Episcopal Bishop Takes A Stand On Homosexuality
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Religion, SexualityI’ve got some heartening news in the world of organized religion. The next leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, has come out (so to speak) and offered that she doesn’t think homosexuality is a sin at all.
Note to those who are trying to ban homosexual marriage and would relegate homosexuals to second class status…please read the following…
Asked how she reconciled her position on homosexuality with specific passages in the Bible declaring sexual relations between men an abomination, Jefferts Schori said the Bible was written in a very different historical context by people asking different questions.“The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear — there are rules in the Bible about those that we don’t observe today,” she said.
“The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings, and that’s certainly the great message of Jesus — to include the unincluded.”
How long have I been waiting to hear those words from a Church leader? Too long.
But get to the more important point of what Bishop Schori is saying, people can cherrypick things out of the Bible and choose to push political agendas based on this passage or that passage, but when they choose to ignore other passages that are even more explicit about regulating behavior according to God’s law, the bottom line is they’re ultimately going to look hypocritical and foolish.
And as history has shown us, religious doctrine designed to limit freedoms has always been defeated in favor of broader civil rights and greater acceptance.
Great job Bishop. You’ve got my ear. Let’s hope others start listening too.
UPDATE:
As commenters KipEsquire and reader_i_am point out, the leader of the Episcopalian church has much less sway over the overall policy of the denomination then, say, the Pope does. I asked for proof and reader_i_am provided that and much more. So I’m going to change the title from “Episcopal Church Takes A Stand On Homosexuality” to “Episcopal Bishop Takes A Stand On Homosexuality”
Thanks for the assist.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 20th, 2006 and is filed under Religion, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 20th, 2006 at 6:05 am
Your headline is sloppy. The Episcopalians are not the Catholics, and their leader is not an autocrat, does not dictate policy and does not speak for its clergy or lay leadership.
Quite the contrary, the church is at this moment deciding how best to “apologize” to the rest of the Anglican Communion for having ordained Gene Robinson, who is openly gay and partnered, in the first place.
June 20th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Fair enough, but as the leader of the Episcopal Church, it can certainly be suggested and assumed that the Bishop speaks for the Church, much like our President speaks for our nation. That doesn’t mean everybody has to agree with what she says, but it’s likely that she sets the agenda, and until somebody else is voted in, that’s how it’s gonna be.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:25 am
I have been waiting for years for someone to notice that the Bible uses exactly the same words (“It is an abomination”) and mandates exactly the same punishment (death by stoning) for a) homosexual behavior (actually only MALE homosexual behavior) and b) wearing clothing made from more than one kind of fiber. So everybody wearing cotton/polyester blend shirts is _exactly_ as sinful as a practicing homosexual — at least, if you are going to take the Old Testiment literally. What fun!
June 20th, 2006 at 11:38 am
it can certainly be suggested and assumed that the Bishop speaks for the Church … it’s likely that she sets the agenda …
Um, not really, at least as your putting it, Justin. I say this quite apart from what the new Presiding Bishop said in response to the question. You misunderstand the role of the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA and the structure of the church. KipEsquire is correct: Your headline is misleading.
I say this as a cradle Episcopalian, an active parishioner, a church staff member (in both paid and unpaid positions), and the veteran of multiple Diocesan conventions.
It’s seems to me that you can stand corrected while still lauding Jefferts Schori’s position.
June 20th, 2006 at 11:40 am
“Your” should be “you’re,” of course (and no “s” on that final “It”!).
June 20th, 2006 at 11:44 am
By the way, I think you’d find that the views of the current Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, aren’t all that different from those of the Presiding Bishop-elect … .
June 20th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Give me a link.
As far as the other views about me being misleading, give me more proof than your opinion and I’ll consider changing it.
June 20th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Incidentally the link between sexism and homophobia becomes clear when you read that several Anglican groups worldwide are protesting her appointment to that position, not because of her position on homosexuality, but because she’s a woman.
The only good kind of bigotry is bigotry against bigots, and that’s debatable.
June 20th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Your headline says “The Episcopal Church Has Taken A Stand on Homosexuality.” You’re basing that on what the Presiding Bishop-elect said in an an interview. (And note that she’s the Bishop-elect–her term doesn’t start until her installation in November.) But in fact, while the Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church, it is also a democratic one. Policy is set through acts of Convention. The ECUSA takes a stand (and actually, with the issue of homosexuality as with most others, it’s more like a series of stands) through acts of Convention. The Presiding Bishop is not the final authority (unlike, say, the Pope, in the Catholic Church). These are historical and easily googled facts.
Also, the democratic nature of the church limits the authority of its leader. The General Convention is the top Episcopal policy-making body and dioceses elect their own bishops.
That’s from a Washington Post article this past Sunday.
That’s not what I’m basing my comment on (because, as a member of the Episcopal Church for 45 years, I long ago mastered the basics of that church’s history and structure; which is what underpins my “opinion”), but perhaps the WaPo article will mean something to you.
With regard to Griswold, I’m not sure exactly what you want. At the time of his election as Presiding Bishop, back in 1997, Integrity (an Episcopal organization for GLB church members), expressed the group’s approval and support:
Following the election, a press release stated:
Integrity rejoices with the whole Church at the election of a new
Presiding Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Frank T. Griswold, III, Bishop of
Chicago. And we join with the whole Church in praying for him as
he prepares to assume this new ministry.
We also rejoice in this election because Bishop Griswold has
long been a supporter of the full participation of gay and lesbian
persons in the life of the Church.
Although we understand he must be the Presiding Bishop of the
whole Church, we look forward to working with him as we continue
to work toward the fulfillment of the General Convention’s 1976
resolve that gay and lesbian persons have a “full and equal claim
with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral con-
cern and care of the Church.�
Today is a day to pray for the Church and for Bishop Griswold,
and we are about that work.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
I was afraid I’d get cut off, so I’ll pick up it up again.
n a letter of congratulations to Bishop Griswold, Integrity President Fred
Ellis wrote:
On behalf of the members of Integrity and our many friends, I
want to congratulate you on your election as the twenty-fifth Presid-
ing Bishop.
We rejoice in your history of ministry with and to the lesbian
and gay community within this church of ours. We look forward to
the continuation of that ministry in your new office and the opportu-
nity of meeting with you
Griswold’s history of support for gays in the church goes back a long way, Justin. I mean, it just has. This is no secret within the congregation.
Not good enough? OK, well in an interview with Beliefnet, he said:
I’ve known this for a very long time, well before Gene Robinson was elected, of the dynamics and aspirations that these people have. Ultimately people are going to do what they feel they’ve got to do, but meanwhile it’s up to me to try to create a climate in which most people feel they have a place.
…
I don’t think the Scripture writers had any notion of homosexuality. My sense is their understanding was that everyone was heterosexual, and so you “behaved� in a homosexual fashion. In other words, it’s a free decision you would make. So you’re dealing with a reality that isn’t reflected in Scripture. Is this possibly an instance where we’ve learned something that takes us beyond the world of the Bible and therefore the texts used don’t really apply?
And this PBS piece from an episode of Religion and Ethics references both the Presiding Bishops lack of authority to make or repeal Church positions AND Griswold’s ongoing acknowledgement of differing interpretations of scripture, specifically as it relates to issues to sexuality, but also more.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
The ECUSA is, indeed, moving in the direction that Jefferts Schori espouses, and I believe it will get there, though probably partly due to schism. But its official position and stand, as a church, will be as result of acts of Convention, and not just because Jefferts Schori says so (just as was true for Griswold).
To be clear: I’m not attacking the Presiding Bishop-elect. She’s a sharp and impressive woman (I’ve heard her speak and even met her, once, at Diocesan convention).
And Sleipner’s right about the objections to Jefferts Schori based on her gender. The larger Anglican Communion (and, regrettably, member of my own congregation, are still fighting that change, all these years later. Bah.)
June 20th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Three cheers for the Bishop Schori complete marginalization of a once proud regional denomination! My heart goes out to the American Episcopalian community, the majority of you probably feel like a passenger in a vehicle being driven by someone willing to take more risks with your spiritual life than you do. Arrogance is to clergy what alcohol is to the teenage driver. And you’ve got yourself a Kennedy after happy-hour on the Hill. I sympathize, I’m Roman Catholic and trying to protect Church doctrine (let alone the liturgy) has been a constant battle against the arrogance of progressivism produced by American seminiaries since Vatican II. God Bless and thank you for Pope Benedict and JP II.
Don’t be offended by Justin. I’m assuming he is not a Espicopalian and so he has nothing at stake, in terms of identity and tradition, and so his opinion only advances his political agenda, at no cost. In economic terms, you have a “free-rider” problem. But to those Epispicopalian gays and lesbians, congratulations, you won. And by winning, you’ve doomed your denomination to the theological dustbin of relativism. One small step for Espicopalians and one very large step for people who could not care less about being Espicopalians.
There really is no other choice. Jump out of the car, now. Schism is a hard thing to do, but you’ll only be preserving what has been here since Christ, was recognized by Christ, and is at the heart of all humanity.
Good Luck and remember, all paths lead to Rome.
June 20th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Point of clarification of in quoted words of Griswold’s:
the dynamics and aspirations that these people have.
“These people” refers to conservative elements in ECUSA who want to become the new ECUSA franchise, so to speak, and maintain ties with the more conservative, larger worldwide Anglican Communion.
June 20th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Don’t be offended by DP. He doesn’t know I spent my formative years in a Episcopalian school here in Kansas City, and attended mass every single day.
But yeah, it’s just my rabid want for equal rights that’s driving me to post this. Wait, I’m actually okay with that.
reader_i_am, I appreciate the links. I’ll change the title.
June 20th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Dos,
I didn’t know you were Roman Catholic. I was raised that way, but I gave it up for lent one year, and it stuck. Your comments about preserving doctrine since Vatican II leads me to this question: You’re not a Mel Gibson Catholic, are you?
Anyway, I’m glad to see this development. Love the sinner, hate the sin, right? Well, personally, I love both, but then again, I have no religion, so I’m not the best spokesperson.
June 20th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
As a practicing Episcopalian, I’m quite satisfied with my denomination’s more open view of homosexuality and don’t see it as “taking risks” with my spiritual life. We’re not Catholics and don’t interpret the Bible with nearly as much textual literalism. Nor do we feel obliged to continue bigotry simply because it is “traditional.”
I do not believe there is any moral relativism in adhearing to Jesus’ many commands to live with open arms and open hearts. And there is no arogance in admitting that there are laws in the Bible that no one, not even fundamentalists, follow. There is, I think, a degree of moral relativism in cherry-picking the prohibition against homosexuality while ignoring other prohibitions that are as harshly worded. The multi-fibered clothes is a good example. But I also point to Jesus’ many warnings against acquiring excessive wealth and lending money with interest. Jesus said nothing of homosexuality. How is this any less “moral relativism” than the willingness to accept homosexuality?
I could go on and on. Biblical history and interpretation is a bit of a hobby of mine. But I will just end by saying homosexuality is much more a cultural issue than a Biblical one. Using the Bible to decalre homosexuality a “sin” is just a trick to give a bigoted opinion moral weight. But, in my opinion, it simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
June 21st, 2006 at 7:56 am
Could someone please provide a specific chapter and verse citation to the “death by stoning for wearing mixed fibers” claim?
June 21st, 2006 at 6:28 pm
The Bishop is ignoring basic principles of biblical interpretation. One of those is this:
What has the New Testament done with an Old Testament teaching?
When looking at the passages on homosexuality (or other offences) as contained in Leviticus, this kind of careful questioning is essential. The Bishop knows better, having been to Seminary.
In short, the OT condemnation of homosexuality is re-iterated in NT passages like Romans 1:26-32, the clearest biblical word on the issue. And while it is true that Jesus doesn’t address the issue of homosexuality, he does speak both lovingly and firmly to a woman caught in adultery. (N.B. — Gene Robinson, the Episcopalian bishop, is also an adulterer, having left his wife for a man). Though Jesus refused to stone her (thereby, in my view, overturning capital punishment in general), he also refused to condone her sin, telling her instead to leave it immediately (see John 8:1-11).
It is a fair inference to conclude that Christ does not condone sexual sin of either the homosexual or heterosexual variety. Instead, he lovingly provides the grace for those trapped in any sexual sin to escape it (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
June 21st, 2006 at 6:49 pm
This issue of the anglican communion splitting is yet another excellent proof in real life of why the church needs to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Without any final authority over issues of faith and morals and how to interpret the Bible, history will repeat itself again and again as the churches have been doing since 1517. It’s Deja Vu all Over again
June 22nd, 2006 at 7:04 am
“(Jesus) does speak both lovingly and firmly to a woman caught in adultery”
Promiscuity is one thing, homosexuality is another. I don’t think the bishop was saying that she was embracing promiscuity.
Jesus spoke much more firmly regarding divorce, yet people are much less passionate about throwing the divorced from the pews.
June 22nd, 2006 at 7:08 am
As yes, the Episcopalian church, where the moral will of an apparently schizophrenic God is decided by the ballot box of the congregation deciding what God should stand for that day.
Episcopalians indeed aren’t Roman Catholics, they are COINs, Christians Only In Name, and just like their physical counterparts, COINs are servants of Mammon, not God. I mean, geez, at least most religions TRY for some level of theological consistency.
Quite frankly this woman has about as much moral authority as George W. Bush or John Kerry, which is to say that any incidence where they might be preaching the moral word of God accurately is completely incidental and they are more likely to get it wrong.
And I fail to see how liberal activists talk about bigotry and prejudice when they declare everyone who doesn’t buy into their agenda has a psychiactric condition characterized by fear of gays, or that they are evil, hateful, “Bible Bangers”, or that they are backwards rednecks that need to step into the rainbow, or some other judgemental crap. By the way, this agenda of theirs is soundly defeated in every state that it gets on the ballot, thereby requiring them to use judical fiat to force it down everyone’s throats.
If anyone is guilty of being judgemental bigots, it is the gay activists. They apparently are all psychaiatrists since they can diagnose everyone who dissagrees with them as having a phobia, even without a psychiatric session. They are apparently the pinnacle of all that is decent and good because anyone who disagrees is a backwards bigot. We’re talking about people who want their bedroom habits to be legitimized, normalized, accepted, and given rights when said habits have no impact whatsoever on society, except having a greater statistical propensity to spread AIDS and other STDs.
Please, noone cares if you’re a homosexual, your sexual orientation just isn’t something you list on a job application. Anyone who mentions that they are gay or straight during an interview is fairly unprofessional and if any employer dissaproves of your partner, its not his business to know. The idea that marriage for gays is somehow equivalant to freedom from slavery for African Americans is ridiculous. We’re talking about doling out government rights for what essentially amounts to sodomy, not taking away centuries of oppression and segregation on nearly all aspects of normal life.
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:05 am
Brian,
In contrast to what you just said, I think rarely do you hear from the gay community that they want the rest of America to accept their sodomy. What their saying is that people like you should accept them regardless of their sodomy. It is my opinion that right wing people of your disposition tend to spend more time focused on their sodomy than they do. All their saying is if they find someone that they love and want to spend the rest of their life with and possible adopt children that they be given the same rights as hetero-sexual Americans. Not more rights, not special rights, the same rights. I’ve known a great number of homo-sexual men, and some have been ass-holes and focused on gay sex. On that same note, I’ve met more straight men that are even larger ass-holes and too focused on hetero-sex. Generally speaking right wing anti-gay individuals tend to zoom in on the sex-obsessed gays and not the average gay. Similarly, when blacks were fighting for their civil rights white americans against that fight focused on the most negative individuals in african american society to hold up as proof to their cause. And when interracial marriage was illegal in a great majority of states, the moral right held up religion as the reason for why interracial marriage should not happen, as well as a slew of moral degradations that would result. Now how anyone can say that the bigotry and predjudice that happened in the civil rights movement in no way relates to the fight of gays and lesbians for equal rights is not related is beyond me. But of course they tend to look to a higher power.
And there have been a great number of schisms in the Roman Catholic church over the years, as well as a number of reversals on church opinions. This is seen in all religions. Dogma only lasts as long a society permits. Just because you don’t like the idea of gays and lesbians getting a fair shake in a religion, does not mean that that religion is less moral or worth than any other.
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:46 am
Brian,
I’m not sure who Mammon is, but I think YOU are being pretty judgmental towards Episcopalians. In fact, your claim that homosexuals are judgmental is laughable, since you regularly pass judgment on anyone and anything that is discussed on this blog. In just that one comment above, you manage to judge Episcopalians, liberal activists, homosexuals, George W. Bush, John Kerry, and judges.
Your reduction of homosexuals’ push for equal rights down to the right to sodomize each other and spread STD’s is offensive at best. It’s hard not to call people like you a bigot when you say the things you do. Actually, based on your comments on this blog, I would have to say that you are the most bigotted person I have exposure to in my life currently. Congratulations!!!
Step into the rainbow? Gay rights are not Skittles.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Oh boy Simon. Where to begin.
1. I have no argument about Episcopalian doctrine because I don’t know it. I suspect Brian doesn’t either. I’m not going to waste my time looking up facts to refute something that he didn’t bother to research himself. If he did do the research, I would like some citations. I’m assuming that his comment about their doctrine was intended as an insult because he disagrees with this woman bishop. I, incidentally, was brought up as a devout Cafeteria Catholic, but I am now an Agnostic. I hold no greater or lesser feelings towards Episcopalians than I do towards any other organized religion. I just felt the need to defend them because Brian seemed to be picking on them just because someone who is a member of that faith made a statement he didn’t agree with.
2. I don’t disagree with that statement, except I would like to point out that I doubt anyone could prove that God would or would not approve of any statements made by politicians, unless they are glaringly obvious. Like, if someone said that murdering people is OK, I suspect God may disapprove, but if someone said that welfare should be reformed, I think we might be in a gray area. (I, of course, being Agnostic, don’t approve of any conversation about what God would and would not approve of).
3. Again, where is support for the statement that people who oppose homophobia are often bigoted and prejudiced against all people who disagree with them on that subject? I disagree with people who are homophobic, and that means that I disagree with them. That doesn’t mean that I think their rights should be taken away – that they should not get jobs because of their beliefs, that they should not be allowed to marry, and that they should not be allowed to have sex with each other. Do I dislike people who feel that way? It depends on the person. I understand why they feel the way they do, and I wouldn’t necessarily want to hang out with them, but I don’t hate them. I’m against people who are really angry and violent and mean when expressing their opinions, no matter what their beliefs are, e.g., Fred Phelps.
4. That would be true, except that it’s not. My proof for that is something called statutes, which dictate what is legal and what is not. Courts can NOT make laws. They simply interpret laws that have been made. If the legislature feels that the court’s interpretation is incorrect, they always have the option to rewrite the law. There are times – like Roe v. Wade and Brown v. BOE – when the Supreme Court has made a decision which ends up guiding the law for the entire country, but there are still ways to do an end-run around those decisions. In the example of Roe v. Wade, individual states and the federal government have restricted abortions in many ways – making it difficult or impossible for many women to obtain an abortion instead of focusing on making it illegal for a woman to obtain an abortion. No one, not liberals or conservatives, has the opportunity to advance their agenda in the judicial system. This is true because judges are not supposed to be advancing agendas at all. I don’t disagree that sometimes they do, but I think it happens less often than people want to portray it. Even when conservatives win out on decisions I don’t agree with, I don’t necessarily call it judicial activism. I am against that phrase, as I have mentioned in previous posts, because that is sometimes a part of a judge’s job. No hard feelings – them’s the breaks.
5. I don’t think that homosexual activists are that focused on sex. That is already legal. What they want is the same civil and privacy rights that all other human beings in this country have. By the way, I think sex is a very important part of everyday life. (I think that statement, and the statements of people who would say the opposite, are opinions, and not facts that need to be refuted.
6. There is an equivalence between homosexual rights and african-american rights – that being the part about equal rights for everyone. While there are a great many distinctions to be made between the groups, it should be fairly obvious to all but the willfully blind that there are many similarities as well.
Well, there you have it. I certainly am glad that you didn’t answer your own questions so that you wouldn’t give me any hints. Now I feel good about being able to handle those tough arguments all by myself. I think the flaw in your argument is that anyone actually needs to demonstrate that Brian’s arguments are wrong, since he has not bothered to demonstrate that they are right. And yes, I am being defensive (I’m just in a bad mood today anyway) because I found your post to be condescending, while I found Brian’s to be plainly ignorant and offensive, as usual.
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Simon:
A very succinct summary of what I was generally trying to get across. Expept Point 5, the point was more that we already have laws that protect against that sort of discrimination and we certainly have laws against assaulting people in general, therefore sexuality should be irrelevant to every day life, but by making their sexuality open and public and demanding rights for it, they are asking us to view it as beneficial for society and perfectly acceptable. If what is in their bedroom is their business, then by all means keep it in the bedroom instead of going out in the public square and demanding the people give acceptance for and benefits because of your sexual habits.
Otherwise, Thank you Simon.
Meredith:
Yes, I do pass judgement… on IDEAS, COMMENTARY, and PROPOSALS offered here on Donklephant. To never pass judgement is to give up your voice. All laws are in fact judgements on behavior. We have an entire legal system based solely on judging which actions are legal and which are not, and then judging the sentence we will give to someone who violates a given law. Republican Government (which is what we have, a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy) does not exist without making judgements.
I am proud of the fact I judge, if I did not judge I would be without a voice. Sure, its not “politically correct” to be “judgemental”, but then again, the number of things that political correctness has mandated we can and cannot say or do simply speaks to how judgemental political correctness itself is. In fact, the judgement handed down by the politcally correct crowd is so oppressive that it calls for the SILENCE of dissenting opinions.
Going down the list:
1. The Episcopalian church underwent a schism when that openly homosexual bishop was elected. The church split into those that thought it was OK and those that didn’t. This was not their first split either and in fact, starting with Lutheranism, Protestant demoninations have split and split and split over the centuries to the point where there number of Protestant denominations is almost greater than the number of all other religions combined.
2. That was essentially the point Simon, although I extend it further to that politicians use their religion solely for political gain, even when their own voting record or other views directly contradict that religion. John Kerry says he’s Catholic. John Kerry neglects to tell you he supports abortion, or he spouts the “personally opposed” meme while voting against partial-birth abortion bans.
3. Go to any website where gay marriage is discussed. The most common 3 words you will find in any post from a supporter are “homophobi(a/c)”, heterosexis(t/m), and bigotry being used to assess the characjter anyone who opposes same-sex marriage. You cannot legitimately oppose it, they must be any or a combination of the above 3. The Democrats and the Republicans during the debate were disconnected, with Democrats saying “there are more important things to filibuster, er, do.” and “writing bigotry into the constitution”, while Republicans were speaking about “activist judges” and “courts deeming unconstitutional the laws decided by the people using the legitimate democratic processes available to them”. No Debate occured. It was either “Writing bigotry” or “Activist judges”.
4. As Simon stated succintly, the courts have the power to deem things unconstitutional, which is exactly what the Massachusetts court has done to the people of Massachusetts. Our Supreme Court deemed that same-sex marriage was Constitutionally protected and threw out the power of the people to decide who would recieve marriage under what terms. They subverted the will of the people through judicial fiat and told us it was unconstitutional to regulate who can recieve marriage in Massachusetts.
5. The point is, we already have protections against assault and wrongful discharge. What we’re talking about here is a right to marriage, which is not a constitutional right but rather a societal structure that has already had enough damage done to it between femism, “sexual liberation”, and an oversexed amoral media. What I am quoting to you is statistics Meredith. Contrary to the campaign ads, AIDS DOES discriminate. This is because, like it or not, the reality is that homosexual sex has a higher chance of spreading disease and that homosexuals generally have more partners over a lifetime than heterosexuals do. All these factors increase the risk for getting an STD. That isn’t bigotry, it is fact.
When we are going to dole out government marriages for unions, we have to consider who or what marriage is FOR. Marriage is for CHILDREN, NOT PARENTS. Marriage between one man and one woman, aside from being naturally sensical and conducive to reproduction, is the best environment for a child to be raised in. A child DESERVES to have a father and a mother, not 2 dads, not 2 moms, not Progenitor A and Progenitor B, but ONE father and ONE mother. You have to compare apples to apples. If homsexuals are indeed “just like the rest of us” and we hold this to be constant in all manners, then the rate of abusive parents and divorces among homosexuals will be the same as their heterosexual counterparts, which will lead to an absolute numerical value of more broken families and abusive situations. Children are not a commodity, adopting a child should not be because you always wanted one or because it will make your family “complete”, it should be done only because you intend to give that child all of your love and attention and support and you intend to make them an upstanding member of society.
6. We are not talking about the right to vote or the right to be free from abuse and assault, we already have laws regarding that behavior. What we are talking about is granting rights that are intended solely for the benefit of children and to keep society stable, and the argument has not been made that such is the case with same-sex marriage. When the people have gotten a chance to vote for it they have always struck it down, unconvinced by the gay activists. This is probably because the gay activist strategy is to assault the character of those who dissagree with them rather than argue that having 2 moms or 2 dads has the same effectiveness as having one parent of both genders, and that by normalizing this behavior it will not lead to societal decay because of sexual experimentation by teenagers, who are not renowned for their excellent judgement. I’m simply asking for them to make the argument, sans character assasination.
Note: This post was judgemental. That was rather the point of posting it.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:12 am
Where is it stated that the sole purpose of marriage is for children? Is it in the Law? The Constitution? The Bible? Do sterile people not deserve the right to marriage? Using that argument Brian, the answer would be yes. Of course that is ridiculous, but If you us your argument that a marriage is for children, then it would be true.
Also, why do you think that gays and lesbians have selfish reasons for wanting to get married or have children? Can’t Gays and Lesbians be loving parents who want children because they “intend to give that child all of your love and attention and support and you intend to make them an upstanding member of society”.
And Homosexual sex does not actually have greater chance of spreading HIV. Anal sex is, Brian. I’m guessing you’re not into that, but a lot of happily married Hetero-sexual couples are. Also Women having Straight sex in the missionary position (I’m sure the preferred position of many right wingers, but most any position is equally likely to cause tears) are much more susceptible of contracting HIV from a man, than a man is from contracting it from a woman. Does that mean that women are bad because they are more likely to contract HIV? And not all Gay men have anal sex. Some really don’t like it, just like some women and straight men really don’t like it.
The point of more sexual partners is true, granted, but NOT because Straight people are more moral. Women are more protective of sex than men are. Period. If women were as driven by sex as men are, there would be the same level of issues with sexually transmitted disease as there are in the homo-sexual community. This is going to kill a lot of very religious people, but you this is because of evolution. Men have these things called Hormones (women have them too, but they work a little different). These little hormones send signals to our brain telling Men to go out and get some action. You see, this happens with animals too. I turkey hunt, and if you’ve turkey hunted, you know pretending to be a female turkey is the best way to get a male turkey to get close enough to shoot. This assures the survival of the species, but not for the unlucky turkey in the previous example. But the same thing happens with Men, even gay men. It’s a part of nature, Or if it’ll make you happy, God’s grand design. So I know, it’s against this nature for Gays and Lesbians, they’ve deviated from that, but Com’on hasn’t all mankind. And there are actually a great number of examples of Homosexual behavior with animals too. That’s for another discussion.
But to sum it up Brian, I’m afraid that from what you’ve posted, I have to agree with these activist homosexuals that feel that people of your type are bigoted, and homophobic.
June 23rd, 2006 at 10:47 am
Say John, where exactly did you get your physciatric license? It takes an incredible amount of arrogance to diagnose someone with a phobia with no basis other than their opinion differs from your own. I do not fear gays, I simply think their proposal to get government benefits for sexual deviance is ludicrous because it ends up having an overall negative effect on society.
Marriage itself between 1 man and 1 woman forms a proper social model for children, even if the parents can’t have children. Same sex marriage promotes sexual deviance and experimentation (you now have several forms of “normal” relationships and, teenagers, trying to find themselves, are most certainly going to be more adventurous if being married someone of the same gender is OK.) It becomes more likely that more people marrying their second grade best friend they’ve known for ages rather than actually trying to seek a healthy relationship with someone of the opposite gender (as they never grow out of the “girls are icky” stage), and it normalizes every kind of relationship possible. It creates a slippery slope. Why define marriage as just 1 partner, how about 3, or 5, or 7? You can’t judge the polygamists, they feel they are entering a legitimate equal relationship and you should butt out of their personal life. Anyone who doesn’t except polygamy is a close-minded bigot, probably homophobic, and I’m sure their invent some other fear to diagnose people with. Those who support gay marriage take everything personally, you can’t criticize gay marriage without criticizing gay people, because gays are “victims”, and you can’t question victims.
And what about NAMBLA? They’ve been stating for years than pedophilia is perfectly natural and should be encouraged. Who are we to JUDGE their actions, they have every right to do whatever they want. Relations with minors don’t “hurt society” or “hurt children”, they are “perfectly natural” and those who don’t accept that are “judgemental”.
If you’re going to give government benefits to one form of deviance, you have to allow them all. It is JUDGEMENTAL to state that only 2 people can be married to each other. You’re JUDGING polygamists. What they do is none of YOUR business, regardless of what impact the normalization of the behavior has on society. Gay marriage and its effects do not exist within a vacuum. It WILL affect society, the norms and moors of society, and what is considered acceptable. I’d even wager that with some of the more viscious activists telling us what a bunch of evil bigoted troglodytes we are, if we dare try to make sure our children only consider partners of the opposite gender for a lifelong marital relationship, the stream of hateful invective and “you evil judgemental bigoted heterosexism homophobe (fascist, Nazi, Bible-banging, etc.)” will never stop.
I have tried to make this as clear and possible, if you still do not understand my position that is fine. However, unless any of you plan to give me a psychiatric test to determine what phobias I have, please refrain from making such an assessment of me. That is beside the point anyway, I could be a Neo-Nazi whose entire family supported the Fuhrer in WWII and that wouldn’t take away the substance of my points. Allegations about my character or mental state do not address my points, what they attempt to do is de-legitimize my argument by allowing you to take the moral high ground and ignore the entire debate. “Why argue with him, he’s EVIL and BIGOTED and HOMOPHOBIC,” as it were.
June 23rd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Simon,
As to your comment about the judicial system. The thing is, judicial activism is not necessarily a bad thing. The Supreme Court leaned conservative from around 1900 to 1930, then it started to lean more liberal, and now it will probably start to shift back towards conservatism with the appointment of Alito and Roberts. Judicial Activism in this country has led to labor laws, desegregation, privacy rights, voting rights, the abolition of slavery, etc.
Also, the Supreme Court will always be debating the issues when it comes to Amendments, such as the 8th, which is involved where the death penalty is concerned. This type of Con law issue is not the same as when we are talking about statutes.
Lastly, because of the recent changes with the SC, I fully expect some judicial activism to emerge from conservatives, in fact the Exclusionary Rule case has already started the ball rolling. I certainly hope that conservatives will not deny the “activist” decisions that emerge from the Roberts Court.
June 23rd, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Brian,
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look, I don’t know why you’re defending yourself for being judgmental. The reason I brought that up was because you were accusing lots of other people for being judgmental in your original comment. I would just ask that you not be a hypocrite about it.
As to many of the remainder of your responses, I’m not sure they are even on point, and I can see that there is not much use in debating this stuff with you because you are so convinced you are right, and you seem to be really angry and bitter about it. Maybe you should move to a red state, where you can commiserate with people who share your views. You may not like it, but you really do sound like a hateful bigot in the way you express your opinions.
I would guess that you are homophobic because you are operating out of fear – fear that gays are spreading HIV all over the place, fear that gays will do something awful to children they adopt, fear that the courts are going to force us to accept gays, fear that our society will be ruined by gays . . . I could go on and on. You ARE afraid – and the theme seems to be gays.
I will not even ask you to support your positions on the ability of homosexuals to raise children, have healthy families, spread disease, etc., because I already know what the experts say about these topics. (Hint: They don’t support your theories). Oh, and apparently feminism was really bad according to you? Would you prefer to go back a few decades and take away our rights as well? And, if you were a neo-nazi family who supported Hitler in WWII, it WOULD take away the substance from your points. I doubt you would understand why, as you usually demonstrate such a lack of self-awareness routinely on this blog.
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:02 pm
I think the invocation of NAMBLA is a little tired, and doesn’t actually advance your argument any (the obvious rejoinder is that what NAMBLA advocates is “consensual” relationships wherein one party is not competant to consent, while what proponents of homosexual marriage advocate is that society has no place telling consenting adults what they can and can’t do). So I think it’s regrettable that you feel the need to raise an argument which detracts from the (much better) point that you also make, which is the slippery slope in general, and towards polygamy in particular.
The “slippery slope” is often, although not always, a logical fallacy; but in this case, it is a strong argument for two reasons.
Firstly, on a theoretical basis, it is readily apparent that the rationale for permitting homosexual marriage does not have any internal constraints that prevent its application to polygamy: if the argument is that two consenting adults should be able to enter a marriage if they so choose, regardless of the traditional definition of marriage – that is, that individuals should be able to define the terms on which they enter into the institution, rather than accepting the terms of the institution – then why not three? What is the moral justification that permits any two, but not any three? Once one abandons the role of tradition in defining the form of marriage, it cannot easily be resurrected, and moreover, all forms become permissable. I have no particular animus to the idea of homosexual marriage, but I certainly oppose it being imposed by courts, and I would not vote for a law that permitted it unless there was a clear internally-reinforcing logic to the premise of the change that changing the definition of marriage this way does not open the door to changing it that way. For this reason, my position on this matter has somewhat changed; I was somewhat in favor of homosexual marriage, on the gronds that I believe that – freestanding – it would discourage promiscuity and encourage precisely the stable, monogamous, lifelong relationships, which I think (and one imagines that Brian agrees) are naturally beneficial to society, regardless of the gender of the partners. But ironically enough, precisely as a result of the open-ended reasoning deployed by proponents of homosexual marriage, I have to admit that I’m not certain any more that I would vote against a ban. It seems reasonable that there must be some rationale for opening marriage to homosexuals but which would not open marriage to polygamy, which makes the failure of proponents to articulate one almost inexplicable; indeed, one is practically forced to conclude that either there really isn’t such a rationale, or alternatively, that proponents of homosexual marriage don’t care about (or, worse yet, actively support) the ramifications for polygamy.
And secondly, the slippery slope is a good argument here because it is confirmed a posteriori: on February 2nd, 2004, a badly-divided (3-1-3) Massachusetts Supreme Court declared in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health that it was unconstitutional to prohibit homosexual marriage. Within the time it took the dust to settle, the implications of the reasoning — and (I think) unlike Brian, it’s the reasoning in all this that troubles me, more so than the result — became obvious, and on April 20th, 2004, bigamists in California started militating to have bans on polygamy overturned, relying on the same reasoning as used in Goodridge. To the extent that Goodridge relied on Lawrence, supra, and polygamists are now claiming (not entirely illogically) that laws against polygamy cannot survive scrutiny under Goodridge and Lawrence, we are indeed hurtling down a slippery slope in search of a handhold. I would think that’s your best argument (and it is a good argument, because I’ve yet to see a convincing argument against it), not some overheated nonsense about NAMBLA.
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Brian,
Most men who belong to Nambla, from my understanding of the organization, tend to associate themselves with Hetero-Sexuality. I know this is hard to comprehend, because the name of the Organization is Man Boy Love, but nevertheless. And I’m sure you know this, but the vast majority of Child Molestation (even with men to boys) is done by straight males.
It’s interesting that your bitch about my response was that I was judging, but throughout this post you have been judgmental of everyone. So Yes, Brian, I am judging you. Not everyone is going to think like you, not me, not Gays, not activist judges, not Episcopalians, not the liberal media, not the intelligencia that control universities, not a lot of people. But Meredith is right about the homophobia bit. I don’t think that your afraid of an individual gay man, the way my mother fears spiders. But you don’t like the idea that their choices are different then yours, you seem to think the choices they make some how affect you, and will turn either you or your son gay. But if you knew any gay men and spoke to them, not as if they were threatening the moral fiber of America, you would find that most struggle with their sexuality, and have had these feelings for a very long time. It isn’t a lifestyle choice for them like polygamy. And by the way, what kind of person implies that consensual sex between two men is as damaging as sex between an adult and a minor, talk about arrogance.
You sir, are implying that homosexuality is deviance, but that is your personal opinion, but regardless of that, it is not the same as child molestation.
Just out of curiosity Brian, why so defensive about the psychiatric test bit? Have you taken one, do you think you should? (A Judgmental Joke Brian, don’t take it personally.)
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:57 pm
I’ve added three or four fairly lengthy replies to this thread today, and every single one has been eaten by the spam filter – “Sorry, but your comment has been flagged by the spam filter running on this blog: this might be an error, in which case all apologies. Your comment will be presented to the blog admin who will be able to restore it immediately.” What is it that’s triggering it, and could I get an admin to unscreen those comments? They took a fair amount of time to write, and I think they add to the matters under debate.
June 23rd, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Hi Simon. Have all of them been recovered? If not, email me again and I’ll keep searching. My apologies for our spam filter, but it’s a must if we want to keep the comment sections clean. This blog literally gets thousands of spam comments a day and sometimes a real comment gets lost in the mix.
Thanks for understanding.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Judicial activism (act 1, scene 1)
This isn’t really a post so much as it’s a mangled reply: I wrote a reply to this comment at Donklephant; repeated attempts to get it through Donklephant’s spam filter have failed, but I’m not quite ready to throw it out – so I’m going to repackag…
June 26th, 2006 at 10:41 am
By the way,
Who says we shouldn’t allow polygamy? I don’t have a problem with it as long as it involves actual adults (not teenagers) who actually consent (are not brainwashed). I think it could be made legal, and it would work out fine, but it would need to be regulated quite a bit.
Do I think polygamy is a good idea? No. Would I do it? Absolutely NOT. I’m into the HBO series “Big Love,” which is about polygamists – one family has “modernized” and lives in the suburbs, while their relatives are still back on the “compound.” It’s an awesome show with lots of conflict, comedy, drama, etc. – like a soap opera. It both reinforces my belief that polygamy is a bad idea in my opinion and persuades me that people should be allowed to do it if they want to.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
We never even think about multiple males and a female polygamy, but comon, talk about allowing for a stay at home mom, although she would be essentially a baby machine, but let’s face it a number of righties would take a similar stance in altogether different terms. Currently to keep up with the jones’ you have to have two working parents that does not allow much time for quality time for the kids. MMF or FFM polygamy would allow for one person to stay home, while there is a stay home parent to take care of the kids. Now, that is not to say that a stay at home dad is not a possibility in this scenario, but with MMF, Let’s face the F is the only one having kids, and with two men folk, she’ll be knocked up too much to work.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:31 am
To Greg Crofford:
the quote from the bible itself to defend homosexuality – and all other practicises abhorred by the Church. (Does not often come up, I’m pleased to spot it!)
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” In other words only perfect people are allowed to brutally murder adulteresses.
Another quote from Jesus – relevant everywhere. “Judge not lest ye be judged.”
And by the way, if anyone considered polygamy with me, they wouldn’t have anything left to polygamise with. Marriage vows specify loving one person – forsaking ALL others. More than moral breakdown to the church, polygamy is breaking a personal promise.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Kat,
The polygamist would not use the same vows as are in traditional christian ceremonies.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:54 am
So if polygamy is so bad, why was it practiced in the old testament? The only real reason to oppose polygamy (imho) is that many of its current practitioners in the United States are using it more as a method of child abuse than as a healthy relationship. I’ve heard some communes will effectively sign over their 12 or 13 year old daughter to their neighbor and get his in return, then when she starts getting too old (at 18 or so) do it again with someone else’s daughter.
I know of several gay people in 3-way relationships, and they seem to be quite happy with the situation. The comments about MMF or whichever groupings being better for reasons of earning power, house purchase, and child care capacity are quite valid, as over the past generation earning power of the average person has decreased markedly while expenses have risen significantly. Two income households often barely make enough to make ends meet, much less afford the time and cost of rearing children.
The biggest problem with polygamy is a legal one, not a moral one. If a 3 person relationship ends, who gets the kids? Who pays and receives alimony? Who gets the house? In addition, how does insurance work? What about adoption? Our laws are all designed for two-person relationships, so while adapting them to gay relationships is relatively simple, polygamy would require a LOT of editing.
Along those lines, the biggest reason to allow gay marriage is a legal one. Over 1000 rights that are commonly given automatically to straight couples with marriage are denied forever to gay couples. A few of those rights can be approximated if you spend thousands of dollars on a good lawyer, but most can’t afford that.
A few of the big issues are taxes (big extra expense), inheritance (relatives often override wills), health care (did you know even if you get domestic partner health insurance you have to pay tax on the value of your partner’s granted benefits?), adoption (illegal in many states), immigration (no legal avenue to get a spouse into the country) and many many others.
So when right wingers start talking about “granting special rights” I get really mad…I just want the same rights that they get by default.
July 2nd, 2006 at 2:17 pm
I cannot for the life of me, understand how any Bible believing Christian can accept any church leader supporting homosexual acts as being acceptable, let alone giving approval of a so called gay ‘marriage.’ These leaders are heretics and should be put out of the church and not permitted to return until they repent of their false doctrines which give approval of such things. The Apostle Paul says in Romans that people who approve of such things are deserving of death!
WE have clear teaching in the Bible on such matters. For any person to claim some things where only relevant to that cultural period has no understanding of the ‘nature of God.’
As a minister who works with broken and damaged people, some who have been in homosexual unions, I have seen countless demon infested persons set free from unclean spirits due to this behaviour.
Demons only enter through trauma and sin, so the bottom line is that sex acts performed by humans outside of God’s plan will allow legal rights for unclean spirits to enter a person.
God help us all to be brave and stand for righteousness.
July 3rd, 2006 at 11:39 am
jon,
your opinions are most likely the very reason why chritianity is in a decline in the western world. See, but not all people, myself included, think the same way you do. I know you think you are just doing what your god asks, but I don’t believe in your god. This does not mean that you do not have the right to believe in whatever you would like. My denying the truth you claim to hold is not the same as me restricting that truth. Can you say the same about me? If the gov’t passes the rights for homosexuals to get married, it can not force a religion to grant wedding rites to homosexuals. But there are available civil means to getting married that can be obtained.
July 4th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
A point that seems to be missed is that the Episcopal Church is part of an Anglican community, which is part of a catholic tradition including other Christian churches. Anyone in the USA making the decision that it is permitted to allow sexually active gays to hold any office without the consent of the rest of the communion, is out of step.
Instead of this latest convention working out the problem that decisions have already been made outside of the rest of the Christian communion, it has once again supported the tear in unity and pushed it even further by electing a bishop as leader that clearly supports the gay lifestyle for priests and bishops along with declaring herself as a prophet, who claims that gay lifestyle is no longer a sin.
Same sex attraction should can be avoided through celibacy for clergy and taking part in gay lifestyle is against the acceptable behavior of a Christian and will get in the way of a deeper relationship with Christ.
July 9th, 2006 at 4:18 am
Hi John,
Thany you for your reply. The facts are that Christianity is NOT in decline. There are more people becoming ‘born again’ than there are people being born. We are witnessing a wonderful move of God across the globe as God continues to bring people into wonderful regeneration.
Now lets get real.
Homosexuality is totality unacceptable to the ‘Almighty God’ whom we claim we serve. So also is any relationship of a sexual nature outside of marriage.
I am bewildered why any true Christian could possibily endorse homosexuality, or any person who practices behaviour associated with homosexuality could claim to be in tune with God.
Gay lifestyle is wrong.
Any person who declares it as acceptable and lays claim it being acceptable has no understanding of God’s plan for humanity.
Wake up.
Stop trying to twist God’s Word to suit sin!
July 9th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Jon,
I said in decline in the western world, being essentially Europe and the US. I admit, christianity is rising in Asia and a number of third world country’s where Islam has not taken root, but in the modern west, it is in decline, I’m sorry to say. There are more agnostics, being they believe in something but do not know what, now then ever. And you did not answer my question about respecting others beliefs. Do you? Do you think other people have the right to not believe in your god? Then if they have the right not to believe in your god, they must also have the right to be homosexual, and eventually face the wrath of your god. My thought is that you and others like you actually do not think others have the right to NOT believe in God, and that this denial of your truth is not covered in freedom of religion. Freedom of religion only really comes into play when the religious right want to impose their beliefs on others by tossing the ten commandments in a court house or organizing prayer in schools. See, but that is not freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is the right to follow whatever belief you think is right.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Hi John,
Yes you are right when you say everybody has a right to believe in whatever religion they want. I have no problem with that. Where I have a problem is when a person claims to be a Christian, but then wants to change the rules of Christianity to suit their opinions and desires. There can be no claim by a church to be Christian if it goes against the Word of God. No bishop nor any church leader can excape being a heretic by preaching ‘another Gospel.’
When a person joins a club, the he is asked to accept the rules of that club. For instance if you want to be a Moslem, then you will be required to pray 5 times a day facing Mecca.
Now with Christianity, we have one simple rule. Follow Christ. In following Him we have a Book called the Bible and it says the practice of homosexuality is sinful, as is sex between a man and a woman outside of marriage.
Now let me say this. The laws in the USA where founded on Biblical truths as indeed they where here in Australia. You can follow whatever religion you want, but don’t deny your fellow Americans to follow Christianity if they want, and to present their Gospel of Jesus Christ to others to consider.
Of course we could always embrace another belief system such as Islam or even that cult rogue state in North Korea. It seems to me that real freedom comes with Christianity; you either accept Jesus or you reject Him…..its everybody’s free choice.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:30 am
Jon,
I’m sure that you realize that there are many things in the bible that you do not follow. Hasn’t the church always been selective on what things to follow and which not to? I’m not sure which denomination you follow, but I’m willing to believe that living in Australia, you eat shell fish, or pork. I’m willing to believe that you have no issues with interest on loans. There are thousands of things stated in the bible that I’m sure you do not practice, or think is applicable. I know that it polygamy is never discouraged in the bible, but I’m willing to believe you think marriage should be between two people. So, before you call others in your lot heretics for being selective in what they follow in the bible, “Let he without sin cast the first stone.”
July 10th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Hi again John,
I follow the New Testamant as best I can. The Christian church today is for the most part, follows the New Testamant. I am not sure what you mean by the ‘church being selective’ on what to follow. Scripture must always be taken in context for the purpose which it is written. For instance the Book of Hebrews was written against the backdrop of the Jewish Christians who were fustrated by the long wait for Jesus to return. They were having doubts about leaving the ‘old’ order (Judaism) for Christianity. The writer of this epistle was talking about the superiority of Jesus Christ over the Old Covenant!
Now lets move to your comment the eating of shellfish and pork. In the Old Covenant God forbid Israel to eat those foods. But now in the new order…New Covenant, God spoke to Peter and removed that directive. (Acts 10:9-16) Also (Romans 14:14-23).
You see John there was nothing wrong with the Old Covenant….it was holy….without the law we would not know sin……but the law could not be fulfilled and God knew that. Humanity was in transition. The Old Covenant was the LAW. The New Covenant is GRACE. Under the New Covenant we have a better thing, and that is Jesus Christ who became our ransom and direct connection to God.(Hebrews 8:7-13)
Again the New Testamant says we should have ONE WIFE….so you are wrong. The Bible is very clear with this so where do you find your comments, ‘polgamy is never discouraged in the Bible?’ (Romans 7:3)
I don’t claim to be without sin. I do claim that Scripture is to be followed and at times I will stumble as we all do. But anybody who twists the clear instructions in Scripture, as do some on the issue of homosexuality and at the same time claims to be Christian is a heretic.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
jon,
I like it when christians toss out bible quotes. Typically there are as many quotes against a thing as for it. Didn’t your man Jesus say,
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18)
But your assertion that nothing has changed in respect to our modern understanding of society and what is written in the bible is ridiculous. Slavery is tossed around repeatedly in the bible, too often to even bother writing here. Are you saying that Slavery is moral in the eyes of god? Some choice quotes are Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossian 4:1 and 1Timothy 6:1-3. Please spare me the bit about how slavery in the times of Jesus was more like a servant or hired hand, slaves could be sold to others, the Master had the right to kill the slave if the slave did certain things wrong. And I know that the Christians were told repeatedly in the bible to treat slaves as if they were your family, but it is still slavery, no matter how you sugar coat it.
Now in terms of marriage, you said that the New Testament is clear on marriage. I think your wrong there. Romans 7:3 “So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.� I think we all know that women did not have multiple husbands… men had multiple wives. How also do you resolve Mathew 25:1-13 where jesus tells the parable of the bridegroom and the ten virgins, where he takes five for his wife and rejects five foolish ones.
Also please show me where anyone in the new testament actually eats an “unclean animal”.
Our understanding of the bible changes with time, and so does the bible, how else do you explain the multiple versions, all essentially the same, but still different. Our understanding of the church changes as well, used to be just the Roman Catholic, then the Orthodox, then the Protestants, then the Anglicans, so on and so forth. Religion and our understanding of it changes through time, and even though the new evangelical faiths that tend to yell the loudest believe that they found the one true word of god in a text that has been around for centuries, It is still their interpretation of that text.
July 11th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Hi John,
I am happy to get to the nitty gritty with you on Scripture, but lets keep it point by point and not wander all over the place. I have no intention of discussing slavery etc. when you clearly have a twisted understanding of Scripture and its systematic application. But God willing I will attempt to bring some understanding of my claims. You say, “typically there are as many quotes against a thing as for it.” You are referring to the Bible here. That commment lacks any evidence and is totally wrong. Nowhere in Scripture do we find doctrine studied for its own sake or in isolation from life. The biblicial writers consistently apply their teaching to life. Furthermore, systematic theology focuses on summarizing each doctrine as it should be understood by present-day Christians. This will sometimes involve the use of terms and even concepts that were not themselves used by any individual biblical author, but that are the proper result of combining the teachings of two or more biblical authors on a particular subject.
Now your comments on marriage. I quoted you from Romans as the apostle Paul uses the marriage as an excellent example of law verses grace. Furthermore he uses marriage in such a way as to show one man and one wife…not many wives. Further in Scriptures Paul teaches the requirements of leadership by saying “the husband of one wife.”The parable you quote DOES NOT suggest Jesus gives approval of multiple partners in marriage. He is using a PARABLE only and not suggesting more than one wife to one husband. He was obviously giving an example of THINGS PAST…not present tense nor the way for marriage in the new age.
John…..I gave you the clear example about the eating of animals. Did you not understand?Acts chapter 10 is I suggest universally accepted as clear doctrine on this subject by all Christian theologians.
You say, “our understanding of the Bible changes with time.” What in the world are you talking about? That is absolute rubbish and is mischievous. To suggest the Bible changes also leaves me wondering where in the world you get these ideas.
The multipe versions are simply that. Canon of Scripture is our authority, however as you may well know, words and their meanings change with time and some Bible scholars bring out a version to help some people have a more clear understanding in this present day. For instance how could a child understand the KJV fully? Would not a version with more simple instruction be more teachable? I mean the message doesn’t change…just the presentation!
John, God uses all denominations with their various ways of presenting Scripture. I don’t think I have heard any person claiming their denomination has absolute knowledge and ownership of all things God. That is whatt is so wonderful. The essental Christian doctrine is steadfast in all Christian denominations and that is our strength.
You have some opinions which are misdirected and misquoted resulting in confusion.
I hope I have been of some help to you and pray you get the revelation of the true Lord Jesus Christ
July 11th, 2006 at 11:34 am
jon,
I think it is condescending to imply that my view of the bible is a “twisted understanding of scripture” because it is not your own. I have a Bachelors in Comparative Religion, and I have studied the Text and I am not some half wit, who can not view this text objectively. And if you can not see that there are clear and Obvious inconsistencies with the Text, you must be blinded by your own faith. The evidence that represents inconsistency within the bible is clearly stated within the bible. This goes with clean and unclean food, marriage, slavery, circumcision and a whole host of other things. If you’d like to quote by from scripture on this, I will be glad to. It is only through your interpretation of the bible that you weed out what you chose to believe in or not… Hence all the various denominations. Some Laws are clear, and remain that way throughout the Text, but not all are so clear.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Hi John,
I guess you have your view and thats your right. I disagree with much of your claims and having a BA holds no right to understanding. I see no reason to change my views on your comments since we are miles apart on almost everything you state.
Having any sort of ‘head knowledge’ does not bring revelation. The tradegy is you have a total lack of understanding of the nature of God and it shows in your comments. This also shows up in your attack on the Word and any of those who have received His revelation.
You see John I can tell you all about my father, however, unless you meet him you don’t know him!
Kind regards.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Always the best way to run from a discussion is to claim the ignorance of another and tout the inner truth that only your kind hold. Wasn’t that the subject of the discussion itself? How ironic. Your argument to defend your position is your position itself. Kinda familiar to christians, the whole you don’t understand because you can’t understand. Oh, and you can’t forget the christian martyr with the whole “your attack on the Word” bit.
Best Wishes jon, I know all I need to know about the man who you claim to be your father… I’ve got a father, he’s in Michigan. Good man, you’d like him.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:59 am
Hi John,
I have loked back on some of the things I have said and reviewed your comments. I truely see some things I said that I could have been more gracious.
It was never my intention to claim absolute knowledge on, nor cause you to react to because of my christianity.
My problem is my zeal and it can get in the way of understanding the other persons point of view.
I never knew God until an amazing encounter on a road which caused a complete turnaroubutnd in my life. How in the world can a person explain to another such an amazing event which will have any sort of meaning?
I don’t quite know what you mean by ‘your kind’ but if its because I am a Christian then you have to at least question why so many of ‘your kind’ are so zealous.
Whatever the truth is, I believe everybody has a right to know it.
Best regards.
July 14th, 2006 at 7:55 am
“Your Kind” in this instance was referring to Christians who believe that they hold THE one true truth. The problem is, Jon, that every religion believes this. There are zealot buddhists, hindus, muslims… They all can’t be right, but they all can be wrong. Don’t you see claiming that you must have the truth because you had an amazing experience with God is no more right than a Buddhist claiming the same thing. The difference is that Buddhism is not as much a missionary religion as Christianity, and they rarely try to force their beliefs on others. This is not the same as Christianity, which throughout its history (In a role of Control), has seen every form of conversion, including violence. While most Christians would not condone that now, it is a part of your history, and it was claimed to be accepted by God at the time.
Your right, I can not understand what motivates you to be so zealous in your convictions, but when you try toss them out there as if my not believing what you believe is some how A-Moral, is offensive. I never once said you did not have the right to believe what you believe in, you do, just keep it to yourself, or I’ll tell you what I believe in. If informing you and other christians that my opinion is different than yours make me sound like a zealot against you, or that I’m persecuting you or “your kind”, I apologize. I’m not persecuting you, I’m informing you that clearly there is not just ONE God in this world, there are many, BUT you have the right to pick the one you like for whatever reason you have for choosing to believe what you do.