When this debate forays into eschatological topics like "Judgement Day" I have to wash my hands of this. I have no interest in expanding this issue to include such dogmatic constructs. It's very difficult to have a conversation where the bottom line is: "I don't have to tell you you're wrong; you'll find out soon enough."
Tell me something...
What is Christianity to you?
A "philosophy" among others? A "way of seeing things"?
Or is it a description of reality? (Do you believe in an objective reality?)
If the former then I can understand where you are coming from. If not then I am truly baffled.
Judgment Day exists explicitly in the Scriptures it is real. I had supposed that Christianity was more than your "preferred philosophy among others". Supposing that, my intention was to alert you that if you believed that Christianity mattered in the physical world; then the conclusion of the matter is of grave consequence. That is to say that we must find the truth.
As such if you say things like: "...in case you wanted to believe in an omni-benevolent God..." then that is some dangerous stuff right there. You cannot re-interpret the Bible to say whatever you want it to say. Under that construct.
You are free to see it otherwise; but to me that does not alter reality.
I am interested in debating very specifically the content of the select number of passages that are alleged to make reference to homosexuality in the Bible.
And this, to me, is invalid. As I explained this is a very cynical (maybe I could find other words) way to approach the Bible--maybe even disrespectful. The Bible is a whole--not something to pick apart and mutilate to excise whatever seems problematic for our desires.
In other words, this cannot be discussed in such a narrow fashion. That is an artificial approach.
It may seem to someone who has been wrongly informed about the genesis of the Biblical stance that the way to "get around" it is to hack away at the "obstacles". This, however, is based on a faulty assumption and a flawed (but common) way of reading the Bible.
I am not interested in extensive ruminations on the role of male and female in the Bible, as I don't find the "argument from silence" to be very convincing (never mind that it is considered a logical fallacy when used in deductive reasoning).
I think you are confused about the argument from silence.
The argument from silence states that the Bible does not talk about homosexuality as we know it therefore it was ignorant of it (and thus the texts that condemn homosexuality are really talking about something else).
The argument also states that because Jesus is not recorded as saying anything about homosexuality (e.g. to the centurion) then it was not important to Him.
Jesus never spoke about animal rights either but you can be sure that abusing animals is sinful.
On the other hand an extensive and inescapable male-female dynamic that is woven throughout the Bible coupled with a consistently negative tone on the issue of homosexuality can be combined to reach the most logical conclusion: The Bible provides no support for homosexual relationships and in fact opposes them.
I object to the mischaracterization of my arguments. Again, this debate was focused on one (Romans 1:18-32) of a specific set of passages in the Bible that have been historically alleged to contain reference to homosexuality.
I am not sure how I have mis-characterized your arguments. I have only said that your approach was invalid.
Excising texts and trying to explain them away with tenuous historical suppositions won't do because:
1. This is not about the texts (although many people think it is) in isolation.
2. The suppositions made have no basis in history or the given text (especially the ones about the "Holiness Code").
I feel the same way as Bishop John Spong who in his "priestly and episcopal career [has] watched the literal Bible be quoted to justify racial segregation, to ensure the continued sexist opposition of women by the Christian chruch, and to perpetuate a killing homophobia in our corporate life."
I know this. I am both black and "gay".
But this is not the fault of the Bible. Secular humanism has a worse record.
I do not seek to frame a positive debate where there is only evidence for a negative one. I make the claim that the Biblical passages used to condemn homosexuality specifically (and not by their portrayal of any alternative, de-emphasis of the issue, or emphasis of others) have been misinterpreted by a public eager to pin their sins on the next goat and turn it out. I do not seek to supplant the Bible's amoral and neutral opinion of homosexuality with some endearing Kum-Bay-Yah or the contemporary perspective of "It's a Small World After All."
Again, the Bible is not neutral on the matter and the texts are not the be-all and end-all of it (or even the starting point). People are evil, the Bible says. That is not its own fault.
You are obviously more familiar with the Bible as a whole than I, and that's quite a privilege. It has been several years since I was allowed to attend catechism because of my sexuality so I'm clearly at a disadvantage.
You know it's not even about that.
You have a responsibility to read and know for yourself. My knowledge or lack of it won't matter one whit to you at the Judgment only that you studied for yourself with a will to obey God regardless of what you might have had to give up in the process.
What does this mean to you?:
Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
And catechism?
One does not need catechism to have a knowledge of the Bible.
I have had to familiarize myself with the Bible's passages that are relevant to my life since then,
All Bible passages are relevant to your life--not just the ones that trouble you!
...and I can tell you that the first attempts did not begin with consultation of some radical homosexual 'agenda' or the pedagogy of a famed Biblical revisionist. I began by consulting the Lord my God, and drew from my inner dialogue with him the knowledge that he loves me for the way I was created.
The truth is in God's Word--not in our "inner dialog".
We cannot "consult with" God privately and reach a conclusion that contradicts His expressed Word. God does indeed love you, but what does that mean?
We were born into a sinful and flawed world. Whatever we "are" is not what were were originally created to be and God wants to restore us to the original template. Just because God allows something does not mean that it is ideal or that is even His will that it should occur.
Calvinists would disagree of course.
You'll just have to forgive me the apparent novelty of the latest xenophobic trend in popular religion. It has, of course, been several centuries since Peter Cantor introduced the first serious view that homosexuality was prohibited by the Bible. Despite how juvenile such finger-pointing is, if gay marriage activists "started" this witch-hunt, then we'll certainly be the ones to finish it. The battle will be won and is being won in the courts and legislatures, however, not in online forums.
The battle was won 2000 years ago at Calvary. Christ as prevailed. The courts do not matter in light of eternity. Stealing for example would still be wrong no matter how legal it became.
Eternity is my reference. I happen to think it is the only Christian one.
The formulation of public policy such as same-sex marriage is a civil matter that has nothing to do religious sensibilities. I think that is obvious in how suddenly partisan this became with your analysis of the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives (a fascinating but tangential issue). Does the buck stop at gay marriage? It seems it would be more honest if our supposedly Biblically-sound condemnation of homosexuality wasn't only a knee-jerk reaction to a civil contract that's become conflated with a sacrament.
Marriage was created in Eden--not on Capitol Hill.
Biblically speaking it is an ordained institution--not a "civil contract".
What interest does the State have in marriage anyways?
Why not argue for its abolition of it is just a "civil contract"?
Is marriage just two people agreeing to collect benefits and tax breaks together? Why not singles? Why not three if it is all about tax breaks?
Why should the government randomly give "benefits" to two people who sign a piece of paper?
The real issue here is that exclusion from marriage makes the loud statement by default that "gay" is "abnormal" and that is what the lobbying is all about. It is to quiet a nagging conscience. Otherwise it wouldn't matter if it were called "civil unions" but was exactly the same thing.
No matter how legal and equal to marriage "civil unions" are; if they are not called "marriages" then that implies that they are not the same psychologically and that is the Biblical stance which must be eradicated to ease the conscience.
That said, in the long run it doesn't matter to me.
This may prevail in the courts but when God puts an end to everything nobody would be citing "legal precedent" on Judgment Day.
As a sociopolitical debate, homosexuality has indeed been on the American mind for longer than 15 years.
I am speaking of gay marriage.
That is new and the activists "started it" in that sense.
I am more than happy to give an account of myself on "Judgement Day" and am not the least bit intimidated by the invocation of the concept.
Nobody should aim to be intimidated by the concept. Thy should be sobered, however.
As for Biblical scripture, I am very free to interpret (or "re-interpret" as you distinguished) the inspired words of my own God; He won't be visiting to moderate this discussion. Such interpretation is not up for democratic debate, as you well know. I'm not going to change your mind on this and that's fine; our faith is tested.
My point exactly.
I am involved in this debate to save the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Americans (and millions of human beings beyond that) which are perversely subject to the scrutiny of Biblical misinterpretation where it informs others of how they vote and the actions they take in the public sphere.
I will say though that if you encourage someone to do wrong then that will not "save" their "life" so think long and hard about this. This is ultimately not about voting. God decides right and wrong in His courts.
I'll be available in the Fall at Michigan Tech to take up this discussion in person, but until then I don't have enough time to reiterate the same scriptural arguments in a widening debate that is headed in different directions. We're framing the debate differently, and I'm honestly okay with that, as long as I'm no longer obliged to argue for souls (including my own) which were never in jeopardy in the first place.
Yes we are framing it differently.
Is there a "truth" here? Is it objective? Does it matter? In what way? In what plane?
That is vital to a conclusion.
Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 06/12/2009 - 22:33.
Is truth objective?
Tell me something... What is Christianity to you? A "philosophy" among others? A "way of seeing things"? Or is it a description of reality? (Do you believe in an objective reality?) If the former then I can understand where you are coming from. If not then I am truly baffled.
Judgment Day exists explicitly in the Scriptures it is real. I had supposed that Christianity was more than your "preferred philosophy among others". Supposing that, my intention was to alert you that if you believed that Christianity mattered in the physical world; then the conclusion of the matter is of grave consequence. That is to say that we must find the truth.
As such if you say things like: "...in case you wanted to believe in an omni-benevolent God..." then that is some dangerous stuff right there. You cannot re-interpret the Bible to say whatever you want it to say. Under that construct.
You are free to see it otherwise; but to me that does not alter reality.
I am interested in debating very specifically the content of the select number of passages that are alleged to make reference to homosexuality in the Bible.
And this, to me, is invalid. As I explained this is a very cynical (maybe I could find other words) way to approach the Bible--maybe even disrespectful. The Bible is a whole--not something to pick apart and mutilate to excise whatever seems problematic for our desires.
In other words, this cannot be discussed in such a narrow fashion. That is an artificial approach. It may seem to someone who has been wrongly informed about the genesis of the Biblical stance that the way to "get around" it is to hack away at the "obstacles". This, however, is based on a faulty assumption and a flawed (but common) way of reading the Bible.
I am not interested in extensive ruminations on the role of male and female in the Bible, as I don't find the "argument from silence" to be very convincing (never mind that it is considered a logical fallacy when used in deductive reasoning).
I think you are confused about the argument from silence. The argument from silence states that the Bible does not talk about homosexuality as we know it therefore it was ignorant of it (and thus the texts that condemn homosexuality are really talking about something else). The argument also states that because Jesus is not recorded as saying anything about homosexuality (e.g. to the centurion) then it was not important to Him. Jesus never spoke about animal rights either but you can be sure that abusing animals is sinful.
On the other hand an extensive and inescapable male-female dynamic that is woven throughout the Bible coupled with a consistently negative tone on the issue of homosexuality can be combined to reach the most logical conclusion: The Bible provides no support for homosexual relationships and in fact opposes them.
I object to the mischaracterization of my arguments. Again, this debate was focused on one (Romans 1:18-32) of a specific set of passages in the Bible that have been historically alleged to contain reference to homosexuality.
I am not sure how I have mis-characterized your arguments. I have only said that your approach was invalid. Excising texts and trying to explain them away with tenuous historical suppositions won't do because:
1. This is not about the texts (although many people think it is) in isolation. 2. The suppositions made have no basis in history or the given text (especially the ones about the "Holiness Code").
I feel the same way as Bishop John Spong who in his "priestly and episcopal career [has] watched the literal Bible be quoted to justify racial segregation, to ensure the continued sexist opposition of women by the Christian chruch, and to perpetuate a killing homophobia in our corporate life."
I know this. I am both black and "gay". But this is not the fault of the Bible. Secular humanism has a worse record.
I do not seek to frame a positive debate where there is only evidence for a negative one. I make the claim that the Biblical passages used to condemn homosexuality specifically (and not by their portrayal of any alternative, de-emphasis of the issue, or emphasis of others) have been misinterpreted by a public eager to pin their sins on the next goat and turn it out. I do not seek to supplant the Bible's amoral and neutral opinion of homosexuality with some endearing Kum-Bay-Yah or the contemporary perspective of "It's a Small World After All."
Again, the Bible is not neutral on the matter and the texts are not the be-all and end-all of it (or even the starting point). People are evil, the Bible says. That is not its own fault.
You are obviously more familiar with the Bible as a whole than I, and that's quite a privilege. It has been several years since I was allowed to attend catechism because of my sexuality so I'm clearly at a disadvantage.
You know it's not even about that. You have a responsibility to read and know for yourself. My knowledge or lack of it won't matter one whit to you at the Judgment only that you studied for yourself with a will to obey God regardless of what you might have had to give up in the process.
What does this mean to you?:
Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
And catechism? One does not need catechism to have a knowledge of the Bible.
I have had to familiarize myself with the Bible's passages that are relevant to my life since then,
All Bible passages are relevant to your life--not just the ones that trouble you!
...and I can tell you that the first attempts did not begin with consultation of some radical homosexual 'agenda' or the pedagogy of a famed Biblical revisionist. I began by consulting the Lord my God, and drew from my inner dialogue with him the knowledge that he loves me for the way I was created.
The truth is in God's Word--not in our "inner dialog". We cannot "consult with" God privately and reach a conclusion that contradicts His expressed Word. God does indeed love you, but what does that mean?
http://trinidadsdagay.blogspot.com/2009/05/does-god-love-me-for-who-i-am...
We were born into a sinful and flawed world. Whatever we "are" is not what were were originally created to be and God wants to restore us to the original template. Just because God allows something does not mean that it is ideal or that is even His will that it should occur. Calvinists would disagree of course.
You'll just have to forgive me the apparent novelty of the latest xenophobic trend in popular religion. It has, of course, been several centuries since Peter Cantor introduced the first serious view that homosexuality was prohibited by the Bible. Despite how juvenile such finger-pointing is, if gay marriage activists "started" this witch-hunt, then we'll certainly be the ones to finish it. The battle will be won and is being won in the courts and legislatures, however, not in online forums.
The battle was won 2000 years ago at Calvary. Christ as prevailed. The courts do not matter in light of eternity. Stealing for example would still be wrong no matter how legal it became. Eternity is my reference. I happen to think it is the only Christian one.
The formulation of public policy such as same-sex marriage is a civil matter that has nothing to do religious sensibilities. I think that is obvious in how suddenly partisan this became with your analysis of the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives (a fascinating but tangential issue). Does the buck stop at gay marriage? It seems it would be more honest if our supposedly Biblically-sound condemnation of homosexuality wasn't only a knee-jerk reaction to a civil contract that's become conflated with a sacrament.
Marriage was created in Eden--not on Capitol Hill. Biblically speaking it is an ordained institution--not a "civil contract". What interest does the State have in marriage anyways? Why not argue for its abolition of it is just a "civil contract"? Is marriage just two people agreeing to collect benefits and tax breaks together? Why not singles? Why not three if it is all about tax breaks? Why should the government randomly give "benefits" to two people who sign a piece of paper?
The real issue here is that exclusion from marriage makes the loud statement by default that "gay" is "abnormal" and that is what the lobbying is all about. It is to quiet a nagging conscience. Otherwise it wouldn't matter if it were called "civil unions" but was exactly the same thing. No matter how legal and equal to marriage "civil unions" are; if they are not called "marriages" then that implies that they are not the same psychologically and that is the Biblical stance which must be eradicated to ease the conscience.
That said, in the long run it doesn't matter to me. This may prevail in the courts but when God puts an end to everything nobody would be citing "legal precedent" on Judgment Day.
As a sociopolitical debate, homosexuality has indeed been on the American mind for longer than 15 years.
I am speaking of gay marriage. That is new and the activists "started it" in that sense.
I am more than happy to give an account of myself on "Judgement Day" and am not the least bit intimidated by the invocation of the concept.
Nobody should aim to be intimidated by the concept. Thy should be sobered, however.
As for Biblical scripture, I am very free to interpret (or "re-interpret" as you distinguished) the inspired words of my own God; He won't be visiting to moderate this discussion. Such interpretation is not up for democratic debate, as you well know. I'm not going to change your mind on this and that's fine; our faith is tested.
My point exactly.
I am involved in this debate to save the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Americans (and millions of human beings beyond that) which are perversely subject to the scrutiny of Biblical misinterpretation where it informs others of how they vote and the actions they take in the public sphere.
I will say though that if you encourage someone to do wrong then that will not "save" their "life" so think long and hard about this. This is ultimately not about voting. God decides right and wrong in His courts.
I'll be available in the Fall at Michigan Tech to take up this discussion in person, but until then I don't have enough time to reiterate the same scriptural arguments in a widening debate that is headed in different directions. We're framing the debate differently, and I'm honestly okay with that, as long as I'm no longer obliged to argue for souls (including my own) which were never in jeopardy in the first place.
Yes we are framing it differently. Is there a "truth" here? Is it objective? Does it matter? In what way? In what plane? That is vital to a conclusion.