Like Button

Thursday, May 28, 2009

The Homosexual Argument

Many still remember the popular television series, The West Wing. I don't. Well, I saw exactly one episode or, to be more precise, part of one episode. In the series there was a famous scene (you can find it on YouTube if you look) where Martin Sheen as the President puts a famous radio talk show host in her place for believing that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is an abomination. The show called on the well known, deeply revered Bible knowledge of Hollywood writers to exegete the passages in question for the benefit of all believers everywhere so we could see how wrong we've had it all these centuries. It was a resounding smack down about how much the President hated anyone who had the view that the Bible actually teaches against homosexuality. I'll call it "antihomophobe" where they respond strongly without actually offering ... well, we'll get there.

The truth is that the arguments cause some people problems. Faced with such problems, people can choose a few possible courses. They can ignore the objections ("I know what's right; I'm not listening to you."), agree with the objections ("Hmm, never thought of that. Perhaps I've been wrong all along about the subject."), or face the objections down. I'm offering the last. Why is it that I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin, and what do I do with the standard objections? Let me say at the start that it is not my aim or hope to sway people. If you've decided that there's nothing sinful about the act, my bit of logic won't make much difference. I get that. You have the same options as I've offered above. My hope is that some people who have either ignored the objections or faced the objections and found themselves wanting will have better footing. So if you plan to refute my position, be aware that it is not something I haven't thought through nor is it likely that "You're so wrong" will be an argument that might sway me, nor do you need to feel like I'm attacking your position.

The standard argument for the position that homosexuals are sinning comes first, foremost, and, indeed, clearest from the Old Testament. It is the one, in fact, quoted in The West Wing. Leviticus 18:22 says without mitigation, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." I wrote a piece on "abomination" back in 2007 along with a follow-up because this is precisely the kinds of things that are thrown at us. "Well," they argue, "if you believe that a man lying with a woman is an abomination, then you also think that wearing polyester is an abomination as well, right?" And a lot of Christians are stumped. They'll deny it ... but not be sure why. So keep looking. There are answers. The primary thing you'll find is that people lie to you about what the Bible actually says (or doesn't say). For instance, the brave president fired this at the poor talk-show host as if it was real: "Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?" Funny thing ... you will not find anywhere in Leviticus the command to stone or burn anyone for planting crops side by side or for wearing polyester. It is prohibited, but not as a death penalty.

The first argument, then, is that the act of sex between two males is "an abomination". Oh, we don't like that language today. And other things are listed as "abominable" as well, but not the same "abominable". Some things were abominable to the Egyptians (e.g., Gen 43:32; 46:34; Exo 8:26). Some things were abominable to Israel (e.g., Lev 11). Some things were abominable to God. The Egyptians could change. Israel could change. God does not. If a particular act is an abomination to God, it remains an abomination to God.

"But things change all the time. You don't argue that we shouldn't wear polyester. Why do you argue this is true but not that?"

So very common. Here's an interesting quick study. Look at Leviticus 20 and read through the section in which you find "a man lies with a male as with a woman". Here's what the section looks like:
10 If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11 If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them.
13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
14 If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you.
15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.
16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
First note that the entire context on either side of verse 13 is sexual sin. It is not rituals, idolatry, or other topics. It is sexual sin all the way through. There can be little doubt what is in mind in verse 13. Unless God was horribly unclear, it is straightforward homosexual sex.

Here's where we start to run into problems. If the argument is, "Well, that changed since then", on what basis do we say "but the adultery, intra-family sex, and bestiality are all still wrong"? If the one in the middle has been done away with, why not the rest? It would make sense that all of the sins that fall in this particular category are still ... sins.

"But it's clear that we don't kill these people anymore, so it has changed, right?"

Well, we're still stuck at this point. If "we no longer kill these people" means "it is no longer a sin", then we're back to allowing all of the above ... and murder, and rape, and ... well, you get the idea. The truth is that these verses all have two parts. The first part references the crime. The second part references the penalty. That is, "This is wrong" (part 1 - The Crime), "therefore you should ..." (part 2 - The Penalty).The crime is the product of God's definition of right and wrong. The penalty is the product of a theocracy. A government that is run by God will do what the passage says to do. A government that is not run by God will do whatever they choose. Since we do not have a theocracy and since no one else does, you won't likely see these penalties carried out. That doesn't mean that the sin described in the first part of each verse is no longer a sin. It means the government changed.

"But you still argue that there are changes from the Old Testament."

Okay, fine, let's leave that alone. God considers it abominable, but there are still those who think He doesn't anymore. He didn't change ... He just doesn't see it the same anymore. And if the penalty changed, why is the crime still in effect? Fine. The other way to tell if something is still in effect is to go to the New Testament. We have, for instance, Jesus affirming that adultery and murder are still sins. He also clarifies the Sabbath. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mar 2:27). He declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19). When Peter objects to eating certain foods, God tells him, "What God has made clean, do not call common" (Acts 10:15). We have some modifications and we have some reassertions of the original. What about this law against men with men? Romans 1:26-27 describe "women lying with women as with men" and "men lying with men as with women" in clear terms. 1 Cor 6:9-10 also doesn't mince words. As abundantly clear as it is in Leviticus that homosexual behavior is abhorrent to God, the New Testament restates the same prohibition.

As a back up check to all of this, I submit this confirmation. There has been no time in history that the Church has believed that the Bible taught anything else. At no time did the Church argue that this was not what was intended in both the Old and New Testaments. In other words, history agrees. Or, to put it another way, the Spirit of Truth either failed to get this across until now ... or He got across what He intended to get across and those who don't see it today don't see the Truth.

There are "modifications to the contract", so to speak, in Scripture. Cleanliness rules, for instance, aren't an issue these days. Whether or not you can plant two different seeds in one spot (as foolish as that might be) or wear mixed threads fall under the laws of Israel customs. Clearly the sacrificial codes have been fulfilled in Christ. That leaves us with one particular set -- the moral law. If we are going to argue that the moral law is a variable and it's up to you to decide, we're moving into odd territory. God doesn't hate what He used to hate. He changed His mind about His views on morality. It's no longer "abominable" to Him. He wasn't clear anyway. "No, no, we now have the capacity to figure this stuff out ourselves. Do you feel that homosexual relationships are sinful? No? Well, then it's not. I really think we are at the place where we can each do what is right in our own eyes." Hmm, maybe that's not such odd territory after all. Not territory I want to live in, however.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good analysis, Stan. Too many Christians are afraid that there aren't good answers or are too lazy to research the answers. So they just stay quiet or shift to the worldly view.

Dan Trabue said...

A few thoughts, if I may...

I agree, no one will change anyone's mind here. That's a job between God and our own conscience. I'm not interested in changing your mind, but I would like to address some of the reasoning that I find problematic (reasoning that I once held myself, and have since repented for wrongly holding it - in my opinion)...

You say:

Unless God was horribly unclear, it is straightforward homosexual sex.

I understand that it appears to you that it is straightforward homosexual sex of any sort. It does not appear that way to me, though, and many others.

The passage in question here (Lev 20) BEGINS with...

"Tell the Israelites: Anyone, whether an Israelite or an alien residing in Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech shall be put to death. Let his fellow citizens stone him.

Which makes the whole passage SEEM to ME to be talking about the difference between THOSE people who worship Molech and their practices (which include many of the forbidden sexual activities, as I understand it) and Israel and her practices. Given the context, it seems clear to me that this is talking about something much worse than "mere" sexual acting out.

This is how it clearly seems to me. It clearly seems to you that it is talking about any and all homosexual activity. It does not directly say "all homosexual practices, including loving committed relationships, are wrong," and so we are left with you guessing what that meant and means and me guessing at what that meant and means.

Right?

You say:

If "we no longer kill these people" means "it is no longer a sin", then we're back to allowing all of the above ... and murder, and rape, and ... well, you get the idea.

Why? You, after all, think that the penalty part is not a universal rule so you set that aside. But you don't set aside the whole passage. What you are doing is not any different than what I am doing except on which parts you set aside.

I can logically see why bestiality and rape is wrong and have no problem whatsoever condemning it. Our very God-given reason calls out to condemn such behavior. I see no logical reason to condemn a beautiful, loving gay relationship or marriage and I see no reason in context to do so, so - just as you set aside the penalty since it does not make sense in our context - I set aside the suggestion (not found in the text) that gay marriage is wrong.

You say:

The truth is that these verses all have two parts. The first part references the crime. The second part references the penalty.

That is fine and that is your way of explaining why we set aside the penalty of killing disrespectful children or "men who lay with men," and I have no problem with that. But it is merely an extrabiblical hunch that gives you an excuse to set aside the literal meaning.

I agree wholeheartedly that killing "men who lay with men," is not a universal rule and we ought not take that as a literal universal rule. But I just want to be clear, we are both using our God-given reasoning to set aside parts of the Bible as not being universally true.

Now, I can give you logical reasons why we ought to oppose rape or slaughtering children to support biblical reasons. Can you give me any logical reasons to oppose gay marriage? Any logical reasons as to why we ought not celebrate and enjoy loving, wholesome healthy relationships between two competent adults?

Stan said...

Lots and lots of things to say, but no time to say it.

"I can logically see why bestiality and rape is wrong."

Simple question: You've decided "logically" that these are wrong. They are no longer death penalty issues, but you don't disqualify them from "universal moral rules". Why? On what basis? Why are these still "wrong" but the rest of the list may or may not be? In other words, what is the basis on which you determine right or wrong? Your logic? What if someone disagrees? Why is your logic right and theirs wrong? You see, if you're doing the deciding here, then we can't say it's binding on anyone else because you've already disallowed the Bible as the sole source. (I guess it's not such a "simple question".)

Dan Trabue said...

Stan asked a very good question...

Why are these still "wrong" but the rest of the list may or may not be? Why? On what basis?

On the basis of logic and on the basis of harm. We almost all universally recognize the notion that it is wrong to do unwanted harm to someone else. It is natural law that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

We don't have the "right" or any moral cause to do harm to another. Thus, rape is wrong. Period. No doubt about it.

Likewise, it is fairly universally recognized as wrong to do harm to those who can't give consent. It's wrong to do harm to a baby. It's wrong to do things to animals since they can't give consent.

We don't have to have a Bible to know morality. I'm glad for the Bible and love it and seek to learn what God has to say to us through it, but we can know morality outside of the Bible. And even with the Bible, we STILL have to use our logic to sort out what is right and what's wrong.

Here's a passage that suggests god commands the slaughter of children of enemies, for instance. Does that mean it's a good thing to slaughter the children of our enemies? Well, we have to use our reasoning to get an answer.

The Bible speaks to us of God reaching out to us, through stories of the Israelis and the stories of the early church, we can learn much. But still, we have to use our logic to discern morality.

Don't you think?

Dan Trabue said...

So, I can point to bestiality or rape and show how harm is done/no consent is given using basic human logic. Can you show any logical reason at all why we ought to be opposed to loving, healthy, mutually consensual relationships/marriages between consenting adults?

I know of none.

Stan said...

I can't think of a single reason to be opposed to "loving, healthy, mutually consensual relationships/marriages between consenting adults". On the other hand, I wouldn't qualify homosexual relationships as "healthy". ;)

Dan: "We almost all universally recognize the notion that it is wrong to do unwanted harm to someone else."

I would guess, then, that prostitution, premarital sex, private use of illegal drugs, and other "victimless crimes" would be perfectly okay in your measure of right and wrong.

I don't have the luxury of selectively determining what is and isn't sin. I have to go with God on that.

You argued, "[The] whole passage [SEEMS] to ME to be talking about the difference between THOSE people who worship Molech and their practices ... and Israel and her practices." Those people, then, practiced adultery, incest, homosexual sex (at least of some sort), and bestiality ... so Israel needed to be different. We don't. They did. Oh, and Israel wasn't allowed to practice adultery, incest, or bestiality because they were universally wrong. God just listed them in this "be different then them" passage because ... well ... I don't know.

Dan: "You, after all, think that the penalty part is not a universal rule so you set that aside."

Come on, Dan. You're not being fair or reasonable. If someone killed an adulterer and an adulteress (per Old Testament law), they would be tried for murder. They wouldn't be applauded by the government. We do not have the option of prosecuting sin as Israel did. We are told "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Rom 13:1). So if we were to ignore the law of the land to carry out the penalty prescribed in the Bible, we would be in violation of the Bible. What changed? Israel was a theocracy. We are not. That equates, in your view, to "Their laws are all subject to reevaluation based on what I deem logical.

Most of the Christian church has moved away from a particular set of Mosaic laws based on New Testament references, not on personal preference or "what I deem logical". It is only a particular set of laws. The sacrificial laws, the Christian church holds, were fulfilled (not terminated) in Christ, and the civil law (laws of what to eat, how to dress, that sort of thing) were designed primarily to separate Israel from the pagan world. These appear to be set aside in the New Testament in multiple places. The remaining portion, the moral law, have either been reaffirmed in the New Testament or not specifically abrogated. You're free to come to your own conclusions about what is still in effect, of course, but simply because you see them as "reasonable" is no reason they would be binding on anyone else who didn't see them as reasonable. In other words, it is simply relativism, based on the relativity of your logic, not the Bible.

Stan said...

Hey, this guy says something quite similar.

Danny Wright said...

Hey Stan

Thanks for an exelent post, and link.

Dan Trabue said...

Stan said...

I would guess, then, that prostitution, premarital sex, private use of illegal drugs, and other "victimless crimes" would be perfectly okay in your measure of right and wrong.

I don't have the luxury of selectively determining what is and isn't sin. I have to go with God on that.


I think an argument can be made that prostitution does do harm - certainly a good number of people involved are harmed in one way or another. Private use of illegal drugs is not covered in the Bible, but I think one can make a reasonable case that the use thereof does cause harm.

I was not suggesting that the ONLY reason something is wrong is if it causes harm to someone else. That is certainly one measure, though, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

As to your second comment above, we ALL agree that we have to "go with God" on what is right and wrong, so please don't try to frame it as "THEY want to make up rules, but I want to follow God." We ALL want to follow God (both of us in this discussion, anyway). Fair enough?

But we have to use our God-given reasoning to seek to determine what is and isn't God's will.

So, by your lack of an answer, I assume you have no logical reason for opposing gay marriage? Only your hunch that when the Bible says "men lay with men," it means all homosexual activity?

Okay, I just wanted to be clear. I disagree with your hunch, brother.

Dan Trabue said...

Stan said...

If someone killed an adulterer and an adulteress (per Old Testament law), they would be tried for murder.

My point here, Stan, is that the passage says, "THIS IS GOD's LAW: Men shall not lie with men. If they do, kill 'em."

There is not a point in that passage that says, THIS part is universal and THAT part is specific to Israel. So, you're making a couple of guesses here...

1. That when it says, "men lay with men," it means any and all homosexual activity, up to and including loving, committed, healthy gay relationships/gay marriage - it does not say that, but that is what you extrapolate from the vague "men who lay with men."

2. You are suggesting/guessing that the part that says "kill 'em" is NOT universal.

I agree with your second hunch. I disagree with your first.

But in both cases, you and I are making guesses about what is being talked about. Extrabiblical hunches.

I see no logical reason to assume that "men who lay with men," refers to all homosexual behavior. You do, and that's fine. Just understand that there are many good Christian folk who disagree with you and pray that you'll soften your heart to heed God's will (as I'm sure is true on the flip side, too, with the possible exception that many on your side are not willing to merely consider this a difference of opinion on one particular behavior, but rather see it as the "believers vs the pagans..." which just isn't the case.)

Stan said...

Dan: "So, by your lack of an answer, I assume you have no logical reason for opposing gay marriage? Only your hunch that when the Bible says 'men lay with men,' it means all homosexual activity?"

I obviously assume you're just joking ... right? I don't have a "hunch" that "men laying with men" means "all homosexual activity". I have the text that says so. I have no logical reason to oppose gay marriage? Absolutely not. Gay men can marry women just like anyone else. "Marriage" is not, however, whatever you choose to mean by it, so if by "gay marriage" you are referring to an official union of same-sex couples, then you're not talking "marriage" -- you're redefining the term.

You call it "extrabiblical hunches" when I see that one passage would conflict with another if it is read the way you read it. I don't find that "extrabiblical". But, I suppose, it's to be expected.

And Dan (of the non-"Trabue" variety), glad to be of service. I hope you don't confused with all the Dan's out there. :)

Dan Trabue said...

Stan said...

so if by "gay marriage" you are referring to an official union of same-sex couples, then you're not talking "marriage" -- you're redefining the term.

Have it your way. Do you have any logical reason to oppose loving committed marriage-like relationships between gay folk? Or is it merely based on your hunch that these type of verses are 1. referring to all homosexual behavior and 2. universal in nature and not addressing a particular people and time and circumstance?

And let's be honest, Stan, since gay marriage is never once mentioned in the Bible, it is a hunch on anyone's part what God thinks about it - the Bible does not address it. Period.

You have a hunch based upon about five verses in ALL the Bible that all homosexual behavior (including what I would call gay marriage) is wrong. I have a hunch that those verses are not universal in nature and/or are not speaking of what I would call gay marriage. In both situations, since the topic is wholly absent from the Bible, you and I are both using our God given reasoning to come to an opinion upon a topic that is not mentioned in the Bible at all. We happen to come to differing opinions, but that happens sometimes.

I would suspect your opposition to gay marriage is not based upon anything logical beyond what your hunch is on what those five-ish verses seem to be saying to you (and how they have traditionally been interpreted), but if you have some logic-based reason for opposing loving, same sex relationships, please let me know. It'd be the first time I've ever heard of any.

Stan said...

Dan: "Since gay marriage is never once mentioned in the Bible, it is a hunch on anyone's part what God thinks about it"

Okay, have it your way. All of societies for all time have always used the concept of marriage as the union of opposite sexes for the establishment of a family structure and for procreation. All. The Bible defines it as "man and woman" (in both Old and New Testaments). All religions have universally maintained that marriage is between man and woman. No culture, society, or religion has ever wavered from that position ... ever. But if you think that "marriage" can be defined essentially however you want to define it and God doesn't actually have an opinion about what it is, that's your privilege.

When it comes to homosexual behavior as sin, I call it sin from biblical references on religious grounds. When it comes to marriage, on the other hand, I don't do so out of hunches or preferences or my religious viewpoint. It has always been thus. I'm not saying "It's evil." I'm saying "It's nonsense."

Test joke: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Answer: 4. You can call a tail a leg all you want, but calling it a leg doesn't make it a leg.

I don't understand why this is so hard to accept. Even the California Supreme Court, when they were reversing the decision last year to limit "marriage" to a man and a woman, understood that they were redefining the term. It's not rocket science. Marriage, regardless of variances in practices, has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman. That definition has to change if you are going to make it "gay marriage". And that's not a moral or religious argument.

Now, why would I defend "marriage" against its redefinition? Well, I don't think we can afford the loss of the original term. I don't think we can afford the loss of the original concept. I don't think we can afford the destruction of marriage as we know it today. But that still is not based on moral opposition to homosexual behavior. That's based on a high view of marriage.

Dan Trabue said...

So, no, no logical reason to oppose loving committed gay relationships. Just your impression of what the Bible says in a handful of verses.

Fair enough. I just want to be clear on why we can oppose some activities that are condemned in the Bible (rape, killing innocent children) while we at the same time NOT oppose other activities that are condemned in the Bible (or that some people think are hinted at being condemned).

We both oppose killing "men who lay with men" and I oppose the condemnation of gay marriage for the same reason: It makes logical sense. God gave us Reason for a reason.

Dan Trabue said...

For what it's worth, I too have a high view of marriage (we're celebrating our 24th anniversary this weekend). It's a lovely, wonderful, powerful, blessed institution that I think belongs to us all, including our gay brothers and sisters.

Stan said...

Dan: "So, no, no logical reason to oppose loving committed gay relationships."

Sigh. Fine. You're right. Why would I bother accepting "a handful of verses" from the Bible? Obviously your logic is far superior to any "handful of verses".

I consider the Bible a valid source. I consider it rational. I don't actually believe in "loving committed gay relationships", let alone "healthy" ones. I believe the relationships are damaging to the individuals. I believe they are illogical (consider the "equipment") and impractical (there can be no offspring). I believe that suggesting it's "okay" because "well, they're born that way" is horribly destructive and logically stupid. Did I say "stupid"? I'm sorry, I can't use a different word to express it.

Your confidence in your ability to reason is quite impressive. I have lived long enough to become thoroughly impressed with the ability of human beings to think carefully and logically, step by step, to the wrong conclusion. I'm quite sure that humans have hearts that are so deceitful that they're not fully aware of it. Oh, wait, that's a biblical concept, isn't it? Maybe that changed, too?

Stan said...

Now this is funny. I have no connection with this blog, but here's what Doug Wilson wrote in his blog today.

Dan Trabue said...

I consider it rational. I don't actually believe in "loving committed gay relationships", let alone "healthy" ones.

Well, now here would be an example of taking your read of a passage and irrationally (or so it seems to me) letting that hunch about what the verse may or may not mean blind you to actual evidence.

Our church has several married gay and lesbian couples within it. Their relationships ARE loving, committed and healthy. The fact that you don't "believe in" something that is a reality does not change the reality. It just speaks to a certain blindness on your part.

As you noted, just because you "believe" that a tail is a leg, it doesn't mean that a dog has five legs.

I don't mean to sound harsh, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. What do you mean you "don't believe in" loving, committed gay relationships? I mean, I can point you to some friends who have a committed relationship ("committed" being defined as devoted to one another lovingly and exclusively) and I can show you how they actually love one another (by their kindnesses and sacrificial devotion to one another), so, from where I sit, it sounds like you're denying reality.

But perhaps you have some other angle I'm not getting. If so, please tell me.

You also said...

Your confidence in your ability to reason is quite impressive. I have lived long enough to become thoroughly impressed with the ability of human beings to think carefully and logically, step by step, to the wrong conclusion.

Please don't misunderstand me. I, you and anyone else is entirely able to reason poorly. Reason is not a fool-proof answer, by any means. My point is that reason is all we have. We can and do both read the Bible, BUT we have to reason our way to its meaning. We can and do both pray for God to speak to us through the scriptures, but still, it is our human reasoning and understanding capacity which we rely upon to sort things out.

What else is there?

I mean, if you read a passage that says, "disrespectful children should be killed," why don't you kill them? Well, because you've reasoned that this passage does not mean that this is something we ought to do.

No, our reasoning ability is sorrowfully imperfect (I think your reasoning is wrong here, after all). I'm just saying it's all we have. Prayerfully and carefully reasoning our flawed way the best we can by God's grace to God's will.

Stan said...

Okay, I don't have input here either, but this is what Andrew Tallman wrote today (for tomorrow, I guess). These people don't read my blog, but they sure confirm that I'm not the only one that sees this stuff this way ... and from a rational viewpoint.

Stan said...

Dan: "For what it's worth, I too have a high view of marriage."

I failed to comment on this. Since we have differing definitions of "marriage", then when I say, "I have a high view of X" and you say, "I have a high view of X", we're not actually talking about the same thing. Your view is likely something along the lines of "a loving, committed relationship" perhaps with "exclusivity" in it or the like. My view is the union of man and woman to construct a family as the primary building block of a society. In my view, a "marriage" without children is sad, shortchanged in a sense. A "marriage" intentionally without children is, with very, very few exceptions, not quite a marriage. Further, nature, science, psychology, and common sense (of course, along with the Bible) tells us that a natural family consists of a loving husband, a loving wife, and children. Children are best served by good parents of opposite gender. (That whole "Surely it's better to have two same-sex 'parents' who love them than two opposite sex children who don't" thing is nonsense. Apples and oranges.) So, like the historic view of marriage, mine includes husband, wife, and at least the intent of children in a committed, loving relationship. Maybe, then, you can begin to see why I cannot include "same-sex" in that definition.

Dan Trabue said...

Since we have differing definitions of "marriage", then when I say, "I have a high view of X" and you say, "I have a high view of X", we're not actually talking about the same thing.

"Marriage." As in my beloved wife and myself who are committed to one another through good and bad, illness and health. Who are community to one another and Christ to one another. Who are family together, along with our two beloved children.

THAT'S what I mean by having a high view of marriage. Committed to one another for 24 years now, in love, by God's grace and the support of our beloved church community and extended family.

Do you mean something else?

And I likewise rejoice in the marriage of my beloved gay and lesbian friends and family in Christ. They, like us, are committed in God's love to one another. Marriage is a good thing and that's why I'm so supportive of it.

Samael said...

Stan.

Those same texts suggest you murder your kids for mouthing off. Who'd have thought parents who punch their children in the face and kick them in the ribs until they can't breathe without choking on blood were too merciful?

Or maybe Jesus changed all that? It's a rather convenient excuse, isn't it? God was cruel, not us, and he took it all back when he sent his son to die for our sins...

But let's turn away from killing our fellow man for now, and look instead towards enslaving them...

What do you think of the way God charged more for a male slave in the Bible? Was it fair? What if the female slave was a virgin? It was the tradition back then to sometimes save female virgins from the cities that were attacked, so obviously they had extra value...to God, of course.

Not to man.

Where would you ever get the idea man wrote any of this?

Nevermind.

Forget I mentioned any of this.

It's okay to close your eyes.

And go back to whatever it is you were doing.

Your attacks on those who's only crime is to love someone of the same sex are pure and noble and true...

You can ignore anyone who tells you otherwise.

Since that's exactly what you intend to do...

Like you said -

Your mind is closed. You've given this all the thought you intend to.

Goodnight.

Stan said...

Luckily for you, Samael, while I'm obviously a closed-minded, heartless bigot, you're open-minded enough to consider possibilities. For instance, no one in all of history has ever used this text to execute (not murder) their children. Nor does anyone today advocate it. A tempest in a teacup. You're quite sure that the Bible endorses the slavery that America outlawed at the Civil War, but it's not true. And you will not entertain the slightest possibility that the Bible is anything more than a man-made fantasy. Oh, wait ... I forgot. I am supposed to be the closed-minded one.

Give me a better offer, then. Religion is false. The Bible is not a valid book. Either there is no god or something like it. On what, then, are you going to base your position of right and wrong? You think it's wrong for anyone to take the Bible as a book from God. On what do you base that moral judgment? You're quite sure that homosexual activities are pure and noble. On what do you base that moral judgment? (Please note: At no time in anything I've ever written have I suggested that it's wrong for people to love each other. In fact, one of my posts was titled "Homosexuality is NOT a Sin." It is the sexual act, not "love" that is question. The fact that people today can't seem to distinguish the two is quite disturbing and very sad.)

Go ahead, Samael. Make me out to be the bad guy and you the good guy. Believe that I'm the closed-minded one and you're gloriously free to think openly. From that position, explain why it is that you so hate people (like me) whose only crime is to disagree with your position and so quickly judge those who believe differently from you about God, the Bible, or the like. Your arguments do indeed fall on deaf ears not because I'm not listening, but because they are irrational, mean-spirited, and judgmental.