Newsweek and Gay Marriage: The Bible and Marriage Post 3 Dec 26
I now come to the substance of the Newsweek piece on marriage and the Bible. It treats the first of two key topics the article covers to present the case for gay marriage in our culture. That first topic is how the Bible sees and describes marriage. (The second addresses homosexuality.
I now come to the substance of the Newsweek piece on marriage and the Bible. It treats the first of two key topics the article covers to present the case for gay marriage in our culture. That first topic is how the Bible sees and describes marriage. (The second addresses homosexuality. It will be the topic of a separate post to follow that will be the fourth in the series.) The article’s key claim is that the Bible provides no clear definition of marriage, nor does the way marriage is portrayed fit the ideals of family that traditionalists argue the Bible espouses.
Here is how the article introduces the topic: “To which [the traditional view of marriage as involving a man and a woman] there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else’s—to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.”
(Just to remind everyone, the examples from the article’s opening paragraph were: “Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. ‘It is better to marry than to burn with passion,’ says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.” These examples and their import I treated in my last post on gay marriage [Journalistic Integrity…. post]).
This article’s introduction to the Bible and marriage counters the claim made by a writer cited in the story who argues, “The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition.”
Whose take on what the Bible teaches is correct?
I will work backward through the points, starting with the article’s claim about not following the examples in the Bible, examples that are presented as if they were acceptable in the narrative.
On the Issue of Biblical Examples. I start by distinguishing a basic principle when you read the text: There is a difference between what is described as taking place in the narrative and what the narrative endorses about the practice in question. I noted this point in my first post on the article, and it needs to be reaffirmed here. The Newsweek article points to many narrative details and says that no one wants to adopt these particulars of marriage. Ironically enough, the rejection of such practices is actually a point behind these biblical narratives. The text does not endorse these descriptive realities. They actually produce chaos, which indicates they are not affirmed by the text. For example, the conflict that existed between ethnicities was the result of Abraham taking into his hands the realization of God’s promise in seeking a child by one who was not his wife. The chaos emerging after Solomon’s reign was a result of his many wives. Most of these failures have nothing to do with Proposition 8 and the issues it raises about gay marriage; rather, the examples deal with heterosexual marriage. They illustrate that marriage involving multiple wives (as often appears in the Old Testament) inevitably produced problems and jealousies. The accounts tied to Abraham and Isaac are good examples. The Bible was teaching that customs like these, though common, did not result in peaceful family or national life.
On What the Newsweek Article Misses—Jesus’ Definition of Divorce. As for Jesus never defining marriage, this claim is patently false. The omission misstates what the Bible does teach about marriage. Jesus does define marriage in answering a question about divorce. He cites Genesis 2:24. I will cite it in two forms so the point is clear: “Therefore a man leaves his father and clings to his wife, and they shall become one flesh,” (NRSV, a more literal rendering) or, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family,” (NET, a more idiomatic approach to the translation). Mark 10:6-8 and its parallels have Jesus citing this passage to deal with the debate over divorce in his time. The text is clear: Marriage involves a man and a woman. This stems from an understanding of creation where male and female in their interrelationship illustrate something fundamental about being made in God’s image (Gen 1:27—“So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them”). So marriage is designed to be a unique relationship between a male and female in the Bible. There also are the numerous exhortations not to commit adultery or its use as a negative example, starting with Jesus’ own teaching in Matthew 5:27-32, where he notes that adultery starts with lust (also Matt 15:18-19; 19:8-9, 18; Mark 10:19; Luke 16:18; 18:20; Romans 2:22; 13:9; James 2:11; 2 Peter 2:14). This omission alone produces a severe distortion in the article.
On the Newsweek Article’s Key Turn of Argument to Secular Considerations. Now, the article’s core takes a turn here that really is at the center of the debate. It is that marriage is both a civil and a religious institution. This is a point both sides of the discussion have been slow to see as a major cause of the chasm that exists between the viewpoints. I will come back to this idea in another post (It will be the fifth in the series).
In treating marriage as a religious institution, the article appeals to the Old Testament “reality” that a marriage was between “one man and as many women as he could pay for.” This is actually true in many of the examples, with all the problems the arrangement introduced, as already noted above. All of this is less than relevant in many ways by the time we get to Jesus and his refocusing on what the design was—namely an arrangement between a man and a woman where adultery is not permitted. Keeping an eye on how topics are treated across time in the Bible is a part of reading it with care.
Another telling discussion from the article cites the Old Testament evidence this way, “But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse [Gen 2:24] was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn’t God say, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)”
Here we have three claims about the Bible and marriage that are core to the article’s argument: (1) The Bible is not to be seen as revelatory in any sense (and is not for some), (2) new realities change the way we understand marriage, and (3) marriage is about more than procreation. Now, there is an element of truth to all of these claims.
On the first point, not everyone sees the Bible as divinely inspired and as a rule for faith and practice (but for those who do, the text seems clear about the role and definition of marriage just noted). This is important because it shows the discussion here is not about properly defining the biblical take on these matters (despite the magazine’s claims otherwise) but that part of the debate is the role the Bible plays in looking at these matters. This is why my first post challenged Newsweek’s effort made to claim a Judeo-Christian perspective for their view. In claiming to embrace the Judeo-Christian view on marriage, the article actually dismisses the Bible in the process, which is hardly a Judeo-Christian approach. The reading of the Bible here is a decidedly secular one. This seems to reflect an effort to gain a kind of religious cover for the interpretive move being made here, at least if Meacham’s opening piece to this topic is an indication of the route taken (see the first post in this series).
As far as the second point is concerned, this argument seems somewhat inadequate. The world of adoption is not new to the modern world, and reproductive technology is not yet to the point where we can take male sperm and unite it to other male sperm (or do the same with two female eggs) and get a child. Technology has done a great deal for us, but it has yet to redesign the basics of human life.
In regard to the final point, marriage and childrearing (beyond how we get the child) are about more than procreation. There is value in having a kind of respect for gender in raising children, where the value of male and female working together in life is part of a child’s nurturing. This is not to say that a single parent cannot do so (or even contemplate the possibility that same-sex parents can lavish responsible love on a child), but it is to say we describe divorced homes as “broken” in an almost instinctive sense. Nor does this ignore the damage that broken heterosexual homes create when the breakup divides a child’s loyalties and damages a child’s psyche (even often in older children). There is something instinctive in the ideal that says when a couple works and stays together to raise their children, this effort illustrates how to work through problems with respect. Such an arrangement is inherently more likely to be better than the alternatives (though many do admirably well under less than ideal circumstances and also deserve credit for persevering). In fact, many churches and synagogues spend hours helping families either stay together or work with those blown apart in the pain of divorce to keep the damage as minimal in impact as possible.
On Assessing Religious Standards by Changing Secular Norms. Finally, there is something problematic allowing shifting civil social standards to dictate the defining of moral standards or the interpretation of religious standards. You could make the case, looking at our society, that our moral standards are not advancing but declining as we move from ideals that religion and the pursuit of faithfulness advocate. Some argue that marriage has failed as an institution, cannot function in a modern world or needs jettisoning, but you can also argue that the alternative of multiple partners and anything goes creates its own additional share of emotional havoc, especially for children involved in the merry-go-round of today’s pick your partner. A return to the pursuit of marital faithfulness and mutual affirmation in the midst of such unions is certainly a worthy standard to pursue and one Judeo-Christian traditions have affirmed for centuries for reasons helpful to human flourishing.
On the Sacredness of Marriage. The next move the article makes is to point out Jesus was single and that Paul also made much of being single. They did, for the sake of religious dedication, but they also made clear that a decision for marriage was not sin (1 Cor 7:28) and that God made the pair a threesome (Mark 10:6-8), creating a special kind of sacred relationship that is not independent of God’s presence and involvement. However civil a marriage is, in Judeo-Christian eyes, a marriage is a sacred reaffirmation of God’s creative work of male and female being made in God’s image, something a family is supposed to reflect. In fact, this truth may be the most important fact about marriage as a religious institution. It helps to explain why so many of a religious persuasion have so emphatically reacted against the idea of gay marriage. This point will become the focus of our fifth post on the topic.
From here the article moves on to homosexuality, yet another topic to work through in another post. So I will leave the discussion here for now.
Summary. In sum, we have argued that the Newsweek article misrepresented the biblical portrait of marriage as a religious concept in Judeo-Christian thinking. This was journalistically irresponsible. What really took place was a kind of bait and switch. What was portrayed as a primarily a serious look at a religious argument about what the Bible teaches was really a set of secular arguments that too selectively treated what the Bible said. It ignored the nature of narrative argument, the consideration of the Bible’s teaching across the time frames it addressed, and, most especially, omitted Jesus’ definition of the concept of marriage entirely. The article really evaluated marriage as a religious institution by appealing to arguments about how marriage is seen as by secular standards and as a civil institution. This secular tact is an important argument and a firm basis for differences this topic does raise, but let’s be clear that this differentiation is what really is going on, not a genuine appeal to understanding how marriage is seen biblically or theologically within a vast majority of Judeo-Christian circles. Moreover, really understanding what the religious argument is and is aiming for makes the case about the Bible’s teaching on marriage more compelling by highlighting how sacred a relationship is in view in this unique union. What it teaches is best for humanity in pleading for a more stable and focused view of marriage.
40 Comments
steph
I thought the following
I thought the following reflected the way I felt about this rather tedious debate too – it is the Guardian’s Giles Fraser’s response to the pope’s gay bashing Christmas message:
‘Those who take the Bible as if it were a reference book cannot mentally accommodate the idea that the story being told is about the developing consciousness of the people of Israel, of how they got it wrong and how they are led to a new understanding by God. For Christians escpecially this new understanding is that God is there for all; that, as St Paul is very keen to insist, you don’t even need to be a Jew for God to be there for you.’
bock
Following dlb
Steph:
I love how critics like to use the term gay bashing and say the Bible is being treated as a reference book by those who want to discuss moral standards and then import ideas they like into what it says, ignoring aspects of what the Bible actually says. God was there for all, in Jesus’ work. It is to be appropriated; it is not the product of entitlement. Jesus said as much to Nicodemus when he spoke of the necessity of being born again. Part of that appropriation is recognzing that we sin, all of us. Paul described where we were when he commented on the state of Roman culture in his time at the end of Romans 1 (vv 18-32). Part of what is so painful about the current discussion (and yes, tedious) is that people are slow to recognize we all have need of what Jesus provides, but that it is not something we get simply by being born. Receiving what God offers in Jesus also means gaining a moral sense about what pleases God. You can’t have Paul saying it is there for all and ignore what he says about morality.
dlb
James
While I appreciate the
While I appreciate the non-combative tone of these essays, there are several problems.
a) “There is a difference between what is described as taking place in the narrative and what the narrative endorses about the practice in question.”
Do you not find it a bit curious that the most minor transgressions against the very explicit laws of Leviticus (in which there is no mention of polygamy) resulted in ostracism or even death (such as the man gathering firewood on the Sabbath), but Scripture leaves it up to subtle narratives and plot lines for us to gather that polygamy is a moral evil? You can suggest anything you want, of course, but this is hardly reasonable.
b) “[T]here is something problematic allowing shifting civil social standards to dictate the defining of moral standards or the interpretation of religious standards.”
Certainly, the Bible and religion are useful in terms of how they influence our moral sensibilities. The fact is, however, that Christian societies have always and can only extrapolate the moral standards defined in Scripture using the interpretive lens of their own time and place. These views are often colored by the secular ideas of the culture of their time.
When the majority of people believed slavery was not a moral evil, well, Scripture conveniently agreed (see the essays of Thornton Stringfellow). When it was not a moral evil to use physical torture to “convert” unbelievers, it was used by Christians as a useful tool (http://www.biblestudying.net/johncalvin.html). Ask someone in 1955 if interracial marriage was not only distasteful but immoral, they would probably agree, and they would invoke the name of God and the Bible to buttress their own beliefs.
There may be a “true interpretation” of Scripture. Unfortunately, no one’s really going to know what it is, because the authors are no longer among the living, and the confusion that has been passed down over 2,000 years remains as witnessed by the countless arguments and disagreements among Christian denominations (even orthodox ones).
bock
appreciate dlb
James:
Thank you for commending the tone. It is important in a discussion like this and your response also fits that bill nicely.
As to substance. On your point 1. Some appreciation for the associations in the historical background of Leviticus might explain why certain laws were handled as emphatically as they were. Violation of the sabbath, to use your example, was seen as a marker of what made a faithful person in Israel. Keeping the Sabbath holy was marked out at the start as part of the Ten Commendments. But now for the more important point, the contrast you raise about subtle interpretation of narrative: How subtle is it really to read a story and see where polygamy gets those who practice it consistently into trouble? Of course, all of this also slips past the point made about where we are by the time of Jesus on marriage.
On point 2: I think it would be fair to say on slavery that opponents did exist through time. Paul even appears to suggest in 1 Cor 7 that if an opportunity existed to gain freedom to take it. Philemon certainly changes the way the role of the slave is seen in the context ot the culture. This blunts your initial point in that it is not clear that homosexuality as a practice or gay marriage as a practice has ever had its religious defenders until very recently nor does it have such counter-toned texts in Scripture. Let us turn tothe other examples. The use of physical violence to elicit a conversion the Bible saw as a choice (and pictured as such in parables like the Prodigal) is not a legitimate reading of the text (as I suspect you appreciate). I also know that the example you give on interracial marriage is not only a good example to raise, but often did meet with such a biblical claim, a claim that ignores the picture of reconciliation between nations that stands at the core of the gospel as articulated within the Bible. It also is true that sometimes our modern sensitivities do open us up to what the text is doing, but in this case (gay marriage) we are seeking an entire redefinition of an area consistently treated as wrong in Scripture– and very explciitly so. That is what my remark alluded to in speaking of a redefintion by modern and secular standards. This is why I referred to religious standards in making the remark. Here we are not discussing the interpretation of narrative texts, but the explicit declarations of passages laid out across time and in a variety of settings in Scripture. This kind of multiple attestation should speak for something that the examples you raise lack in terms of what the Bible explicitly says. Where are the counter-tone texts? For all the debate readings of the Bible do engender on certain issues (and there are some, but I do not think they are in the above examples for the reasons noted), I do not think one can say the Bible sends mixed or genuinely debatable interpretive signals on this issue.
dlb
James K
DLB writes: “How subtle is
DLB writes: “How subtle is it really to read a story and see where polygamy gets those who practice it consistently into trouble? ”
This seems a bit vague. Is there any Scriptural evidence to support the notion that any misfortune visited upon the polygamous prophets was indeed a manifestation of punishment from God? Many other prophets and patriarchs suffered misfortune, often as a result of actually being righteous and doing God’s will. How does having “trouble” indicate God’s displeasure necessarily?
Also, is there any evidence that the polygamous patriarchs repented of their practice of polygamy? Sure, David repented of adultery, but that’s the theft of the wife of another. I’m not aware of any similar repentance on the part of Abraham for his three wives or of “wise” Solomon for his hundreds, although there might be. (?)
My point is: you believe polygamy to be a sin. Nevertheless, God used unrepentant, polygamous men to establish the Judaic culture and religion: far from being condemned, these men were upheld as models of faith, and there is no indication that their salvation was ever called into question.
I can’t see why the same can’t be said for the faithful homosexual.
This is the “spirit of Scripture” I think the Newsweek author is alluding to.
bock
Subtle dlb
James:
It is far more subtle to argue that the "spirit of Scripture" allows for faithful homosexuality, when homosexuality is consistently condemned in the Bible and argued for as evidence of a moral lack in society (both OT and NT) than to argue that polygamy gets its proponents into trouble and thus is seen as less than ideal. Also I still find no one arguing that by the time we get to the NT we have moved away fromany claims about polygamy. My point about counter-tone texts in a previous responses to a comment applies here as well.
dlb
steph
Yes I’m quite aware of the
Yes I’m quite aware of the rhetoric. You still use the bible as a textbook yet you fail to see that the historical Jesus and Paul are poles apart. In fact you do not differentiate between the Aramaic speaking Jesus with his mission to return Jews to God, and the Jesus of later tradition – the Greek translators and the evangelists. As far as the homosexuality debate goes, the Bible got it wrong. They didn’t know everything. Jesus would have thought it was a sin, just as he thought eating shellfish was. Personally I don’t see why homosexuals would want to marry in a church and belong to a religion that treats them as lesser beings, but I hope one day people will overcome their ancient prejudice and allow homosexuals to be married by the state in the same way I was.
bock
quite aware dlb
Steph:
Not sure I agree with the differentiation you make between Paul and Jesus (but that is a searate discussion all its own). What I do appreciate is your honesty in articulating how you feel about the religious dimensions of the issue. There is no "cover" for you unlike the Newsweek article. I actually thinks that helps in the conversation make clear where the issues are.
dlb
John
homosexuality and shellfish
Steph,
It is important to remember that you cannot parallel homosexuality and eating shellfish. Christian condemnation of homosexuality is grounded in creation ethics. Within Christian discussion, the creation continues to be solid ground for determining what God wants. Just look at Paul’s appeals to the creation when he limits the options of women in the church, or later patristic vs. gnostic arguments over the goodness of the creation. Eating shellfish is not part of creation ethics and, like so many other Levitical laws, it is seen as having ended its purpose in the post resurrection world.
I agree with you that homosexuality should be seen as an acceptable option when it comes to issues of state marriage. However, I do not think Christians are inconsistent within their religion for believing homosexuality is immoral while also ignoring other non-creation laws such as eating shellfish. Of course America is not, nor ever was, a Christian country and so I understand that you would object if specifically Christian ethics concerning homosexuality are pressed onto everyone. I share that concern.
Red Monkey
Response to Steph
Steph hopes that “one day people will overcome their ancient prejudice and allow homosexuals to be married by the state,” yet she hasn’t provided any *argument* as to why those whith their “ancient prejudice” should adopt her view. I realize she can’t do to much via blog comments, but perhaps if she did not spend time making assertions that are irrelevant (Jesus and Paul disagree, Jesus thought eating shellfish was a sin, etc…) she could at least give us a thumbnail sketch of what an argument for homosexual marriage would look like while avoiding straw-men (the church thinks homosexuals are lesser beings).
People will never have a meaningful dialogue or let go of their prejudices as long as they continue to react with such rhetoric. Such people are actually part of the problem.
pf
OT-NT
Darrell, the fact that there is progression in the opinions of the biblical authors about polygamy in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament actually argues for a more logical explanation (although to be precise, the NT does not say polygamy is a sin).
Did God change his mind about what is right and wrong, like polygamy, slavery, eating pork and wearing clothes with dual fabrics? If he did, he’s a vacillating creature.
It’s more logical that the views of people changed over time and and as a result, their conception of what God wanted changed accordingly. The books assign to God’s will their own prejudices. The ancient Israelites killed their enemies and ascribed their blood lust to God (such as the prescription to take a “vagina or two” as spoils of war). Jesus had a different idea (and no way to defeat the Romans in battle even if he wanted to), so his theology was different.
bock
OT-NT dlb
pf:
On no discussion in NT of polygamy as a sin: Do not get caught in the word-concept fallacy. To define marriage as between a man and a woman (as Jesus does) and to speak against adultery is to call polygamy a sin. One does not have to use the word to have the concept. In addition, I Cor 7 does speak of a person having his/her own spouse in the singular (vv 2, 39).
Also to change a law is not necessarily to change one’s mind and be vacillating. Some of these practices were tied to cultural practices and associations tied to idolatry, which is why Israel was not to perform them at one point. As these practices lost that significance, they lost the need for performing them. The adminstrative differences Jesus introduced were part of a program associated with the new era Jesus brought (why he spoke about new wineskins). The situation with the war and taking of the land is unique in the OT and also is tied with dealing with idolatry and child sacrifice tied to such worship at the time.
Again none of this touches directly on the issue of gay marriage.
dlb
pf
Of course it does
These things have everything to do with gay marriage. The point is that the Bible is a book that reflects the ideas of its authors, not some divine instruction. And thus arguing against gay marriage because the Bible says it is a sin is to side with a primitive culture which had an unreasonable and barbaric prejudice.
To buttress this point, I note that many of the writers of the Bible had no problems with slavery, polygamy and genocide and did have problems with so many things that seem bizarre today.
And to associate a wholesale change in what constitutes a sin as “administrative differences Jesus introduced as part of his program” is bizarre. What, God rolled out the new Coke? Either eating pork was a sin or it wasn’t. Why did God ever care what people ate? Either homosexuality is deserving of death or it isn’t.
bock
of course pf
pf:
It will help if what you describe the Bible as saying is accurately what it says. Eating pork was a matter of clean and uncleanness for Israel. This is not the same as being sin or not. It was to be avoided but it did not mean one had sinned. It did prevent one entering the temple– that is what cultic impurity was about. It is a distinct category from sin. OT scholars can help you here. But this is really a side point.
The case you are arguing is that the Bible is not divine revelation but a human book. To quote you, "The point is that the Bible is a book that reflects the ideas of its authors, not some divine instruction." Now this actually agrees with the point I made in my original post as well as in the second one. The debate is not as much about what the Bible says on this specific issue, but what the Bible is and how it is used in this discussion. The argument you make is one that views the Bible to be like any other book. As I noted in my first post, this is obviously a view people hold, but it is not a view that can be called one rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which does have a category for God’s Word. So your appeal fits into what I was trying to say in part in my posts. This is a discussion between those within a religious tradition and those who operate in a more secular manner. I am not trying to make a judgment here, just trying to be descriptive of what is going on. Part of what I complained about in the Newsweek piece was a religious cover they were trying to give to their discussion, a cover I did not think reflected the tradition they claimed to represent when their starting point (in Meacham’s piece) was that the nature of sexuality is the starting point for this discussion, along with the Miller article’s attempt to dismiss what the Bible did say on the topic (in part through an incomplete presentation of what the Bible does say on the topic). These distinct starting points significantly impact how the views discuss the issue.
As to whether arguing against gay marriage is to side with a "primitive culture which had an unreasonable and barbaric prejudice." That is the question. I actually am tackling that issue in my next post which treats homosexuality directly. Up to this point, the posts have dealt with other issues. But let’s reflect on what you are claiming about homosexuality, cultures, and prejudice. Has humanity only become emlightened on this issue in the last 50 years? Has the stream of human views on this specific matter only seen the light so recently? Is it not the case that for many centuries, this kind of relationship has been questioned, questioned in circles including those having nothing to do with the Bible? Are we limited only to what the Bible says here in making this judgment about how this has been seen as a matter of culture? I think history will show that is not the case. In other words, the question extends beyond whatever one may think about what the Bible says. It touches on issues of human identity and gender "design" — on how we see creation and society. Perhaps what you call an "unreasonable and barbaric prejudice" is not that at all. Perhaps human judgment over the centuries reflects the counsel of a wide range of human thinking involving a variety of cultures over a long period of time that has come to the reasoned judgment that something is not quite right here and that the impact is societal and thus worthy of real concern.This was actually going to be the point of my next post. So you have the preview. One of the points I have made is that unlike the other topics you raise (pork, slavery, genocide), where there are counter-tone texts for these topics, there are no such counter-tone texts for this topic in the Bible. It is clear that these other issues were not seen in a permanent kind of light within the Bible. Pork, slavery, and the example of genocide in the taking of the land [an event I already described as exceptional and not one that was to be a rule] all have texts pointing to their less than absolute role. Nothing like that exists for this topic in Scripture. So there is also in these deliberations a question of scale (both inside and outside the Bible) we should keep our eye on.
dlb
Red Monkey
PF’s Assertion
PF states, “It’s more logical that the views of people changed over time and and as a result, their conception of what God wanted changed accordingly.” But, like some other commentators, PF fails to provide any evidence or argumentation for such a view. How does one weigh that it is *more logical* that people changed their concept of God over time because their views on polygamy changed (since PF brings up that issue) than what Bock is saying, that polygamy was never condoned in the first place? It seems to me that the first thing you would have to do is find an OT *prescription* that says polygamy is good.
Even if one could find a prescription regarding how polygamy is to be carried out (can you?) this does not logically lead to saying God endorses polygamy. As one Christian apologist has cited G. Wenham, “The law sets a minimum standard of behaviour, which if transgressed attracts sanction…What legislators and judges tolerate may not be what they approve. Laws generally set a floor for behaviour within society, they do not prescribe an ethical ceiling. Thus a study of the legal codes within the Bible is unlikely to disclose the ideals of the law-givers, but only the limits of their tolerance: if you do such and such, you will be punished. The laws thus tend to express the limits of socially acceptable behaviour: they do not describe ideal behavior,” (Story as Torah, 80).
Even if PF could prove that the Bible presents God as approving polygamy (rather than tolerating it) and then as disapproving it, it still wouldn’t necessarily follow that *PF’s explanation as to why this is the case* is more logical (probable) than some other explanation. For example, I think PF would agree that some “goods” are only relevant within a certain culture and yet just as morally binding, within that culture, as goods which transcend any particular culture. Thereofre, PF would have to show that the grounds of God’s approval/disapproval is not tied to some temporary (like culture) circumstance. Because if my hypothetical “therefore” is the case, then it is not clear why PF’s explanation is more logical than an explanation which may ground the command to something relevant only within that culture.
Of course, all of this will be extremely difficult (impossible) with PF’s chosen issue of polygamy. I suggest PF try something more obvious like say, a cultic injunction, which Christians no longer follow. But then PF loses some of his rhetorical (emotional) force and then PF will have to deal with Bock’s explanation above and show why it is less logical (probable) than PF’s. In the end, my guess is that PF will have to push the entire question back as to whether it is more probable than not that the Christian God exists. In which case, we see that PF has really been begging the question to enter the discussion at this level.
James
DLB writes: “To define
DLB writes: “To define marriage as between a man and a woman (as Jesus does) and to speak against adultery is to call polygamy a sin. ”
So polygamy is a sin: let’s assume that to be a fact.
Again, was there any recording of any Old Testament patriarch repenting of this particular sin? Did God demand they let loose one or more of their wives before He would converse or otherwise use them? Is the salvation of any of the prophets/patriarchs in question? Abraham had multiple wives, so did David (a “man after God’s own heart”). Are they in Hell or not?
If they are, I guess the discussion’s over.
Otherwise, if God can not only use unrepentant polygamists but use them as the bearers of the entire Judeo-Christian tradition, is it unreasonable to suggest that one can label homosexuality as “falling short” while still believing the homosexual person can be a person of faith who can achieve salvation EVEN as a homosexual?
Besides, there are fewer excuses for the Old Testament men: they had a closer connection to God than just about any human since, and it’s easier by far for a heterosexual to have one spouse than it is for a homosexual to “switch teams”, so to speak.
bock
To define dlb
James:
All sin and fall short of the glory of God. No one "achieves" salvation on the basis of their own work. A reading of Romans 3:19-26 makes this point. This is why we all (yes, anyone and everyone, both me and you) are to seek forgiveness from God. God uses people who "fall short" all the time. He is in the business of doing this. Part of this process is recognizing what our need is because we do all sin. There are no perfect people in heaven, only forgiven ones. Part of what forgiveness does (or, at least should do) is make us sensitive to our sin, not indifferent to it or seeking to justify it. Yet we do all fail to meet God’s standards and he does forgive us. So your point allows me to stress something that often does go missing in this discussion, and that is God’s mercy and power to forgive sin. Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery to make this very point. But then he exhorted her to go and sin no more, to show where the opportunity to be forgiven should take us, to pursue a moral life. Forgiveness is not an entitlement; it is to be sought, which is why the Bible also speaks of repentance. What the complaint of many is on this issue is that the Bible can speak so directly and consistently about homosexuality and then people will defend it as natural or morally acceptable. (We have already noted in previous posts that this consistency places this discussion in a distinct category even from issues like polygamy). I am glad God is gracious, but at the same time that does not absolve me of being responsible to live morally.
As for what is "easier," I am not sure I agree there at all. Adultery shows that many are not able to be faithful to just one wife– but that does not make adultery right.
dlb
Red Monkey
PF and Bock
As I thought, PF simply has to say the Bible is not God’s Word. (I submitted my reply before PF’s response was posted.) But of course, when he/she goes on to say it is “an unreasonable and barbaric prejudice” he/she begs the question, as Bock points out. Pf, to butress his/her point that, I assume, the Biblical ethic is “unreasonable and barbaric”, cites the fact that the Bible authors had no problem with slavery, polygamy, and genocide. Of course, he/she only continues to reason in a circle when he/she cites slavery and genocide (it’s promotion of polygamy is still an unfounded assertion).
To say, “And to associate a wholesale change in what constitutes a sin as “administrative differences Jesus introduced as part of his program” is bizarre.” is to work with a very narrow view of ethics which apparently either ignores or disregards the possibility of the moral value of thing being contingent on the situation (I’m not promoting anything like Fletcher’s situational ethics).
I don’t mean to sidetrack the focus of this series, but I’m not sure I agree with you, DLB, that, “Eating pork was a matter of clean and uncleanness for Israel. This is not the same as being sin or not. It was to be avoided but it did not mean one had sinned. It did prevent one entering the temple– that is what cultic impurity was about. It is a distinct category from sin.”
It certainly seems from the text that a person who disobeyed the dietary laws was guilty of sin: “Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Le 11:43-45). Even though the passage doesn’t specifically say that the person who eats the unclean food is sinning, it seems reasonable to arrive at that conclusion because God’s people were supposed to be sanctified. In other words, the text does make clear that they had a moral obligation to sanctify themselves and be holy. It wasn’t optional. According to this text, it would seem that keeping the dietary laws was one of they ways that they maintained this sanctity. A person’s failure to observe the dietary laws would result in a loss of sanctity and, therefore, would also fail to keep their moral obligation.
Admittedly, you are probably more qualified than me in this issue. Perhaps you have something in mind that I’ve missed.
bock
PF and Bock dlb
Red Monkey:
On uncleanness and sin: I understand why you ask the question and why you raise an objection. The question here is whether defiling is equal to sin or simply "desanctifies" (if I can coin a term). The term translated abominable in Leviticus means to do something horrible or detesting to the soul. So this act is offensive, and renders one cultically disqualified, but it is not as severe a category as sin. This is why a washing can suffice versus a sacrifice to restore cleanliness (Lev 11:24-25) and why its effect only lasts for a time. Hope this helps.
dlb
Matt Evans
PF and Bock
So, Dr. Bock, what would you define sin as? I’m looking in the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (McKim 1996, 260) and it says, “sin is the human condition of separation from God that arises from opposition to God’s purposes. It may be breaking God’s law, failing to do what God wills, or rebellion.”
It seems to me that failing to obey the command to “sanctify yourselves” (Le 11:44), in this case by not eating that which is unclean, would be “failing to do what God wills.”
I don’t believe that McKim is infallible, so I was curious if you had a slightly different take on “sin.”
bock
Pf and Bock dlb
Matt:
What I am saying is that an act in the OT that does not require a sacrifice but simply runs out in effect after time is not sin; it is cultically inadequate yet not seen in the same light as sin. For example, a person in the OT who touches a dead body to bury it is unclean, but burying someone is not sin; burial is also required, and simply results in uncleanliness. Sin is disobedience of a moral standard as defined by God. Uncleanliness is an act of offense but is seen and treated as distinct from sin. By the way, this may be one reason why the eating of unclean food was not passed on to the NT period, because it was not seen as violation of a moral standard but as an issue of and an offense against cultic practice. I know the distinction is a fine one (and is discussed), but I think the texts themselves seem to sustain some kind of difference. By the way sin is not a condition of separation as the definition in McKim claims. Sin results in separation and alienation, but sin is the act or thought that violates the moral standard. I hope this helps. It is important to remember we are not used to thinking about the category of uncleanness.
dlb
Jason
Homosexuals
Homosexuals are people who have an unclean spirt.
thats it…. even reading about it and bloging about it shows how far we have moved away from God and that the devil has come into his greatest power he has ever had on this earth.
Matt
Homosexuals
That was tactful.
Ryan Hammack
Another subject
This is unrelated to the above discussion but I want to post this somewhere. Dr. Bock, why not discuss the potent issue of Israeli raids on Gaza on the blog? How are Christians all over the world to consider it? Is it too controversial?
bock
Another Subject dlb
Ryan:
I might address this in the future. I am not sure, however, I have enough expertise about what is going on currently to address the situation with appropriate care and understanding. This is not a matter of the topic being controversial; it is a matter of speaking about an important topic with a good knowledge of the situation. There are many people caught in the middle of this. Do pray for them.
dlb
Anonymous
Re: Marriage, in Light of Homosexuality
Over the years of my Christian walk, I have had to come to terms with my thoughts on homosexuality for two reasons: 1/ What is spoken in the Scriptures, i.e., the Bible, and 2/ What are the causes of homosexuality?
When I come away from the Sacred Scriptures, I see looking at me square in the face, a God Who above all things, is at the center of His Being, Agape, and a most merciful God beyond measure! With these understandings, and of course this is not exhaustive in my mind, we as His children, must ourselves come away from our study of the Sacred Scriptures, with that same character, for the Plan of Salvation teaches us that we are given salvation in a moment in time, in our acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior from sin, and Lord and Master of our lives, however, only those who are constantly in the process of becoming more like Him in character [i.e., constantly walking a winning Sanctification — see Revelation 3: 5: “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.”], can actually be brought into the Kingdom of Heaven, and continue our eternal lives upon the Earth Made New! This must be the motivation within our Christian walk, not a hoped for Kingdom, not eternal life, not anything other than becoming so much like Jesus in Character, we can be trusted to be taken into Heaven, by the Creator God! Remember we are told in Nahum: “What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time” (Nahum 1: 9, KJV).
Regardless what we desire to speak of, our characters which are to be of agape, must always be shown in our comprehending a topic, and our summary upon that topic, having considered all of the pros and cons, thus arriving at a conclusion which both expresses as well as exalts the True Character of God. This can only be done by our usage of His criteria [that which is between Genesis 1: 1 and Revelation 22: 21], that all things needed for mankind to become even as He is in character, is used to bring about any and every conclusion! This is the only hope for us as children of God, for we are warned that if we add or subtract from the criteria, we shall be found unworthy to live eternally, AND worthy of the curses the Scriptures hold for evil-doers.
There is a perfectly stated concept which the Apostle Paul uses from within the Book of Romans: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit [There is but one Way to be found worthy for Heaven, and that is to walk after the Spirit, and not after the flesh! Flesh {Greek, sarx}, here, means that I am a person who is only and always interested in the things of this world, and hence we have the ability to use the word ‘humanistic’ here as we use the word ‘flesh,’ to identify those Paul is trying to identify in human life]. 2: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus [There are two laws being spoken of in this single verse, meaning as I see things, two axioms: First axiom: The Law of the Spirit of like in Christ Jesus, i.e., anyone in whom the Spirit of Christ lives, will be accepted into eternal life; his/her name shall not be blotted from the Book of Life {Revelation 3: 5 above}, because this number 1 axiom] hath made me free from the law of sin and death [Second Axiom: All come into the world, able to be happy with how this world’s polity continues, because Adam’s sin at the tree, has made all his children more apt to seek selfishness than to seek selflessness, the latter, being the character of the one from Earth who walks in the First Axiom]. 3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh [What the torah could not do, in pointing out what we SHOULD DO, was to give us the power to do what we should do, i.e., live as we should live being the children of God. Truth was, we were not born as God’s children at all, but children of the first Adam, who gave his allegiance to Satan, hence, in him, we too have thus given our allegiance to Satan], God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh [‘in the likeness means not exactly like sinful flesh, and as I have studied this point for thirty-five years, I have found this can only mean, Jesus was not exactly sinful flesh, for only one reason: He DID NOT SIN, whereas all others have sinned in sinful flesh!’], and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh [I.E., EVEN THOUGH BECOMING SIN FOR US, BECAUSE JESUS DID NO SIN IN SINFUL FLESH, HE THEREFORE FINALLY DESTROYED THE LAW WHICH SAID THAT IF YOU COME INTO THIS WORLD IN SINFUL FLESH, YOU MUST SIN! This law again as I see it, had to have been the basis for Lucifer’s claim against the Throne of God, for in order to obscure his real reason for rebelling [coveting the place & title of the Son of God], Lucifer called down the character of God, by casting doubt on His Law, telling the angels they all must continually be slaves to God, by walking in His Law. If he were god, Lucifer said, he would allow all those of the angelic realm, to be free! This ploy not only succeeded in taking down one third of the angelic realm, but the same lie at the Tree, brought down Eve, and her husband, Adam, causing all the world to know nothing of true freedom, for James the Lord’s half-brother, calls the Decalogue, the ‘law of liberty’ {see James 1: 25 & 2: 12}, thus showing us that Satan is the one who causes all to walk in slavery not in freedom. This comprehension allows us to see what happened at the Throne of God, i.e., by looking at what occurred at the Tree, and following the words of Romans 8 as we do here, we are able to see what happened in Heaven]:
4: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us [Firstly, we see here, there is righteousness in following the law; our problem however, is that we find it easier to walk in opposition to the law, than to walk according to the law. This, i.e., walk according to the law, Jesus did, that the righteousness of the law might in our receiving Him, be fulfilled in us!], who walk not after the flesh [humanism], but after the Spirit [allowing the Spirit of Christ to be the Ruler of our human lives, rather than wanting ‘self’ to reign in this life!]. 5: For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6: For to be carnally minded is death [for any human to allow the ‘self’ to rule their sinful flesh, they will only and forever know, this life about us, which at its best times, we still know trials!]; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace [To allow the Spirit of Christ, rather than the ‘self,’ to rule our sinful flesh in this world, will bring about our being chosen ‘in Him,’ for an eternity of living, in a Land that is only peace and agape!]. 7: Because the carnal mind is enmity against God [THIS IS THE POINT! Humanism, our living for this life alone, blinds us to the things of God, AND the things of God, are found, only in following after His Law, and this is the way unto everlasting life, and can only be found in His Sacred Scriptures, thus being in obedience to them, because ‘self’ has been denied, and the Spirit of Christ rules us here and now! This life, therefore, has been given up, that we might partake of the eternal life, which is then ours, by FAITHfully following after His Word!]: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be [Humanism is the problem in all sin! Only in obeying the word of God, do we show, that we are worthy ‘in Him,’ to have an eternity of life, that shall be more wonderful than our greatest wishes!].
8: So then they that are in the flesh [that walk in this life selfishly] cannot please God.
9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you [AGAIN, the point: If the Spirit indwells you, you are not living your own selfish life here on planet Earth, but rather you are allowing that ‘the self’ is put in abeyance, so that the greater life might be sought after and found!]. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his [Again, this speaks to the truth of all the words here, from verse one to nine: Only the Spirit-filled, and self-emptied individual, belong to God!]” (Romans 8: 1-9, KJV, emphasis & notations mine)!
It is simply a truthful look into these Two Laws, which shall allow the homosexual to see, whether she/he is selfishly involved with this world alone, or that she/he is desirous of an eternity of living with God! ONLY ONE LIFE CAN BE LIVED of the two, thus if a selfish life on planet Earth is lived, that individual has given away his/her right to eternal life! All that needs be asked, is this self-evident question: “What would occur, if the whole world were homosexual?” Rather than everyone standing and laughing and screaming “The whole world would finally be happy!” the truth is told in these words which alone are true: “The human race will eventually become extinct!” This is as far as we can go therefore, without hurting an individual, in coming to the conclusion concerning the homosexual lifestyle. It cannot be godly due to the extinction of mankind locked into the actions, and thus the only choice for truth, is that homosexuality is an enemy to mankind, and must be avoided at all costs! Only those whose reason in deciding other than this is selfish, shall indeed call the opposite!
Jim
Anonymous writes: “if the
Anonymous writes: “if the whole world were homosexual … The human race will eventually become extinct!”
My response, quoting Paul (who remained single) (1 Corinthians 7)
“I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. … Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. …. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. ”
Not exactly high praise for marriage. Thankfully, generations ignored Paul’s advice about remaining single and went ahead and chose the “lesser” option. Otherwise, Anon, you wouldn’t be here either.
Anonymous
I think this thread has
I think this thread has probably passed it’s use by date and I haven’t checked it since I wrote my last comment but now I see I have a couple of indignant replies – I only read the first.. The problem with Christianity is that it is very selective in its use of the texts, choosing words, manipulating them, to serve its beliefs (who exactly was Paul talking about!). How can you say I can’t compare the abomination of eating shellfish, trimming fringes etc and homosexuality and then talk about “creation ethics”?! The creation stories are written by men, they are stories to explain how we came to exist and it is naive to think they are literal reality. Men get things wrong – they didn’t discuss homosexuality in creation and they didn’t understand it. The need to procreate was greater then, and first on their minds as child mortality was higher. Homosexuality, praciticed openly by the Greeks would have made them aware of different sexual desires and would have been viewed with negative judgement as it conflicted with their developing culture. How were they even to begin to understand that all men are not the same and all women are not the same? Homosexuality exists in animals, and humans too. We don’t all look the same, we don’t even look the same inside and we certainly have different levels of intellectual ability and think differently. We have different fears, different favourite colours…. Why should our sexuality be the same?
However hoping to convince Christians, who cling to book, documenting the history of thinking of Jewish and early Christian peoples, like a text book, is like hoping America will stop meddling in world affairs and Middle eastern politics – a hope that even the election of Obama has failed to fulfill.
bock
I think dlb
Anonymous:
Thank you for taking the time to express yourself here. The differences are clear as you note. By the way, there was nothing indignant in the reply. Disagreement does not equal indignancy. We just do not agree that all the passages in Scripture work the same way or in the same way (something I think you also are trying to argue in your own way. Something almost all biblical interpreters do recognize takesplace in the Bible). I find it ironic you can seek to explain it one way but the other explanation is not possible. As to whether homosexuality was not discussed in the past; it was and was seen as immoral. Your observation about the Greeks makes the point. Your key argument is people are created this way and that. I agree that people are created with a variety of tendencies but that alone does not make those tendencies right or moral (I can think of simple categories like being capable of sin in general or something specfic like a susceptibility to drug addiction).
dlb
steph
I wasn’t responding to
I wasn’t responding to indignance in your response Darrell. It wasn’t seen as immoral in all non Jewish cultures. How early are the texts to which you imply discuss homosexuality other than Leviticus? Why did God create people with homosexual “tendencies” and expect them to lead lives unfulfilled by love natural to them? You make a very bad analogy with susceptibility to addiction or sin. We are all susceptible to wrong doing and I have my own battle with OCD. Dealing with these issues is not at all like someone having to deny their natural sexuality.
I find it ironic that you can say to me that I seek to explain it one way but the other explanation is not possible … isn’t it ironic that you can seek to explain it one way but not perceive the other explanation possible?
I wonder what we will talk about next time I find myself sitting beside you during an SBL. 🙂
bock
Wasn’t responding dlb
Steph:
The question you raise, that such desire is innate, is an important one. I noted at the end of my Post 4, as well as in Post 1, that this is a key claim in the dialogue. I am planning a post to address it directly as a single issue to focus on. It is that important. My goal up to this point has simply been to challenge the framing of the discussion by Newsweek as if religion did not matter for some people who object to gay marriage and their claim that a better Judeo-Christian approach was to neuter what the Bible says about the issue, while ignoring key pieces of what the Bible does say.
So what about the claim of being innate. I will say more about this in the planned post, but for now let me just say this. That something is or might be innate does not make it right. You did not like the equation of homosexuality with either addiction or sin. I am not surprised. To acknowledge this opens the door to a more complex discussion of the issue. One of the reasons, I suspect, is that you think my "bad analogy" begs the point by suggesting such sexual desire is a sin. I do not think that was my point, so let me explain. Let’s go with your OCD or another example innate to many, lust. My mere point was two-fold: (1) being an innate desire does not mean something is a moral desire and (2) certain people do have proclivities that make them more susceptible to go in a certain direction and engage in a given practice than others (certain addictions). A moral choice in part is a disciplined response about what to do involving tendencies in us that may take us in a potentailly destructive direction. Let’s take your OCD. Now why not just say your OCD is innate (ie, it is a natural personality element created by God) and so you should just go with it? Well, it is because something else in you says, this is destructive and needs to be controlled. Lust works similarly. A question to raise then is, whether sexual desire for another person of the same sex operates in the same kind of way. What makes this tricky is that heterosexual desire (also innate) is also often very destructive and needs to be controlled as a conscious moral act. This is why we reject adultery as morally defective. Part of what people are debating in homosexual practice is whether it is inherently immoral. Does accepting it without blinking an eye mean embracing something that ought to be disciplined as a moral response? In other words, is the issue as distinct as you claim? Some say it is innate, so the discipline is to keep it in a faithful context. Others say it is unnatural, an offense to creation in terms of gender differentiation (and thus unlike OCD or mere lust), so there is more to this act than others. I think this is where our differecne lies.
By the way I never said homosexuality was seen as immoral in all cultures, only in most. I place the writing of Genesis and Leviticus several centuries before the time of Christ. Its roots go back to the monotheism of Moses. But the range of time involved in all the texts that address the topic in the Bible covers more than a millennium.
Now I am spending a lot of time in responses correcting how you characterize what I say (Fundamentalist in the previous post; homosexuality is seen as immoral in all non-Jewish cultures; certain readings not possible now. Exaggerating someone’s position does not help engage the real position). For example, you say I take a certain reading (ones you take) as not possible. That is not correct. I see the various readings we debate as possible, that is why I do not just dismiss them, but engage them. However, I do not find all possible readings compelling or likely for reasons I present.
If you find yourself next to me at an SBL, by all means introduce yourself. I’d love to chat.
dlb
steph
We already have in Vienna
We already have in Vienna after a Stanley Porter paper.
bock
Vienna dlb
Steph:
I think I remember this now. Thanks for the reminder.
dlb
steph
I see you have not approved
I see you have not approved my comment. Perhaps it got lost. I know what innate means thank you but my definition does not contain God. I think my OCD is not innate but as it developed and accelerated through my early life it has become who I am and I have learned to cope with it. Like homosexuality it is not destructive and I don’t think I would have gone anywhere near the synoptic problem if I hadn’t been like I am.
You are mistaken is accusing me of misrepresenting you. 1. I described your approach as fundamentalist, not in order to dismiss you but in observation of the contrast with my secular approach for example, 2, I never said you said that homosexuality was immoral in all non-Jewish cultures – I was merely making a claim that it wasn’t! How can that be an accusation that you said the opposite? 3. And as for having already made up your mind and not being fair and open minded as you imply you are (and I never said I hadn’t already made up my mind – I’m not governed by the Christian Bible) you admit that in your later post.
Have a nice trip to India.
bock
dismissed dlb
Steph:
Sorry this took so long to respond to and post.
I can finally get to this because my access here in India is quite restricted. I cannot use my machine at this site.
On your responses: I notice you skipped over lust. I think you get the point (without having to agree to it). Not every response in us that seems ingrained is moral. In fact, some tendencies deep within require attention and correction. No effort here to define innate for you, simply making the point that to say it is there and deep does not answer the morality question.
On pt 1: If you are describing my approach as fundamentalist, then I think you do not understand most fundamentalists. That was my point and the claim I make of labeling still stands, although your response saying your secular appraoch is an alternative is noted and I agree that is where the discussion lies as my posts have said. The Newsweek argument is a secular one, not a religious one.
On Pt. 2: I thought you were responding to a specific description I made in that post about other religions and cultures adn syaing mor ethan I claimed. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry for misunderstanding you here.
On pt. 3: I never implied I am open on this question in my responses. I came in responding to claims Newsweek made about the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. However, I do take my position having attepted to hear the issue people raise. I have formed opnions on their cogency is all.
dlb
Anonymous
What about love? Are people
What about love? Are people that are against homosexuality only against sex, and what do they have to say about the relationship between love and sex?
Do people not see how flawed some parts of the bible are? How can people criticise fundamentalism in other cultures and not see it rampant in their own?
Why can’t we take the beautiful, universal and transcendant passages from the bible, and leave behind all the useless prescriptive vestiges about how people should and shouldn’t lead their lives?
Sorry but if you are concerned in 2009 about whether homosexuality is a sin, then you are about as far from the “good news” as you can possibly get.
And at this rate it will take a great many more prophets than Jesus and his predecessors to usher in the supposedly-desired “kingdom”.
lenscap
Using the bible to defend oppression?
Why use “sacred” texts to defend intolerance? Christians who reject homosexuality remind me of Muslims who advocate veils and beatings for women – because it’s written in the Qu’ran. How can Christians use the same scripture-based attacks that Muslims use?
Why can’t Christians see the plight of homosexuals as the same persecution the early church faced under Rome? Christians were a distinct minority, seen as cultists worshipping a convicted criminal: ridiculous, don’t you agree? Then how can Christians use similar arguments for other minorities?
How can Christians sit on the sidelines and even tactily advocate oppressive laws that seek to contain and delimit homosexuals to be judged by society?
It’s written in the bible? The Bible was written by men – not by god(s) – and god “himself” was created… by men. The Torah was written by men, the Bible was written by men, and the Qu’ran too, was written by men.
This is just my opinion. Even though I’m atheist, I find many passages in the Bible to be wonderful. The basic message is tolerance and opening your heart.
Many passages, however, are vague or irrelevant in 2009. And some passages are just wrong. Just like the Qu’ran.
If Christians cannot sort the “good news” from their Bible and leave behind all that is pure rubbish, then, like any other religion before and after theirs, they will pervert all that is good and pure about humanity.
Someone please explain to me how not allowing gays to marry is different from not allowing blacks to sit in the front of the bus.
Someone tell me that the Bible has not historically been used to advocate the oppression of Jews.
Why can’t people see these texts for what they are, full of contradictions, both good and bad and that any value they hold for humanity is in their ability to be re-interpreted, or even superceded by greater, more-refined texts?
When will the faithful, of all religions be able to get together and put their God-inspired texts to good use?
Islam and Christianity are evolutions of the Jewish tradition. Didn’t Constantine evolve? What on earth is wrong with evolution? Does not God evolve, does not the heart evolve?
William Ross
It is more complicated than that!
lenscap, I very much appreciated your post, but I think it is not the end of the story….
Bad dogmas have horrific implications for society – on this point you are ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON. We can all breathe better now that human slavery of innocents has been rejected by US law (if not practice) DESPITE the Biblical condoning of the same. CLEARLY the South was “Biblically correct” in embracing slavery, AND BEATING THEIR SLAVES WITHIN AN INCH OF THEIR LIVES, while morally repugnant. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
But it is my considered opinion that this does not mean that all issues are resolved by inclusivism, or that the norms of the Bible have nothing useful to say. It CERTAINLY does not mean that Newsweek correctly “gets” the import of the scripture texts better than others do.
So, yes, we need to be willing to CAN the mores of ancient texts when we make our laws. But no, we can’t let Newsweek pontificate what the texts say. Nor can we operate as a society on the principle of “the more liberal the approach, the better.”
My own thinking runs thus:
* the scriptures are half correct when they define marriage. A man and a woman DO NOT become one flesh by the mere sexual act, as Paul affirms:
1Co 6:16 Or do you not know that anyone who is united with12 a prostitute is one body with her?13 For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”14
Come on! Really? That is silly!
The concept of “one flesh” is only biologically realized upon conception of a child. A child, biologically speaking, IS the union of two individuals. The embryo IS the “scrambled eggs” that the scriptures were clumsily addressing.
Or was it clumsy? Sexual unions between a man and a woman are correctly presumed to potentially give rise to a child, even if it is the union of a man and a prostitute! Sex produces babies!
So, I think Paul’s remarks cloud the issue, as do Moses’, while at the same time establishing a marital norm. Men “leave their father and mother and cleave to a woman and produce babies, and thus become one flesh.”
That is normal.
Male-male unions and female-female unions fly in the face of the entire natural world and do not produce babies. No amount of semen, sloshing around in a man’s rectum, will ever produce the union described as “one flesh.”
So let’s look at the Constitution and the rule of law….
The government of the US of A has NO INTEREST (or should have no interest) in celebrating love unions. However, when two people produce, OR ARE DEEMED LIKELY TO PRODUCE, an offspring that entails the RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES of two people, the government MUST, by a logical, biological, Constitutional and moral imperative, step in to protect the parties and enforce the societal duties of the father, the mother and the child.
So, screw the Quran and screw the “Bible” to the degree that they present barbaric, outdated moralities, but when biology presents a clear moral imperative (and the complete absence of one, in the case of the biologically anomalous homosexuals), then you go with that.
Clearly, evolution does NOT select for homosexuality. Not only are they a statistical anomaly (3%), but the very principle of the survival of the fittest FORBIDS an intrinsically infertile couple from being genetically selected. Clearly it is a preference of the palate, not a feature of the genes.
My view is to put scripture in its place, subject to biological insight, and to reject “gay marriage” until such time as they are capable of producing a genetic pairing such that a father and mother both have a genetic interest in the child, protectable by society and the Constitution.
The view from here…
steph
I’m disappointed you appear
I’m disappointed you appear to have decided not to approve my response correcting your accusations, posted twice. I had thought better of you.
bock
disappointed dlb
Steph:
Another accusation? I am in India where I have very limited Net access. So I just got to these.Responses are coming when I get time.
Dlb