The purpose of human sexuality
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Scripture clearly demonstrates that God established the union between a man and his wife to be a metaphor of the relationship between God and His people - between Christ and His church. Paul states in his letter to the Ephesians: "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." (Ephesians 5:31-32 ESV). The pure, intimate sexual union experienced in marriage was designed to dramatize the pure, intimate worship that we were created to experience with God.
But everything changed when Adam doubted God and turned away from His wisdom and instead pursued his own selfish ambition - and as a result he (along with the rest of mankind) would never again be the same. Paul writes to the Romans that "...[mankind] exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator... For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions" (Romans 1:25-26a).
In His wisdom, God ordained that mankind's sins have consequences, in order to make known our fallen condition and our need for salvation (Romans 8:20-25). How does this fall of mankind affect the dramatization that sexual union was designed to parallel? Reading on in Romans 1: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men..." (Romans 1:26b-27a).
Why does Paul single out homosexuality here? Because it is the most vivid example of what happened to the drama when mankind "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man" (v 23). Dr. John Piper explains it best: "God and man in covenant worship are represented by male and female in covenant sexual union. Therefore, when man turns from God to images of himself, God hands us over to what we have chosen and dramatizes it by male and female turning to images of themselves for sexual union, namely their own sex." (from his sermons on Romans 1:18-27, available at desiringGod.org - I have found no better resource on this topic, and I commend it to you).
Kidneys sometimes break. Mental sanity sometimes snaps. White blood cells sometimes mutate. And sometimes, sexual ordering breaks too. Homosexuality is just one of the many disorderings in society that exist because "the creation was subjected to futility", and this was done by God "in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (Romans 8:24). Futilities exist to point us to the solution: Since our brokenness came about because mankind turned away from God, the healing of our souls (homosexual or heterosexual) must begin with restoring God to His rightful place in our lives.
I am a Christian who desires to live my life for God, but I also still have a homosexual orientation. How can this be? When we become saved, we are not immediately lifted out of this world of futility: Yes, God will many times bring victory: Cancer can be healed - addictions can be overcome - and broken sexuality can be healed! But this is not always God's plan for us. If God does not provide complete healing in this lifetime, then He has promised He will provide us with the ability to live a fulfilled life with our existing futilities and dispositions. For me, this means God will either grant sexual healing in this lifetime, or He will grant me a triumphant capacity to live for Him in celibacy. For even we, God's redeemed people, "groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies" (Romans 8:23) - and what a glorious day that will be!
So much more could be said, but I will finish with this exhortation: while we as Christians must remain firm in our Biblical convictions, we must also remain faithful to our calling to show love and compassion to all. There are no easy answers - individually and corporately we must diligently study Scripture and seek God's direction in how we should respond to all situations. It is downright wrong the way many Christians treat gay and lesbian persons - we must do better.
Comments
The theology of sex and a debate.
Harry Knox and Michael L. Brown: http://vimeo.com/3637529
And here is Peter Ould with more on the theology of sex: http://vimeo.com/2186136
There is no evidence at all in the text or in history for that matter, for many of the assumptions made about Romans and Leviticus.
And just out of curiosity: how can one use the absence of any mention of lesbianism in Leviticus as positive evidence that lesbianism is not prohibited. And then turn around and go destroy the positive prohibition against male-male sex to "free" the men as well?
"It doesn't condemn lesbians! Look see? They were left out."
And then after the women are "free to go".
"Oh it only appears to condemn the men."
It can't be both ways.
What are you doing in ROMANS?
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
To me this is crystal clear with no room for error. The Bible forbids sexual activity outside of a marriage. A marriage can only be between a man and a woman, because God invented it (marriage) and so He gets to define it; which he did in Genesis 2:24:
"24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
Because God took man out of the woman then only a union between a man and a woman can produce "one flesh" both literally (as in an actual baby) and spiritually (which is even more important as I will show you in a second).
And that is where we get the idea that homosexual sexual activity is wrong. Not from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (which despite what you might have heard has next to nothing to do with homosexuality).
1. Maleness and femaleness together represent the fullness of God in man.
Everything that God creates is supposed to give us an idea of who He is. This is especially true in the case of human beings.
When God said: "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness" (Genesis 1:26), and then proceeds to create male and female, He is saying that maleness and femaleness mean something very special. They tell us something about his character together.
" So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
(Genesis 1:27)
We will see why in a second.
2. Jesus stresses this point in the Gospels.
A lot of people say things like: "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." But that's almost exactly like saying "My mother never told me not to date my sister." Of course she never did (few mothers or fathers ever do). What they do however, is teach you what is or is not appropriate sexually (eg. what age to slow down and what age to take it to another level, how to treat women with respect, and by example who you can and cannot think abou tin a sexual way--i.e. relatives). You have to put two and two together and figure out that your sister is off limits.
In the same way, Jesus does not say the word "homosexual" but he stresses marriage between a man and a woman in Matthew 19:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.""
3. Male and female appear to be important because they help show the relationship between God and his Bride (the church).
Sometimes God gives us hints as to why He does certain things. Other times we just have to take it on faith and obey. This is one time when we get a hint. If you read Ephesians 5 you will begin to se ethat the order God sets up in Genesis he begins to use to describe his relationship with the church. And it gets even more so in the Book of Revelation.
I encourage you to read it all, but look at part of Ephesians 5:
" 22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless."
You see that? He uses what He created in Genesis (male-female marriage) to show us how He relates to us--his church.
4. Lastly, The Bible is consistently negative in tone about homosexual sexual behavior. Consistently.
That line speaks for itself, but go ahead and read Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 and even in the story about Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 (which is not about homosexuality), homosexual acts are mentioned in a bad light.
So that's that.
Anyways, I will try to post two videos--one is a debate by Harry Knox from the HRC and Dr, Michael L. Brown. Dr. Brown really takes him to task for the un-scholarly assertions about Romans and Leviticus.
It used to be that people were modest about such rank speculation that re-wrote the plain text of the Bible. They would qualify heavily with terms like "could have been" and "might have referred to" and "possibly". Recently I have seen a new MO whereby much of this speculation is repeated as fact (without the previous qualifications)! They are smart. Nobody would change theology for a "maybe" or a "possibly". There is no evidence in history or the plain text to suggest that Paul was not talking about homosexuality as we know it (which by the way is nothing new).
Exegesis versus Eisegesis
Exegesis is a critical interpretation of a text where, as the definition implies, critical thinking is involved. This is a challenge for many in our society--perhaps because we are discovering new media that don't require it. Those who favor an exegesis (as opposed to an eisegesis) are interested in what the author of the text was trying to convey from his or her personal experiences. What is extremely important in forming an exegesis is a detailed historical context, and for that reason exegesis is also referred to as an 'historical-critical interpretation'.
As an example of the importance of exegesis, I offer the phrase 'space cadet' as in, "Jim's a real space cadet." Imagine someone a thousand years from now--presumably when space travel is ubiquitous--reading such a sentence in a text that was written today. What might they conclude from this reading? It should be obvious that for people who are surrounded by astronauts--who might even live their entire lives in space--that they might conclude that the author is saying that this person, Jim, is a real (as in certifiable) astronaut. They would have no idea that the author was actually using common jargon to describe how Jim is incredibly distant, naive, distracted, or even daft. An exegesis of the text would reveal this truth to the reader.
Eisegesis, however, is an interpretation of a text formed by reading into it one's own experiences--by projecting the literal text into our current sociopolitical context and drawing conclusions at face value. This can create a very moving for modern Christians who read about their exodus from slavery in Egypt, or about their faith's perserverence against the natural disasters, illness, and destitution Job suffered. Though eisegesis can be appropriate for liturgical narratives, it is also extremely inaccurate and dangerous when applied to timely epistles or ancient law.
I have already discussed in this thread in detail why these famous passages do not morally condemn homosexuality and I see no need to repeat myself here. I am glad you already realize the narrative of Sodom & Gemorrah has nothing to do with homosexuality, as Jesus himself points this out (Matthew 10:5-15). However, I would like to address your arguments point by point:
Of course I would love to share with you a story in which it is far more likely Jesus confronted the issue of homosexuality. I'm speaking of the story where Jesus healed the centurion's servant, which is told in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. Though Matthew and Luke cannot agree as to whether or not Jesus met the centurion in person or whether friends of the centurion conveyed his plight to Jesus. However, it is clearly a possibility, and in either case the language of the centurion--with its timely connotations was preserved for Jesus' ears. Jesus heard the centurion refer to slaves he held in the general sense of slaves (the Greek 'doulos') but he heard the centurion refer to the sick slave as his 'boy' ('pais') who was dear to him ('entimos'). Though it is possible the slave is only dear to the centurion because he paid a heavy price for him, this seems unlikely, for the centurion was wealthy--he had built the town of Capernum a synagogue. The idea that the slave was dear because he was exceptionally skilled also seems unlikely due to his age. The final connotation with this word, entimos, from that time is the implication of an emotional pair bond, and this seems the most likely meaning. Finally, though this connotation still seems inconclusive, it should be noted that an emotional pair bond limited to platonic affection is a thoroughly modern account of such a relationship. It is also out of step with the reality of ancient life in the first-century Roman Empire, a harsh time to be a slave. We know that Romans often kept slaves close to them for sexual functions, and that it was extremely common for a Roman soldier to have a male sexual companion with them during journeys far from home. In this particular case, it is legitimate to assume that the centurion fell in love with his companion. That would mean that Jesus encountered a loving homosexual relationship and had nothing to say about it. After all, Jesus was not an idiot; he knew exactly what was going on.
Even if the only way God could relate to us outside of the Church was through heterosexual marriage, that still does not necessarily imply anything morally wrong with homosexuality. Let's not forget that holy men and women of the Church are celibate by Church doctrine. Do they fulfill this innovative moral obligation to God simply because they have dedicated their life to the Church; married the Church? But what about celibacy among people who have not received holy ordination? Where is the backlash against single men and women in the prime or particularly in the late years of their life? If heterosexual unions claim moral superiority because of their ability to produce children--which is in fact completely possible for homosexual unions as well--then what of infertile heterosexual couples or, even more damning, heterosexual couples who choose not to have children?
I'd say that was speculative at best to be honest.
2. The plain meaning of the text is that he cherished his servant. Simply because slavery was "harsh" in Roman times (was it ever "nice"?) doesn't mean that this was a romantic relationship. (In fact, such a reading would almost certainly have to mean that not only was this "romantic" but also pederastic/paedophilic; and that consequently Jesus had nothing bad to say about paedophilia!)
As human nature and history tells us, slavery does not preclude simple affection by default--no matter the social context. (Just as, ironically, the idea that the Centurion built them a synagogue would be dismissed under higher criticism to be inconsistent with the times. After all did they not hate the Romans and vice versa?).
We also cannot say that because Jesus did not upbraid the man right then and there for a clear "homosexual relationship" does not mean that he approved of any such thing.
3. I think you are a bit confused over the alternatives to marriage. Marriage is not a "way for God to relate to us" it is a representation of his character (as is maleness and femaleness). And so, He designed a specific vehicle for the expression of sexuality that was perverted shortly via polygamy and homosexuality.
It doesn't mean that we can only understand God through marriage. However, we do know explicitly from the Bible that marriage (as he defined it) is one of His most powerful and important symbols.
4. All the "exegeses" I have studied based on these texts are tendentious, strained at best and soundly rejected not only by the majority of biblical scholars but by many revisionists as well.
what kind of world do you want to build?
As for inductive arguments from the Bible, it is just as likely that homosexual relationships are not discussed because they are so rare (by nature, due to the rare incidence of homosexuality) than that they are not discussed because the authors (and inspiration) of the Bible didn't want to endorse homosexuality. 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? 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.
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.
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.
It is interesting to note the alleged bias of these authors, however. I will never understand why intelligent Christians, when confronted with the truth, insist on the darkest, most dehumanizing interpretation popularly available. 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.
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.
When this debate forays into
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 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 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."
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. I have had to familiarize myself with the Bible's passages that are relevant to my life since then, 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.
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 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. As a sociopolitical debate, homosexuality has indeed been on the American mind for longer than 15 years. Have you forgotten Anita Bryant's self-serving campaign to institutionalize discrimination against homosexuals in Dade County, Florida (1977)? The Stonewall Riots of 1969? Let's look further back: the ubiquitous public delight at the thought of a romance between Richard the Lion-Hearted of England and Philip the King of France? The first declaration of consequences for homogenital acts as a matter of policy by Lateran III?
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. 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. 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'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.
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.
misinterpretation of Romans
1) Paul's diction clearly describes homogenital acts as 'impure' much like in Leviticus--which makes sense, because Paul was a 'reformed' Jew. The distinction here is that, like all 'impure' acts described in Leviticus, homogenital acts were socially unacceptable, but not morally wrong. Emphasis should be placed on 'were' as this was the attitude 2000 years ago in Rome, not today. Furthermore, homogenital acts between a Roman man and non-Roman men (slaves and non-citizens) were perfectly acceptable and transparent in Roman society. The homogenital acts unacceptable in Roman society were those where a Roman man penetrated another Roman man. This is clearly a product of sexism, and not even a consequence of homophobia, as men of the ancient world (and perhaps today) express their perceived dominance over woman by penetrating them. To be penetrated is seen as a woman's 'place.' Also, though a literal interpretation of this passage would suggest that this is the only reference to lesbian sex in the Bible, if we recall that, according to Leviticus, lesbian sex is not 'impure,' it should be clear that this passage cannot be talking about lesbian sex at all.
2) The structure of this passage is divided into two distinct parts: morally wrong acts and socially unacceptable acts. There are, in fact, two different things on Paul's mind in this passage: impurity and immorality. Paul is saying that it is because of one moral wrong, idolatry, perpetrated by the Romans, those among them who were already filled with wickedness turned to other ethical wrongs. However, it is because of the idolatry in particular (emphasized in verses 21 through 23), that God "gave them up" to socially unacceptable acts--acts that Gentiles were already known to be engaged in from as early as the writing of Leviticus, which is primarily to distinguish Jews and Gentiles based on amoral (not immoral) cleanliness laws. These "shameful" and "dishonorable" acts may have been offensive to the sensitivities of Roman citizens at the time, but there was nothing morally wrong about them, and nothing Paul writes suggests that.
3) Overall, Paul's intent in writing his epistle to the Romans, according to Dr. Daniel A Helminiak, a Roman Catholic priest, is in order "to teach that in Christ the purity concerns of the Old Law no longer matter and they should not be dividing the members of the Christian community." The emphasis is my own. This is important, because there are obviously real moral ills to be concerned with, such as slavery, adultery, war, and greed.
I don't doubt your good intentions in calling for Christians to treat gay and lesbian persons better, but I think it should be obvious that if religious conservatives did not conflate religious institutions with civil institutions, gays and lesbians would enjoy equal citizenship in this country and that status would inspire people to treat us like human beings. The supposed notion that homosexuality is morally wrong is not a crux of faith--in fact, it serves no purpose whatsoever. Let's not forget the Doctrine of Two Swords, after all. The City of God and the City of Earth must have different rulers, and I think it is clear from Paul's writings that what is socially unacceptable to man can be morally neutral to God.
Thanks for your response
Kevin – thanks for your response. I would like to spend time in the near future to look in to the specific arguments you've given, but for now I'd like to generally comment with my initial thoughts. My response includes many Bible citations – I don't intend them to “bash” you over the head with them – I just want to insure that my arguments are based from the Bible and not my own reasoning.
I obviously disagree – Paul is not referring to heterosexuals doing homosexual activities, or the abuse of young people: He is referring to homosexuality per se, and the moral sin of such activities. A few reasons I believe this:
To briefly respond to your three points:
Bottom line: I believe that these texts are clear: God intended sexuality to be enjoyed between a man and a woman in marriage to dramatize the relationship between Christ and His church – any use of it outside that context is impurity and is sin. Many passages even directly address same-sex unions – and condemn them. I do not believe gay-friendly theology because I feel it twists scripture and makes a mockery of the holiness of God.
General exhortation to all: Our tendency as humans (myself included) is to decide what we believe, and then find zinger verses from the Bible, or quotes from like-minded scholars, to prove & back our arguments up. You must ask yourself this question: Do you believe the pro-gay theology because you really think it's true, or because (despite the most common sense & historic & majority opinion of Bible scholars), you want to believe it's true? Only you can answer that question.
One-Eyed Jacks
convenient, really?
I think this "most common sense" to which you refer seems like a rhetorical ploy. We can't have a debate if we're insulting the other's intelligence.
Is the march of history as written by the straight, white patriarchy a source of moral insight? I think not. It was not until the 1100s, after all, that Peter Cantor began his campaign against homosexual relationships between clergy members. "Contrary to all precedence, restricted the term sodomy to refer to same-sex acts and interpreted Romans 1:26-27 to refer exclusively to homosexuality" (Helminiak, 2007). As for the majority opinion, I see no reason to believe that biblical scholarism has a consensus on these passages. The number of alternate interpretations are staggering and they run the entire gamut from "pro-gay" to "anti-gay."
I never claimed that the homogenital acts described in this passage (and it clearly does describe homogenital acts) were those of heterosexuals. However, it is interesting that you are so quick to point out the distinction between gay sex and gay relationships. I think you know that there is no moral argument against loving, monogamous relationships between two consenting adults (regardless of their sex). I also never said that the homogenital acts described were pederasty.
As for Paul's use of the words "natural" and "unnatural" (and ultimately para physin), it must be understood that he is speaking literally about physical nature or nature as a tendency. In Galatians 2:15, Paul speak sof Jews and gentiles who were made as much by nature--by virtue of their birth. The literal reference to gentiles apparently reads "uncircumcision by nature." This is an example of how concrete the concepts of natural and unnatural are for Paul. In Romans 2:14, Paul talks about gentiles "who do not have the law, [and] do by nature things required by the law[;] they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law." Paul is illustrating how the gentiles act consistent with their nature. In Galatians 4:8, Paul writes, "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods." Again, he is talking about what the idols are physically made up of. In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul asks, "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?" According to Boswell and Countryman, and in the words of Helminiak: Furthermore, even if para physin was a stock phrase for homosexuality anywhere else in the Bible, that would not conclusively indicate that is its meaning here. Para physin is certainly a stock phrase for "contrary to" and in this case "contrary to nature" and as I've illustrated, Paul's use of the word physin does not mean that the acts are contrary to the laws of nature, but that they are unexpected or unusual. Therefore, the passage as a whole should be read to describe "sexual practices that were not the ones people usually perform" (Helminiak, 2007).
Let's not forget that Paul uses the same words to describe God. In Romans 11:24, Paul describes how God, in an unsual way, "cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree."
As I've said, there is considerable debate on the matter, of course. Some interpret Paul's use of the words para physin to actually mean "contrary to nature" but this view is derived from Stoicism. I don't think that contemporary Christians, who are overwhelmingly concerned with how they 'feel' about God and God's love (though they are blind to it when it concerns certain minorities) would want to align themselves with Stoic philosophy. If you believe that non-procreative sex is 'contrary to nature' then inevitably you would decry homogenital acts, but (you ought to do that) no more so than heterogenital acts that aren't for the purpose of reproduction. However, that does not seem to be your belief as you expressed that sexuality was something to be "enjoyed."
You should not be surprised that "impurity" would have no moral connotations for Paul. Growing up as a Jew, he was exposed to a specific culture of cleanliness as a matter of establishing 'Jewish-ness.' In Leviticus, specifically in the 'Holiness Code,' are described numerous 'impure' acts that had no moral connotations whatsoever. When the Holiness Code was written, no thought was given as to whether the 'impure' acts described were good or bad--the important thing was that they were non-Jewish. The sense in which they were non-Jewish is the sense in which they were impure--preserving Jewish identity was the point of the Holiness Code (said another way, the point was to preserve 'purity'--a dangeorusly fascist idea when taken to the extreme). As Christians, we should not be bound to Jewish cleanliness laws, and we certainly shouldn't misinterpret them to have moral significance.
It must, of course, be admitted that, at the time of writing Romans, "Paul had already understood Jesus' teaching that the only real uncleanness is uncleanness of the heart" (Helminiak, 2007). However, in contrast to the passages you cited where Paul links impurity with real moral wrongs, in Romans 1:24 Paul links impurity only with disgrace and shame, neither of which have an ethical connotation for him. There are other examples of impurity being used in the Jewish, and not the Christian sense, in the Bible: Matthew 23:27, Acts 10:14, 28, 11:8. With that in mind, we cannot say with certainty that the Christian sense is in use here.
It is important to grasp what Paul's purpose of writing this passage in the epistle is, and that is to teach the difference between ritual impurity and real moral wrong. Paul breaks up the passage into two sections in order to make this point. He first accuses the genitles of idolatry, which was an obvious moral transgression of theirs. "And what was the result of their idolatry? Paul says it was twofold. It resulted in uncleanness, and it resulted in real sin" (Helminiak, 2007). The two-part structure Boswell and Countryman propose is as follows: verses 24-27 are one part, in which Paul describes sexual acts as "degrading" and "shameless"; verses 28-32 are the second part, in which Paul describes real moral wrongs (e.g. envy, murder, and deceit) as [wicked], evil, and malic[ious].
We obviously disagree as to the purpose of Paul's epistle but I don't see what the rhetorical question "If we are free from the punishment from the law and justified by works, then our sin doesn't matter!?!" has to do with distinguishing ritual impurity from moral wrong. It doesn't sound like any Catholics would agree with your interpretation of Romans, as it allegedly discourages the "myth of justification by works."
I've never seen any evidence that the part of the Holiness Code that refers to having sex with a menstruating woman, offering child-sacrifice to Molech, and other concerns of sexual or asexual nature is of moral consequence. Regardless of whether or not there is real moral import from Leviticus, those are all (ritual cleanliness) laws of the God of the Israelites and only the Chosen People are bound to them. Only the ban on child-sacrifice to Molech was to apply to non-Jews (and then only in the land of Israel), which is supported, I think, by the uncommon use of 'ragam' instead of 'seqal' to describe the punishment of stoning for this act. For better or worse, you and I and the people for whom your article was written for are not the Chosen People bound to God by a covenant--a covenant that requires a cultural distinction between Jew and gentile (which outside of religion would be only pretension). It is probably for better that we do not worship the God of the Old Testament, actually--a blind God called Samael that is full of wrath (not that the Christian invention of hell is anymore pleasant).
First, I must appologize
First, I apologize for coming across as insulting - my use of "most common sense" did not convey what I intended. I was simply pointing out that when read literally and at face value, the various passages relating to homosexuality seem to be quite clear on their meaning. There are definitely tough passages in the Bible where the passage was meant figuratively, or even sometimes that the primary implication of the passage was specific to a culture or time (though the general principal still applies) - but we must have a very good reason for diminishing what the inspired infallible word of God says. That was all I implied from "most common sense" - it was a poor choice of words.
I pointed out that there is a difference between gay sex and having a homosexual orientation (though I never mentioned gay relationships) - gay sex is definitely condemned in ANY context, and Romans 1 proves that this EVEN includes within the context of two persons of homosexual orientation (regardless of how committed their relationship is). The Bible most certainly provides a "moral argument against loving, monogamous relationships between two consenting adults " when it is outside of the context of heterosexual marriage, and at my core I believe it to be true.
And even if Paul's use of "para phusin" in Romans 1 did mean "sexual practices that were not the ones people usually perform" (apart from being contrary to nature), it is still clear what acts he is referring to - and he still condemns it as a dramatization of what happens when mankind exchanges the glory for images - I do not know how one can read Romans 1: 18-32 and say that any of the things Paul refers to have no moral significance! And I further see no grounds for distinguishing between v24-27 & v28-32.
It is true: "As Christians, we [are] not be bound to Jewish cleanliness laws" - but as I mentioned, Leviticus contains two clear sections: dietary & ceremonial cleanliness codes, and moral codes. Chapters 18 & 20 are very clearly referring to moral laws, and the other prohibition in there still applies today - they reflect the moral character of God, who has not changed, nor will He ever change. I will sometime have to look into the prohibitions of "man lying with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness" - I honestly don't know much about that topic.
Yes, there is some internal controversy within the church regarding the relationship between works & faith. I firmly believe that we are justified by faith alone, apart from works - and I believe this is an issue that is very important to come to a consensus on - and to be frank: I believe official Catholic doctrine is wrong on this and other points. But that is an entirely different argument.
I would also generally disagree with the statement that we "are not the Chosen People bound to God by a covenant" - but again that is a point of internal controversy. I hold to a covenant theology approach - that we as Christians are by extension true Israel (not physically, but spiritually - Romans 9:8). But again that is an entirely different argument.
I must emphasize this: The God of the Old Testament is the same God as the God of the New Testament. Yes, the OT dwells much on God's holiness & wrath, but also highlights His mercy & love (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5; Psalm 86:15; Psalm 108:4; Psalm 145:8; Joel 2:13), and both attributes are confirmed in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7; John 3:36; Rom. 1:18; 5:8-11; Colossians 3:6; Rev. 6:16, 17). Hell is not a modern invention - it is referred to multiple times in the NT (e.g. Matthew 10:28, 25:41, Revalation 14:11). Yes, God is love, but He is also much more - He is so Holy that not even the angelic Cherubim of Isaiah 6 could stand in his presence with faces & feet uncovered. Hell is real & terrible - it is defined as complete separation from God, and is prepared for those who in their lives did not embrace the God of love & wrath.
I really don't want to come across as personally attacking you here, but especially in a public forum like this, I must defend the truth and respond to your arguments - hopefully I have done so with grace in addition to truth (though I confess I need to improve in the area of speaking the truth with love).
It seems that there are many fundamental differences between our viewpoints such that we don't even agree on what being a Christian means and entails. I'm not really sure how to proceed with this discussion because it is apparent that we are perhaps not even talking about the same God. That being said, I would welcome learning more about your viewpoints, but I don't think this thread is the best avenue for doing so. I will be in Houghton all summer and through the coming fall/spring school year - perhaps we could have a face-to-face conversation sometime? It has been a long time since I've spoken with you. Also, if there are specific topics to discuss (especially that go beyond the immediate scope of this topic), perhaps we could at least start separate discussion threads?
truth is resilient
What is clear, though, from our fundamental differences in belief, is that neither one of us is going to change is mind. You seem to desperately need to believe that gay people are immoral, that homosexuality is depraved and unethical, and that God, a rational being, recognizes and sanctifies only unions between two members of the opposite sex. Though you insist this is the case, you haven't actually demonstrated why it must be so--for any loving, monogamous relationship, what is the ethical utility of the sex of the people involved? Insistence that it must be so is not an argument.
So there's no double standard, I'll argue why a loving, monogamous, homosexual relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex is consistent with God's plan:
These are just a few reasons, and none of them describe the need for civil marriage (as separate from the religious sacrament of marriage). I was hoping you would touch on the distinction because I think it is clear that--regardless of your religious beliefs and your need to demonize homosexuality--there are no arguments (that could possibly come from Biblical scholarism or religious ethics) to deny American citizens their civil right to civil marriage. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that gay marriage is good for society, and a dearth of any that it is destructive. With respect to these arguments for civil marriage, I offer a finite portion of contemporary articles on the subject:
Representative Bob Barr, original author of the Defense of Marriage Act, on why it should be repealed
New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission finds 'overwhelming evidence' that civil unions are inferior to marriage
"The Vermont Psychological Association, the Vermont Psychiatric Association, the Vermont Association of Mental Health Counselors, and the Vermont chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, all say legalizing gay marriage would help the children of same-sex couples."
700 Episcopalians recognize their churches need to move towards including gay relationships characterized by 'fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.'
As for Leviticus 18:22, this is another passage that is commonly misunderstood. First, regardless of whether or not Leviticus is actually making a moral condemnation or only a ritual ban against homogenital acts, the harsh punishment of death needs to be addressed. It may seem wildly severe for this act, but let's not forget that at the time, cursing one's parents also merited death, as did adultery. The reason for these things requiring such harsh punishments is that the patriarchal system in place at the time had to be preserved. These amoral ritual bans were in place to preserve the attitude that woman and children are the property of the man of a household--an abhorrent idea we no longer value. In the case of adultery, "more than a personal offense, it involved a financial loss: the man paid for his wife's father a bridal price for her, and her ability to bear children was important to the expansion of his family, the increase of his property" (Helminiak, 2007). Clearly, for adultery and other ritual bans adjacent to the ban on homogenital acts, there is no moral connotation; why should there be one for homogenital acts? This is starting to sound awfully convenient, as you claimed my interpretation is.
While prohibitions against adultery, incest, and bestiality occur multiple times in Leviticus and in numerous texts outside of it, the prohibition against homogenital acts occurs only once and only in the Holiness Code. The aforementioned references to adultery are: Leviticus 18:20, 20:10, Exodus 20:14, Numbers 5:11-31, and Deuteronomy 5:18, 22:22-27; references to incest are: Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12, 14, 17, 19-21, Deuteronomy 22:30, 27:20, 22-23; references to bestiality are: Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16, Exodus 22:18, Deuteronomy 27:21. "The implication is that the only reason for forbidding male-male sex is concern about uncleanness and holiness" (Helminiak, 2007).
I can't even begin to address the argument "we must have a very good reason for diminishing what the inspired infallible word of God says." I've already given a very good reason and I think you don't really want to hear it. For each of my arguments that I've bolstered with Biblical scholarism, you've reiterated your stance but you haven't provided counterarguments short of personal exhortations that you "further see no ground" for my arguments.
I don't want to drag this out because we will not come to a consensus. I know that truth is resilient, and don't feel compelled to "defend" it but I do feel compelled to defend the human lives and dignity that hang in the balance with your argument. Today gay men and women are killed, assaulted, and dehumanized for the way God, in his infinite wisdom, made them. No offense, but your lukewarm cry for "Christians [to] treat gay and lesbian persons. . .better" is not going to win any hearts and minds. You can, however, demonstrate the need to be Christ-like in our attitudes toward God's children by leading as an example. Drop the charade that there is anything wrong with homosexuality.
DuckTales: The Movie - Treasure of the Lost Lamp
Truth, Redemption and Love
You and I seem to know each other well and I hope that you know that I do not like confrontations. Being put down scares me and I do not want that so I am sure that you or anyone else would not want to be put down as well. Anyway, moving on to what I'd like to say. I do not consider myself a smart man, honestly I had to look up quite a few words that you used in your points so that I would understand your points. That is nothing against you at all in fact I look up to all the things you do know, it just took me some time to figure out what you were saying.
But I think that you missed the point. We (you and me and everyone else) can take any one passage and try to make it sound good and skew it to 'fit' our lives.
This is not how it 'fits' to my live it is Paul's point for all that read it:
That the Romans knew about the saving power of Jesus Christ and that is the whole reason Paul was writing. They knew the power of God that is at work every day but they did not glorify HIM and thank HIM for all that He does...beginning with the basics of the saving power in Jesus Christ. (Romans 1:16-21). Instead they exchanged the truth of God with a lie. They worshiped and served created things rather than God.
One of God's gifts in His creating us is free will. We have the choice to love God and the things of God or turn our back to Him and love the things of the world. If there was not this wonderful gift of free will then where would the adventure be in loving God? There wouldn't be one. (wow I kinda got sidetracked back to the scripture).
So, instead of forcefully turning some of these Roman people who did this little exchange of truth God gave them the choice to continue in sin or repent and turn back to Him. (I would encourage you to read the rest of Romans, it gives the picture of God's love and redemption quite well. This forsaking the truth for a lie is probably why Paul writes the rest of the letter the way He does by talking about grace and redemption.)
I hope that you would see me as a Lover of Jesus, Kevin. We are all human, Christians are not some lofty people even though many act this way. It is a choice for me each day to consider living in my own way and chaos OR do I live in and consider the great love that He lavishes on all including you and me?
It is a choice with great reward.
Jesus says that eternal life is knowing God. (John 17:3) How did I get to know God? By starting with seeing the love that was displayed on a cross by Jesus. Taking the lies, sins, and mistakes of mine and mankind upon himself. But it gets better. He came back. He is alive. He is the only way (John 14:6-7)
John also received a beautiful Revelation about what Heaven and the Throne room will look like! What a great worship party it's going to be! (Revelation chpts 4, 5, 21) I hope that you want to be a part of it too!
Hope it all made some sense.
Mark
P.S. I would encourage you to read Crystal Higginbotham's Testimony too! http://www.mtucrossreference.com/prosepoint/story/unashamed
thanks for your concern
As I pointed out to Tyler, my interpretation of Romans is not anymore convenient than his interpretation or your interpretation. Suggesting that someone has a particular slant isn't an argument. I might have said, "Of course Tyler believes this because he is an 'ex-gay'," but that wouldn't be an argument. I hope you see why arguing that I believe my interpretation just because I'm gay is not any more legitimate.
On that note, there is nothing wrong with the desire to be loved and accepted by Jesus, and that is the impetus for others who embrace a "gay-friendly" interpretation. To those that don't, I put the question: is it more important to be Christ-like or Christian?
It takes courage to speak up about what you believe in. I'm not going to pretend it is easier for you because you're a Christian and in the majority--it is tough because of your nature, and I respect that. It's tough for me sometimes, too. However, evangelizing is not a requirement for holding a belief. You have had experiences in your life where through your evangelism you have brought someone closer to God and Christ. This will not be one of those experienes. I am a devout Gnostic Christian and believe that not only am I very close to God, but I, like all human beings, contain a divine aspect of God that cannot be diminished by the rulers of this world or advocates of social inequality. This is not to say you are a social conservative; I have the great hope that you are not and have given you the benefit of the doubt because I want to avoid prejudice.
Knowing how this ends, do you want to discuss religious ethics with me? I do not want to cause undue stress in your life, so I would not want to talk about these things with you under the pretense that I am going to change my mind. That has been my experience with evangelism in the past after I had rejected Catholicism and before I embraced the one, true God. I know the stress a religious discussion for the wrong reasons might cause you because I'm experiencing it in my friendships with other Christians, namely Catholics, who claim to love me as an equal human being (and specifically an American citizen who pays taxes) but deny me my basic civil right to civil marriage and, arguably, my human right to marriage.
You shouldn't feel bad about getting sidetracked by glorifying God--Paul does the same thing in Romans 1:25.
Encouragement, and Glory to GOD!
I want to encourage you to find out what the Bible says about being Christlike and a Christian (I do this as much as I can along with prayer asking God to help me to become more Christlike and what it REALLY means to be a Christian). Logical arguments get us nowhere.
With that said, I do not want to discuss religious ethics with me. Yes you read that correctly. Religious ethics are not important, whether or not one is living in the salvation of God and all that surrounds salvation IS important. (something I ask myself daily)
If you want to discuss that I would be more than willing. I will be working at the Subway next to Dominos from 5 to midnight. Stop by sometime.
In response to "You shouldn't feel bad about getting sidetracked by glorifying God--Paul does the same thing in Romans 1:25" I just will say, He does deserve all the glory and honor. He created the earth and everything that is in it. He made you He made me and He has a purpose for us and it starts with dieing to our desires and living in His desires.
Hopefully I'll see ya tonight sometime! If not we have some classes together...lets see what happens!
-Mark
Yes, this is my comment.
I've marked it for you
admin please claim?
not a problem