tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post4970033473965848733..comments2024-03-28T08:41:39.614-07:00Comments on Winging It: Cultural BiasStanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-61293230344493552492012-06-05T11:01:47.753-07:002012-06-05T11:01:47.753-07:00Actually, the (transliterated) arsenokoites is tra...Actually, the (transliterated) <i>arsenokoites</i> is translated by all modern Greek scholars as "homosexuals" (and the other one as "effeminate" ... you know, like you said). The puzzle has been the rarity of the word, but the answer is simple. In <i>Paul's</i> culture, the known Jewish law forbade "men who lie with men as with women". The term literally means "males on a couch" -- "men who lie with men". Paul was simply using a Greek term that captured the Jewish law. Quandary concluded.<br /><br />And, truly, Naum, are you going to tell us that part of the biblical definition of marriage is misogyny? Or even polygamy? So, when Paul wrote that an elder had to be the husband of one wife, they were <i>not</i> by cultural definition "married"? Now, perhaps you are going to tell us that the Bible <i>incorrectly</i> defined marriage or perhaps you are going to say that the biblical definition is <i>outdated</i>, both of which ought to clear up the question, but <i>surely</i> (despite the fact that you <i>will</i> surely continue to ignore my statement that you are referring to <i>practices</i> while I am referring to <i>definition</i>) you are not going to say that marriage was <i>defined</i> as misogyny or polygamy, right? (If, on the other hand, you suggest either conclusion about the Bible, we're quite clear at this point. You have a different point of origin than we.)Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-42123905521489000852012-06-05T10:28:08.647-07:002012-06-05T10:28:08.647-07:00For the record, those words ((μαλακοὶ, ἀρσενοκοῖτ...For the record, those words ((<b>μαλακοὶ</b>, <b> ἀρσενοκοῖται</b>) are not anywhere else in Scripture (including LXX, Septuagint). The closest use is in Josephus (he uses other words in describing homosexuality) where he uses the first term to indicate "effeminate" men who stay home and make babies instead of going out to fight. For the second term, the closest use is in the Oracles, describing those who abuse little boys via rape. Pedarasty was common in Greco-Roman culture.<br /><br />@Glenn, slavery has been the way of the world until 19th century. Until industrial revolution and great divergence, it was the major economic engine of the world. It only differed post-colonial (after Columbus) times that it was "industrialized" and "globalized". Most Christians, especially those of the "conservative" mantle, believed slavery was sanctioned and blessed by the Bible. Yes, Christians also opposed the practice and led the way to its demise (see Mark Noll *The Civil War as a Theological Crisis*).<br /><br />Again, I keep repeating myself but the title of this post is "Cultural Bias", and for the people of the OT, marriage meant one man, many wives -- and anyone that suggested that God's will was otherwise would have been viewed as heretical. This is not to say it was correct, just that religious adherents of the age interpreted scripture differently than we do today. You can apply this on a whole host of matters, from purity laws to charging of interest, treatment of women, etc.… <br /><br />Furthermore, it is hard to examine marriage without acknowledging that misogyny has been standard practice for most of human history.Naumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06741963276339044331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-46359453994704048402012-06-02T09:43:30.380-07:002012-06-02T09:43:30.380-07:00I rather wonder what I have said that raises any q...I rather wonder what I have said that raises any questions about the Greek of I Cor 6:9 but, since I was so politely asked, here is the Strongs on the words requested (see below). <br />By the way, lest you be tempted to try, I am not vulnerable on the issues of slavery or polygamy, so you don’t need to bother to try. But if you wish, feel free. <br />And while we’re at translating, how about you translate the words ‘man’ and woman’ (frequently translated man and wife) in I Cor 7:2? <br /><br />G3120: Of uncertain affinity; soft, that is, fine (clothing); figuratively a catamite: - effeminate, soft. <br />G733 From G730 and G2845; a sodomite: - abuser of (that defile) self with mankind. <br />G730 male (as stronger for lifting): - male, man. <br />G2845 a couch; by extension cohabitation; by implication the male sperm: - bed, chambering, X conceive. <br />It is used in two other places in the NT: <br />Mat 11:8 But G235 what G5101 went ye out G1831 for to see? G1492 A man G444 clothed G294 in G1722 soft G3120 raiment? G2440 behold, G2400 they that wear G5409 soft G3120 clothing are G1526 in G1722 kings' G935 houses. G3624 <br />Luk 7:25 But G235 what G5101 went ye out G1831 for to see? G1492 A man G444 clothed G294 in G1722 soft G3120 raiment? G2440 Behold, G2400 they 3588 which are gorgeously apparelled, G1722 G1741 G2441 and G2532 live G5225 delicately, G5172 are G1526 in G1722 kings' courts. G933The Schaubing Blogkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811910033353720626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-70803660380242453992012-06-02T07:40:49.923-07:002012-06-02T07:40:49.923-07:00Naum,
SOME Christians sanctioned slavery by abusi...Naum,<br /><br />SOME Christians sanctioned slavery by abusing Scripture, but it was CHRISTIANS who forced the end of slavery! You can’t blame a belief system for the false teachings of some in that system. O.T. slavery in Israel was not the same as slavery perpetrated by England, Spain, US, etc in later history. And the N.T. didn’t sanction slavery - it only acknowledges the existence of it and gives instructions to Christian slave owners on how to treat their Christian slaves as brothers in Christ.<br /><br />What the Jews believed about polygamy is not the point. The point is what GOD decreed as proper marriage. The Jews have historically rebelled against God, the facts of which are continuously recorded in the O.T., culminating with God having them dispersed throughout the world after 70 A.D. Oh, and “polygamy” can only be “one way” - that defines the word. Nevertheless, even in polygamy the natural, designed use of human sexuality is intact.<br /><br />And I’ll respond to your question about 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: <i>Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.</i> <br /><br />The English Standard Version combines two terms from the Greek and interprets them as “men who practice homosexuality.” The NIV translates the passage as “male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders,” the NASB says, “nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,” NKJV says, “homosexuals, nor sodomites,” and the KJV says, “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.”<br /><br />With this many versions, let’s look at the original Greek to know exactly what was said here. The first word is <i>arsenokoites</i>. Where does this come from and what does it mean?<br /><br />When looking at the Septuagint’s Greek translation of Lev. 18:22 we have the following: <i>meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos</i>. <i>Arsenos</i> means “male” and <i>koiten</i> means “to have sexual intercourse.”<br /><br />Next, when looking at the Septuagint’s Greek for Lev. 20:13 we have this: <i>hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos.</i> <br /><br />Notice in both these passages the use of <i>arsenos</i> and <i>koiten</i>, and especially the latter passage where the two words are together. It becomes obvious where Paul got this word which means a man who has sexual relations with another man. He is referring back to the Levitical commands against homosexual behavior. It is this word which is translated as “homosexual offenders,” “homosexuals,” “sodomites,” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.” It’s meaning is “male bedder.”<br /><br />What about the word translated as “male prostitutes,” “effeminate,” and “homosexuals?” This is the Greek word <i>malakoi</i>, which literally means “soft ones.” Supposedly this refers to those who were usually a passive partner in homosexual relationships (or should we say, the one who plays the receptor/woman?)<br /><br />Nevertheless, both terms are used by Paul to describe those who practice homosexual behavior, and he states without equivocation that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God. Again, it is very plain that Paul is here saying that those who practice homosexual behavior are among the “unrighteous.”<br /><br />There is nothing in any of these passages that allows for twisted interpretations to claim God permits homosexual relations as long as they are conducted in a committed relationship. The relations are not permitted at all.<br /><br />But notice vs. 11 ends with good news. <i>And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.</i> Paul says that some of those among the Corinthian church were practitioners of homosexual behavior before they became Christians, and that now they no longer are. So much for the claim that change is not possible!Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-32597166938062849632012-06-01T15:11:19.642-07:002012-06-01T15:11:19.642-07:00@Marshall, @Glenn, you're making my point abou...@Marshall, @Glenn, you're making my point about "cultural bias".<br /><br />You may call it "false teaching" or an erroneous interpretation of scripture, but my point is, that for over a millenium of Christian church history, the "traditional" (excepting early hippie Christians and then the Quakers and Anabaptists) consensus viewpoint was that slavery was both blessed and sanctioned by scripture.<br /><br />And that up until 1000 A.D., the "traditional" reading of scripture by Jewish religious leaders believed polygamy was sanctioned. As did the the people in the book of the OT, who knew no other way than "tradition" of polygamous marriage (but one-way polygamy - man with many wives, no woman could have multiple husbands).<br /><br />Your "cultural bias" finds that reading abhorrent, but no ancient reading (er, hearing) scripture would be in agreement with you.<br /><br />And @Vaughn, regarding Greek, here is 1 Cor 6:9<br /><br />Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε <b>μαλακοὶ</b> οὔτε <b>ἀρσενοκοῖται </b><br /><br />What do those two words mean? Back up your assertions with references to relevant literature…Naumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06741963276339044331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-51157779361912161982012-06-01T13:49:46.485-07:002012-06-01T13:49:46.485-07:00Well, I would say to your interlocutors that they ...Well, I would say to your interlocutors that they are, basically, tilting at windmills. Marriage is what it is, and nothing they can do can change that. You can call a tail a leg, as the saying goes, but a horse will still have four legs.<br />Two Sodomites can live together, have sex, call each other husband and wife (you do know that Greek and Hebrew for that is 'man and woman', no?) and they will be no more married than a tree and the sun. That simply is not what marriage is.<br />I think modern Christians are vulnerable to some attacks from some quarters because we have accepted somethings that can't be accepted, making us vulnerable to 'slippery slope' arguments.The Schaubing Blogkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811910033353720626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-29690166691030579752012-06-01T13:02:34.067-07:002012-06-01T13:02:34.067-07:00Well, feel free to round off the discussion, Von. ...Well, feel free to round off the discussion, Von. Couldn't hurt.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-76626746908817960682012-06-01T12:40:44.608-07:002012-06-01T12:40:44.608-07:00Wow, what a discussion! Sorry I missed it :)Wow, what a discussion! Sorry I missed it :)The Schaubing Blogkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811910033353720626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-9991944841383751202012-06-01T07:35:24.682-07:002012-06-01T07:35:24.682-07:00Stan, you have been doing such an outstanding job....Stan, you have been doing such an outstanding job. Kudos! But I do need to put my 2 cents worth in.<br /><br />Naum: <br />False teachers have indeed used that Gen. 9 passage to condone slavery. False teachers wrestle ANY quote from its context to force their agenda, which is why there are so many cults. But the context is about Canaan and his brothers, and the curse was NOT on Ham.<br /><br />Using O.T. passages discussing a theocratic nation under God’s laws to claim to attempt to condemn Christians for their beliefs only demonstrates your ignorance of the context and your use of typical atheist talking points which have been responded to zillions of times, and yet the responses are totally ignored (must be where Dan takes lessons). Slavery as describe in these passages, by the way, was in no way similar to the later slavery of the blacks. <br /><br />On polygamy, the Scripture is still plain that the intent was for one man and one woman for marriage. That God permitted polygamy does not mean He changed His mind about one man, one woman unity - especially demonstrated when Jesus discussed marriage by going back to Adam and Eve. Christian leaders were forbidden to have more than one wife, since that was the original intent of marriage.<br /><br />Deut. 17 did not say “too many,” but just “many.” We can debate what how many is “many,” but more than one fits that description.<br /><br />Nevertheless, even with polygamy, marriage is defined as the union of members of the opposite sex. Period.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-3558091666640190252012-06-01T02:02:23.644-07:002012-06-01T02:02:23.644-07:00Indeed. Though I did mention slavery at the end o...Indeed. Though I did mention slavery at the end of my last comment. But as Stan indicated, regulation does not equate to sanction or endorsement. So, Naum, you could have italicized your last comment, as well as emboldened it, and done so in caps, but it would not support the notion that polygamy was ever endorsed or approved or in any way presented in Scripture as something God intended or desired for us. And certainly you must know that there was only one Jew in history Who possessed the authority of God, and I don't recall case where HE endorsed polygamy. So it doesn't matter how many years the people of Israel did anything.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-60320306324076754542012-05-31T17:48:32.287-07:002012-05-31T17:48:32.287-07:00Pssst! A couple of points.
First, "Matthew&q...Pssst! A couple of points.<br /><br />First, "Matthew" hasn't made any comments here. I'm guessing you were talking to Marshall Art.<br /><br />Second, Marshall Art referenced polygamy, while you were arguing about slavery.<br /><br />Third, regulation of an act is not the equivalent of endorsing. I'm not arguing about whether or not there was polygamy (obviously) or even slavery (although I will always assert that their slavery and American slavery are two different things), but these remain in a different category than the topic in question.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-57536139333014959022012-05-31T15:27:12.675-07:002012-05-31T15:27:12.675-07:00Seriously, @Matthew, have you read the Bible, espe...Seriously, @Matthew, have you <i>read</i> the Bible, especially the OT?<br /><br />In Genesis 9, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers." -- in Christian "tradition", Canaan settled in Africa, hence, the <i>curse of Ham</i>…<br /><br />In Exodus 21, "If you buy a Hebrew slave…", "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave…", etc.… Also, slaves in ancient Israel were automatically emancipated after 6 years of slavery, but only if they were Jewish. However, if the slave owner "gave" the slave a wife, the owner could keep the wife and any children as his property. That is what it says in the Bible!<br /><br />Leviticus 25, "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.…"<br /><br />On polygamy, from Deuteronomy 21, "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. …". MInd you, this is in the same chapter where death by stoning is prescribed for not obeying father and mother!<br /><br />Deuteronomy 17 says for a king not to take "too many" wives but doesn't specify how many "too many" is…<br /><br /><b>Polygamy was not banned in the Jewish community until about 1000 A.D.</b>Naumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06741963276339044331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-18369083182993176232012-05-31T13:16:33.389-07:002012-05-31T13:16:33.389-07:00Wow, Stan! You're cutting Dan T off from the ...Wow, Stan! You're cutting Dan T off from the humor he'll provide showing how certain verses can be used to support his argument if you just hold them up sideways and squint. Nothing direct, like "Thou shalt not..." or nothing suggesting his perspective, such as any verse or passage indicating a makeup of marriage or family not understood as male/female-father/mother. So then we'd have to show how the verses CANNOT mean what he's contorting them to mean. <br /><br />@Naum: It is an important distinction to say that the Bible might present situations wherein the people depicted sanctioned polygamous marriages, while at the same time acknowledging that no where within Scripture is there more than a tolerance of the practice by God. <br /><br />It is also helpful to remember that there is, in the same way, no verse in Scripture, no words from above, that indicate slavery is "OK" with God. In this, it doesn't matter what church leaders have preached if what they preached is demonstrably wrong. Stan's position begins with Scriptural teaching, God's law if you will, and THEN moves to church traditions. If the starting point is wrong, church tradition alone cannot win the debate.Marshal Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01054268632726520871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-24663139414573308922012-05-31T11:40:09.952-07:002012-05-31T11:40:09.952-07:00@Dan T:
What a shame! While I thought we were two...@Dan T:<br /><br />What a shame! While I thought we were two people separated by a common language, it turns out that you <i>do</i> speak the same language and <i>you</i> just don't care what I say. I mean, I don't think I was unclear when I said, "This discussion is at an end." And here you are still arguing ... the same points.<br /><br />Let's see if I can say this in words you'll understand. I offered biblical data. Indeed, I offered biblical <i>quotes</i>. You can disagree with how I understand them and you can disagree with whatever conclusions I come to, BUT YOU CANNOT DISAGREE WITH THEIR SOURCE. They are <i>from the Bible</i>. As such, I provided <i>biblical data</i>. I have yet to see, on the other hand, a single biblical argument that favors same-sex relationships, let alone same-sex unions or any good reason to change the definition.<br /><br />And why is it that regardless of how many times I offer the reference, it is your prerogative to wholly and completely ignore it? Want to know a secret? The first time this line of thinking ("Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman") really came home to me was <i>not</i> from a Bible verse or a right-wing preacher or an anti-gay rally (Do they have those? I've never heard of or been to one.). It was when I read <i>the California Supreme Court ruling</i> making homosexual unions into "marriage". <i>They</i> argued that the longstanding, traditional (their words) definition was the union of a man and a woman. That was what <i>they</i> said. But you just won't buy it, will you? You will stand your ground and hold your place and dig your heels in and argue 'til the cows come home.<br /><br />Done, Dan. Don't expect me to post another comment from you, at least not on this topic. I don't think I'm using words with dual meaning. I don't think I'm being unclear. And I don't think I'm being unfair. You had your opportunity. Done. You have a blog. Feel free to take up the argument there.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-44480359914491642522012-05-31T11:28:39.158-07:002012-05-31T11:28:39.158-07:00@Naum:
Alright, I understand. There is no biblica...@Naum:<br /><br />Alright, I understand. There <i>is no</i> biblical argument for the defining of marriage in any different fashion than was defined in all of the Bible, and you don't care if all of Church history and all of human history had a standard, basic definition. You're willing to change that definition in order to include same-sex couples. And, apparently, the argument is "I don't care about what the Church has always said in regard to these things" as well. And it's pretty clear that while I've continued to argue that there <i>has been</i> a definition, even recognized by the judicial system, you're position is "No, there isn't." I think your argument is clear and, in fact, the most common. It may not be substantive, but it is clear.<br /><br />(I understand your argument at the end there about the involvement of the government. I disagree, of course, but I understand it. First, many states already give "same-sex unions" the same rights as marriage provides. Second, retaining <i>marriage</i> -- as it has always been defined -- is not the same as denying a minority their rights. It is not a violation of "marriage equity". That is, <i>if</i> marriage is defined as "the union of a man and a woman" and has always been defined as "the union of a man and a woman", then no one is saying that people who are sexually attracted to the same gender are not allowed to get married. It simply says, "That union, whatever you may call it, <i>is not marriage</i>.")Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-76594517856016695062012-05-31T10:59:31.599-07:002012-05-31T10:59:31.599-07:00Stan...
Present the biblical argument that suppor...Stan...<br /><br /><i>Present the biblical argument that supports the redefinition of marriage...<br /><br />I've offered biblical and historical data that says otherwise.</i><br /><br />No, Stan, you have not. You've offered three verses that YOU SAY, ACCORDING TO YOU, constitutes a "definition of marriage" and by that, you mean a "This and ONLY this is an acceptable understanding of marriage..." The TEXT does not say, "This is God's understanding of the One True and Accepted understanding of marriage," that is YOUR interpretation, based upon your cultural understandings/teachings/traditions.<br /><br />So there is the problem. You're citing "This is the definition, why should it change from what God approved..." and I'm pointing out, "That text does not say what you claim it says."<br /><br />This is not a problem with language. We both speak English and know how to use a dictionary. It's ridiculous to claim that we are separated by language.<br /><br />This is a problem with you conflating your interpretations with God's Word.<br /><br />Answer this directly, please Stan: DO YOU UNDERSTAND that when you say, "This is the Biblical definition of marriage..." that what you actually mean is, "This is MY UNDERSTANDING of what God thinks a marriage is..."?<br /><br />And, beyond that, do you acknowledge that YOUR UNDERSTANDING, and indeed, even the traditions of the church, being human traditions, are possibly wrong or mistaken?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-7705923313516590652012-05-31T10:56:36.002-07:002012-05-31T10:56:36.002-07:00@Stan,
1. I will grant you, OT condemns SSM, but ...@Stan,<br /><br />1. I will grant you, OT condemns SSM, but scripture condemns other activity (like charging of interest, for example) that today, we do not consider "sin". And you are framing with "redefine", when in fact marriage has evolved through the ages, and as I have stated in previous comments, inconceivable to fathom without acknowledging misogyny and inequality of woman. So I shall use "marriage equality", and reaffirm that Jesus admonitions to love your neighbor <b>sublate</b> those OT texts.<br /><br />2. Irrelevant, as scripture was on the side of slavery and charging of interest too. (Yes, I realize there are creative interpretations of Paul's letters that theologians claim <b>sublate</b> defense/blessing of slavery). Allow me to twist this question and thrust back at you: why should a group of people be denied rights and humanity for Bible verses that were for "a specific time to a specific people" (i.e., just like purity provisions, mixed fibers, etc.…)<br /><br />Here, admittedly, is that the intersection of church and state is where the real pickle is -- and that was a "redefinition" of marriage in history too -- the state getting involved (ironically, to enforce provisions against mixing races). Once the state is involved, it cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Even if you personally oppose SSM, you cannot advocate the state adopting such a moralistic plank without denying the humanity of a minority denied rights (i.e., insurance, survivorship rights, hospital visitation, etc.…).Naumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06741963276339044331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-24808627437615757362012-05-31T10:17:14.037-07:002012-05-31T10:17:14.037-07:00@Naum:
If you could, please:
1. Present the bibl...@Naum:<br /><br />If you could, please:<br /><br />1. Present the biblical argument that supports the redefinition of marriage from what all of today's society including the California Supreme Court understands is the "longstanding, traditional definition" to a new one that includes same-sex unions.<br /><br />2. Offer some historical data from Church history in which same-sex unions would have at any time at all been considered "marriages" and accepted as valid.<br /><br />I've offered biblical and historical data that says otherwise. Until someone can give me biblical and historical data that indicates there has <i>ever</i> been a disagreement on this subject, I will continue to reject the argument that it's just like polygamy or slavery. There <i>has</i> been disagreement over biblical passages and other matters, but <i>never</i> in <i>all</i> of Church history or Bible usage has <i>this</i> topic been one of them. In that, it stands as quite unusual, in fact. So comparison to polygamy or slavery is apples to oranges. These are not in the same category. Unless, of course, you're willing to put all biblical and Church teaching in the category of "relative and malleable". In which case I'm back to my original "you have a meaningless relativistic religion that you would be wise to throw out."Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-49207120809768692342012-05-31T10:10:20.119-07:002012-05-31T10:10:20.119-07:00@Anonymous, thank you! Yes! Precisely. Two people ...@Anonymous, thank you! Yes! Precisely. Two people separated by a common language.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-11568333270510013762012-05-31T09:23:52.850-07:002012-05-31T09:23:52.850-07:00@Stan, on polygamy, you miss the point. Even on OT...@Stan, on polygamy, you miss the point. Even on OT scripture as interpreted today, the conservative seminary (Baptist) I attended even acknowledged that OT sanctioned polygamy. But my point was not what you (or even a scholarly consensus) adjudicates what it means in 2012, but that NOBODY in that age would have deviated from the edict that scripture indeed sanctioned polygamy. Addressing your slant on "cultural bias", in another words.<br /><br />Polygamy was practiced among Jews even up to a millenium after Christ, and even in Christian circles (though the early Christians and most of Christian stream did not). If polygamous marriage was not the modality of scripture, why was it blessed by the religious leaders of those ages?<br /><br />Furthermore, Christians are divided on the SSM issue -- many denominations no longer adhere to the traditionalist view, just like what happened with slavery. Which the "traditional" biblical interpretation both sanctioned and blessed the abhorrent practice, and the "religious conservatives" of the day were on the wrong side.<br /><br />Are you so sure that <a href="http://robertcargill.com/2012/05/13/imagine-that-picture-of-you-protesting-same-sex-marriage-40-years-from-now-you-are-those-people/" rel="nofollow">100 years later, the "religious conservatives" of today will not appear to future generations like this?</a>Naumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06741963276339044331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-73502094022923625412012-05-31T09:17:13.335-07:002012-05-31T09:17:13.335-07:00It's odd seeing you two go back and forth goin...It's odd seeing you two go back and forth going point by point putting forth seemingly rational, logical arguments and questions to each other. And yet you are both arguing from fundamentally different foundations so that no matter how well constructed the reasoning thereafter may be, it is ludicrous to the other.<br /><br />It's like you're having a conversation about going to the market where one of you only thinks of the market as groceries and the other only thinks of it as stocks and bonds. One says let's go to the Olive Garden and the other let's go to the Exchange and both roll their eyes as though the other is crazy.<br /><br />Until you can agree on whether you're trying to fill the fridge or pad your 401k, how are you ever going to get anywhere?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-88811075960488885532012-05-31T09:07:06.663-07:002012-05-31T09:07:06.663-07:00And so we come to an end of another pointless disc...And so we come to an end of another pointless discussion.<br /><br />And, we have the bonus of illustrating that, once again, you and I are not speaking the same language! So, maybe it is <i>not</i> pointless. But it is at an end.<br /><br />Now, I could be mean and point out that "orthodoxy" means most literally "straight thinking" and you are not thinking "straight" but "queer", but that would just be silliness. The common concept of "orthdox Christianity", once we moved outside of "Greek Orthodox" or "Eastern Orthodox" (as in, a particular sect of Christianity), is most often "conforming to the Christian faith as established by the early Church" or, today it is often generalized as "customary or conventional" or "sound in opinion or theological doctrine". I am offering the "orthdox" in the sense of that which is conforming with the early Church, that which has always been the "customary or conventional", that which has always been "sound in opinion or theological doctrine". <i>Regardless</i> of the approach or argument you offer, it <i>cannot</i> be denied that yours is <i>new</i>, not "conforming" or "customary". We've used "orthdox" in a radically different sense, where I tie it to Church history and the Bible and you tie it to "whatever is in line with my views".<br /><br />I reference "questionable items that Christianity has disagreed about" and you bring up "questionable items that Christianity has disagreed about". Apparently we, again, are not speaking the same language. NO ONE IN ALL OF CHRISTIANITY IN 2,000 YEARS (except, obviously, in the last couple of decades) HAS EVER TAKEN THE POSITION YOU ARE TAKING ON THE TOPIC OF MARRIAGE. That's how this is not like "questionable items that Christianity has disagreed about". NO ONE HAS EVER QUESTIONED IT.<br /><br />And, as you and Naum have both demonstrated, I understand that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us into the truth <i>and He always has</i> and you understand that He ... well ... didn't and apparently only now has managed it on this topic.<br /><br />Since 1) I gave you the option to make your counter argument and 2) that argument has been made and responded to and 3) since we are not using the same language and 4) there is no apparent point in proceeding, this discussion is at an end. It's not that you are disagreeing. It's that there is no communication going on. Nor will there likely be, since this has <i>always</i> been the case -- two people separated by a common language. Oddly, you won't admit that. I suspect that's why it will always be the case.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-59026618309691250262012-05-31T08:22:59.422-07:002012-05-31T08:22:59.422-07:00Stan...
the very same position that all of orthod...Stan...<br /><br /><i>the very same position that all of orthodox Christendom for all of history (as well as the rest of human history) has taken in its understanding of the Bible.</i> <br /><br />I/we ARE orthodox Christianity, Stan, so it is easily demonstrated that "ALL" of orthodox Christianity has historically agreed with your interpretation.<br /><br />Stan...<br /><br /><i>This is not one of those "questionable items that Christianity has disagreed about" like others that are mentioned.</i><br /><br />Says who?<br /><br />Why is it okay to disagree with Jesus' clear teaching on killing our enemies and still be orthodox but disagreeing with tradition on marriage equity and it's not okay? Says who? Who gets to make that call? Did God die and place you in charge of orthodoxy or questions that are open to disagreement?<br /><br />Stan...<br /><br /><i>This is the standard position for all time.</i><br /><br />But as Naum and I have demonstrated, the "standard historical position" is not always the right one.<br /><br />The "standard historical position" of the church was okay with slavery for nearly two thousand years. That did not make it right.<br /><br />The "standard historical position" of the church accepted "arranged (ie, forced) marriages" for a long time, but that does not make it morally right.<br /><br />The thing is, Stan, the church is NOT infallible. Do you think it is? If so, on WHAT would you base such an opinion, because it's clearly not the teaching of the Bible that leads you to such a hunch.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-30633848810859992232012-05-31T07:53:54.877-07:002012-05-31T07:53:54.877-07:00You are mistaken, Dan, because we are not using th...You are mistaken, Dan, because we are not using the same reference point. Certainly not on this issue.<br /><br />I have taken the position based on what you agree is my "culture", the very same position that all of orthodox Christendom for all of history (as well as the rest of human history) has taken in its understanding of the Bible. This is <i>not</i> one of those "questionable items that Christianity has disagreed about" like others that are mentioned. This is the standard position for all time.<br /><br />Now, <i>you</i> have taken a different position. You have not referenced biblical support. You have not referenced historical support. You have not referenced orthodoxy. Further, you have indicated that the Genesis account is a myth and the statement in question is about how humans mate while I have indicated that it is historical fact and about marriage. Different reference points -- myth or fact. But more to the point, when I said, "Your reference point is something else", I meant "You have not stated any apparent reference point. You have not given any apparent basis for your conclusions. You have disagreed with my biblical position and my position from Church history and my position from human history, but you have not offered a <i>reference point</i> that you are using as the basis for your own conclusions." I simply was avoiding misstating your reference point because I don't know what it is. I simply know it is not a shared reference point.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-77436586301491419322012-05-31T07:29:47.591-07:002012-05-31T07:29:47.591-07:00Stan...
You've offered your objection. Dan (n...Stan...<br /><br /><i>You've offered your objection. Dan (not T) has hit the nail on the head regarding reference points. My reference point is biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity and human history. Your reference point is something else.</i><br /><br />No, it absolutely is not. We're starting from the same points.<br /><br />You and I BOTH believe in the Bible and that it is good for teaching us truth.<br /><br />You and I BOTH believe that people can read the Bible and understand it wrongly.<br /><br />You and I both take into consideration human history and church history.<br /><br />You and I both recognize that points where the fallible humans involved made errors that are human and church history has clear in hindsight.<br /><br />Where am I mistaken?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.com