Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on December 9, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“[N]o sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else’s —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. ‘Marriage’ in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God’s will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Believe it or not, there is NOTHING in the New Testament about rape.
Thus, by your logic, since the NT doesn’t specifically “validate” the proscription against it, it then must be OK to rape people.
/sarc
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 2:06 PM
My bet is on Team Russia to win the 30-second bawl.
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Why do you use the word “condemn”?
The idea is to encourage people to tackle their own problems rather than encouraging them to stew, or even revel, in them.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Or we could, y’know, mind our own business?
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Double Plus 1
ronsfi on December 10, 2008 at 3:21 PM
So now you’re calling me a liar. I don’t call him father. It’s to weird and formal sounding.
So you won’t listen to me, but expect me to listen to you. Got it.
No, you don’t. If you did, you’d stop with the line of questioning you’re currently throwing at me.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 3:28 PM
I didn’t say I was offended, only that your statement was insulting. You’re welcome to be insulting if you choose.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 3:29 PM
I speak my mind (what little there is of it). I have no control over others’ capacity for taking offense, and I have even less inclination to care. The regular pantomime of people being “more offended than thou” is more an object of amusement, really.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Esthier,
Have you noticed the context where these restrictions were given? They were explicitly given to the nation of Israel as their civil laws. They were not stated as general principles for everyone to follow. They were part of Israel’s old covenant with God, a covenant which has been superseded.
At the Last Supper, Jesus refers to this passage when He tells the disciples that His execution and resurrection will establish the new covenant:
So laws which were part of the old covenant and not restated for as part of the new covenant are not ones we are required to obey:
In fact, God gave Peter an explicit demonstration of this change:
Yet even though God had showed Peter that the old covenant proscriptions were no longer in force, Peter still messed up and slipped back into his old ways.
Put simply, Paul opposed Peter here because Peter was reverting to obeying those old Jewish laws which God had given only to Israel under the old covenant, and by doing so, he was messing others up.
Here’s another Jewish law you missed: circumcision. It’s also an explicit example of old covenant laws given only to Israel, and clearly not required of Christians:
On the other hand, the Bible does restate many of the same commands in the New Testament. For example:
So even though the old covenant laws given to Israel do not bind Christians, some commands such as this example, are given again in the New Testament showing that God still considers them to be sins we are to avoid.
The word translated as “homosexual” in this verse is “arsenokoites” (αρσενοκοιτης). It comes from two words, “arsen” (αρσεν) which means “man”, and “koite” (κοιτη) which means “bed”. It literally means “one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite.” (From Thayer’s Greek Lexicon).
BTW… Do you have any idea what the FDA regulations are on handling shellfish? Look them up sometime. They’re pretty extreme. It seems that shellfish tends to go bad fairly quickly and gets easily contaminated if not handled properly. If you eat bad shellfish, you can get very, very sick in a hurry.
It’s no wonder that God told a nation living in a hot climate, with no ice or other refrigeration available to avoid the stuff. In their circumstances, it would have been a major health hazard!
As for pig and other similar animals, they tend to have parasites which can only be killed by proper cooking. Again, it’s far easier for a nation in their circumstances to simply avoid meat likely to contain parasites than to require more advanced technologies for storage which they hadn’t figured out yet.
EWTHeckman on December 10, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Of course you don’t, but you do have control over what words you choose knowing what words are insulting. Again, if that’s what you want to say, then say it.
I’m only acknowledging that it is indeed insulting to many people. Whether or not those people are currently offended or habitually offended is another discussion entirely.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 4:05 PM
Indeed. If I intended an insult, I could formulate something far more effective. This time, I was expressing an opinion.
If people want to take offense over such things, F ‘em. The world does not revolve around their feeble sensibilities.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 4:20 PM
I think I understand you better now.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Sorry, but I DO get your point – and it’s an old, old point (hint: look up Marcion).
Time and again people have tried to throw the Hebrew Bible out of the Christian canon…
…and time and again such people were labeled as heretics since they could not/would not understand what was written in the New Testament.
Jesus did not come to write another Testament – He came to save us and to help us understand what was already written (as Paul wrote – “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”)
Most everything Christ taught either came directly from the OT or was a simple extrapolation from it.
In other words – everything necessary for salvation can be found in the OT.
BTW – how’s that search for ‘rape’ coming in the NT? Also, abortion and capital punishment aren’t really dealt with in the NT (there’s some oblique references, but nothing straight forward).
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 4:46 PM
So then we’re not supposed to obey the Ten Commandments or love God with all our heart and soul (Deuteronomy 10:12) or love our neighbor as ourselves (Leviticus 19:34)?
Yes, there are some things in the Old (and New!) Testaments that we struggle to understand. But that doesn’t mean we throw it all out.
It just means we try harder to understand it.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I wish for once people would actually read the Bible and not take it out of context. The dietary laws were given to the Israelites, not all mankind for all eternity. The command to wipe out a nation was given to the Israelites and specifically limited to the nations that God delineated – far from a carte blanche for “followers of God” to annihilate the enemy of their choosing whenever they deemed proper throughout all time.
Esthier: the excerpts you mention – completely out of context – were commands given to the Israelites at that time and place. How hard is this to understand? Just because God issued a command to someone in particular doesn’t necessarily mean it applies to you. So feel free to wear your cotton/polyesther blend T-shirt.
That’s as bad as telling somebody that the Bible says, “you must sleep with me.” (Genesis 30:16)
Beo on December 10, 2008 at 5:04 PM
I have read the Bible. I’m even a Christian. I was trying to explain why these things are the way they are when I was attacked, but apparently you both prefer that people think Christians cherry pick from the Bible, which was the charge I was defending Christians against.
No, Zealot, you don’t understand me, because what you’re saying here is not at all what I was saying.
I’m done with this.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 5:16 PM
That’s because it ISN’T a moral law! It’s a ceremonial law. Big difference! That law wasn’t intended for you, it was intended for THEM.
Imagine you’re a 4 year old child with a 16 year old sister. Your father tells you not to go into the street, but your sister does so as she pleases. So I ask you is going into the street a sin?
The answer of course is NO. If you go into the street anyway, you are certainly sinning, but your sin is not going into the street. Your sister does it all the time and Daddy knows about it and doesn’t scold her. The sin isn’t going into the street; it’s disobeying your father.
Not going into the street is the “ceremonial law”; obeying your father is the moral law.
Samson wasn’t allowed to cut his hair because he took a Nazarite vow. Which was the moral law, the no-haircuts-rule, or the vow? Does that mean YOU can’t get a haircut? (Why would you think that?)
The dietary restrictions throughout the Pentateuch were intended for those to whom it was addressed. The moral laws were intended for everyone for all time. It’s VERY CLEAR which are which, if you actually read the Bible in context. You’d have to be intentionally obtuse in order to miss it.
Beo on December 10, 2008 at 5:18 PM
I prefer that Christians embrace the entirety of God’s word, and that non-Christians understand that. It’s the cherry-picking (”don’t eat shellfish!”) taken out of context that makes it so easy for unbelievers to dismiss the validity of the Bible. The problem is when Christians are so unfamiliar with the text themselves that they are unable to defend it by presenting the truth. Believers should know the WHO WHAT WHEN WHERE & WHY of passages in the Bible so they can dispel the confusion.
Beo on December 10, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4