do whatever you wish. You don't have to believe the Bible is true either. That is perfectly normal and acceptable. But it is strange then (to me at least) to express frustration when an attempt to redefine Christianity and the Bible fails. Christianity has beaten back such before (Reformation, Abolition, Puritanism) and it will do it again.
I don't want to build a world of my own conception at all!
If the Bible is clear on anything is that the God who created this world is the only one who can remake it. And He will.
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 06/04/2009 - 07:08.
The fundamental difference.
This is one of the most brazen coups I have ever had the chance to witness--probably in history. That is the idea that "all of a sudden" Christians are obsessed with homosexuality. The Christians didn't "start it"--gay marriage activists did! In the history of the country (not to mention civilization), gay marriage is the newcomer--not opposition to it. 15 years ago nobody in the United States was thinking about this issue.
That is why its significance has "changed"--because there is, as we know, now something that never existed before in probably the history of man: an active gay marriage lobby (post-Roe to boot).
Either way, because the Bible does not state in any deliberate or meaningful way the proper Judeo-Christian ethical viewpoint on homosexuality, we have no trustworty moral opinion from God on the subject.
"Meaningful" is a word you'll have to give account for yourself for on Judgment day. You're in effect saying that the Bible condemns homosexual relationships but that that doesn't "mean" anything to you. This is perfectly fine. You don't have to believe in the Bible at all but you can't re-interpret it in such a radical way. In all of modern and ancient Jewish and Christian tradition the verdict is overwhelming on this. The Bible is explicit.
As for "deliberate" this is even less convincing. The Bile is more deliberate about homosexuality than about many other things including bestiality and incest. However you would never make a similar claim about the both of them (and ironically, rightly so).
2. Your "plain" reading is perfectly valid. I offered an optimistic and historically consistent interpretation just in case you wanted to believe that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality in light of the overwhelming textural evidence I've provided in this thread;
It is certainly "optimistic" but we must disagree with the "historically consistent" part. That is fractured and based on rank speculation. Not even Bishop John Shelby Spong--the most optimistic reader of the Bible in our time--argues that the Bible allows homosexual relationships. He simply calls it outdated. We cannot re-interpret the Bible based on what we want it to say!
in case you wanted to believe in an omni-benevolent God that isn't on Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell's payroll.
God defines "benevolence"--not us. The Bible says that the human heart is wicked and deceitful above all things. In other words--we are the first people we deceive. The problem is people forget that the nature of a deception is that it is easy to believe! Because God does not exist in space or time, He can see an infinitely bigger picture than we can. So when we start to talk about "fairness" and "justice" and "benevolence" the question arises--how do we know what those things are?
I can see now that there will be no meeting of the minds here and that my hopeful, though indeed contentious, interpretation of this Jesus narrative was in vain.
Ultimately this is not a "scholarly exercise" it is a search for the truth with the assumption that truth matters (i.e. has eternal consequences). Again we cannot re-interpret the Bible to say what we want it to say! Actually I am quite surprised you were so explicit about that.
Though speculative, the interpretation is still more soundly developed than any so-called 'evidence' of moral condemnation towards homosexuality from the Bible.
That sentence cancels itself out to begin with--in addition to being untrue.
If it is speculative it is not sound. Additionally it is this new interpretation that is on the defensive. The Bible is very explicit about the matter and it takes a herculean effort to make it say otherwise--which is why there are gay and lesbian scholars who refuse to take that position (and look elsewhere for inspiration--which is perfectly fine by the way).
It can hardly be debated in this sphere, but I think the silence of the Bible--and in this particular case of Jesus--on homosexual relationships speaks volumes more than the misinterpreted and sometimes irrelevant passages often cited to justify discrimination.
Again, the Bible is not silent on the matter. As for Jesus, that is at its best an argument from silence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence
3. I see no reason why the Ephesians passage or any other reference to marriage in the Bible in which God's purpose is allegedly revealed must include a man and a woman getting married.
This one is even clearer. The husband and wife roles are very clearly defined repeatedly. The positive inference here is inescapable that there is a distinction between men and women and that they have different positions within a marriage and that this has spiritual significance. Indeed, the position of Christ and his church is described as one of "headship". A "union of two people who love each other" has no foundation for the concept of "headship"--and indeed does good violence to it. And we have not even gotten to the imagery of a "harlot" or a "seed" in Revelation. Both preclude the church being a figurative "man". I have not even scratched the surface. The Bible runs so far with the imagery (male and female) it is probably the most extensive analogy in the entire Bible.
. That an opposite-sex marriage was used for this metaphor only demonstrates that ~2,000 years ago same-sex relationships, as well as homosexuals, were as rare as they are today.
As a matter of fact, they were much more common! That we know!
Truly, there is no functional relationship between opposite-sex partners and marriage.
There is! This has been so from the dawn of the custom in Biblical or extra-Biblical history. It is wrapped up in the very definition of the concept.
Also, race and sex are not analogous. There are clear physiological and biological differences between men and women. There are none between what we call "races".
Another beautiful passage on marriage in the Bible is the beginning of John 14, in which Jesus describes the Kingdom of Heaven and his Church as his "Father's house" which he will make ready for our coming. This is a direct allusion to the marital tradition of Jesus' time, in which a man would build an addition onto his father's house for his spouse. In addition, Jesus claims that it is his "light" which will let us know the way to his Father's house, and this references the traditional role of the man's wife, who would keep lit a lantern in her window to indicate which room of her father's house she lived in, so her husband could come and get her when he had finished building their new home. This passage is a clear example of Jesus generalizing marriage beyond a property arrangement, beyond gender roles, and beyond sex and sexuality. I think it is a model for how we could choose to view marriage for the purpose of glorifying God.
There is nothing wrong with expanding a reading of the Bible but the Bile takes precedence over modern sensibilities. I think the Bible is nowhere near as anxious about such social theories as activist academics are. The Bible is very personal and very individualistic--because societal change begins in the heart of the individual.
4. If you have read all of the authors I listed above and found them to be biased, that is truly unfortunate. I find them to be sufficiently objective and rational, however.
But didn't you just say that your argument was tailored to a specific conclusion (i.e. what one might want to believe)? Or did I misinterpret what you were saying? That is the antithesis of "objective and rational".
Indeed, an argument from silence is their main tool--i.e the idea that the Bible "couldn't conceive of loving, gay relationships".
" In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it."
The full weight of scholarship is firmly against them and they gain a foothold only by sheer audacity--not to mention increasing media attention (much like the Jesus Seminar). The problem is that the Bible is probably the single most studied manuscript in history. An eager, post-modern media alone has made challenge possible--not scholastic merit at all. Have you even read the extensive replies to this radical new position?
I have seen no evidence refuting their conclusions, and when it comes to scriptural evidence I think the onus is on those would seek defame and disciminate against their fellow man.
Seriously? Have you read none of the replies? From a scholarly point of view this is not "honest" at all. You certainly are free to believe what you want to believe but you cannot say that these are strong scholarly positions. Mr.Helminiak's book is not an argument in itself. The book may have convinced you but does that mean that it is true? That is not the standard of truth! I urge you to read the extensive replies to Mr. Helminiak and others. If you want suggestions I would be glad to give them to you. Either way on judgment day you cannot hold up Mr. Helminiak in your defense! You need to study the text for yourself.
I will never understand why intelligent Christians, when confronted with the truth, insist on the darkest, most dehumanizing interpretation popularly available.
Because we understand human nature. This is the seminal difference between "liberals and conservatives" if you want to put it that way: "Conservatives" believe that human nature is at its core evil and "liberals" believe that humans are basically good.
It is unfortunate that a religion that began with a man transgressing every social taboo, raising up and embracing every outcast, and teaching that nothing is unclean or impure, should be rife with those too scared to stand up for social justice and admit the inadequacy of hate and false piety.
This is a wild (but not new) reading which makes Jesus out to be a social activist (who neglected to condemn slavery by the way--which by this definition is a full-blooded endorsement!). Jesus was overwhelmingly concerned with the eternal. It is unlikely that were he here today he would be posing naked for PETA campaigns (and I'm a vegetarian by the way) or campaigning against "global warming".
Human beings are evil and rebellious against God and Christ came to show us the way back (that is to say that we are the ones in trouble). The Kingdom of God (which is real by the way--and is not just a "metaphor" for "community") begins in the human heart.It begins with a renewing of the mind--but not on our terms. We don't get to define the problem--God does.
I would urge you to do two things:
--Ask yourself where you get your moral code. Do you think you should obtain your moral code from the Bible? Or should you get it from elsewhere and then apply it to the Bible?
--Go back and read the Bible for yourself--minus the supposition that you need expert help to figure it out. After that go read the sound commentaries that lay out just how radically divergent the revisionist position is on the matter. I mean there are just tomes upon tomes laying out how Mr. Helminiak and others have not only gone astray scholastically--but willfully so!
In the end you cannot fool God. You appeared to admit to me that you re-interpreted the Bible to say what you wanted it to say. I actually did not expect you to say that which is why I keep asking for clarification. If so however, that is willful disobedience that you alone must give account for.
Again, you are free to do whatever you wish. You don't have to believe the Bible is true either. That is perfectly normal and acceptable. But it is strange then (to me at least) to express frustration when an attempt to redefine Christianity and the Bible fails. Christianity has beaten back such before (Reformation, Abolition, Puritanism) and it will do it again.
I don't want to build a world of my own conception at all! If the Bible is clear on anything is that the God who created this world is the only one who can remake it. And He will.