Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on December 9, 2008 by Allahpundit
“[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.”
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 Next »
Just being a little snarky.
As far as I can tell, the bible is a mixture of recorded history and mythology with manuals on public and private morality, law, and hygiene. While a few things are dated (like the safety of eating pork or the treatment of common diseases) the instructions and warnings about sexual behavior are not, or at lest not yet.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Oh…
6) I don’t believe that decimals had been introduced yet into the Jewish culture. Hence, the measurements lack the specificity (in decimals) to create a more detailed answer. Besides, as has been said, Pi = 3 is a fair rounding of the actual value.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 10:46 AM
What we have here is 2% of a population seeking to re-define an ancient word by claiming it as a right. Which, by the way, is not listed as a right in any of the founding documents of this nation. They feel by comparing this issue to the Civil Rights Stuggle of Black Americans, that it will label them and their behavior as a legitimate minority. Thus, leading other Americans to feel sympathetic to their stance and accept their behavior as normal.
Unfortunately for them, that is not how California’s minority population voted. So, now they seek the California Supreme Court to overrule the voters.
What they can’t seem to accept is that the overwhelming majority of Americans feel the same way as the people of California. So, therefore, they are lashing out at those who do not agree with them as bigots, religious or otherwise.
As Clifton Webb said in the original “Cheaper By the Dozen”,
“Well, that’s one man’s opinion.”
kingsjester on December 10, 2008 at 10:48 AM
There are several overarching and consistent themes throughout the entire Bible – God’s love, covenantal relationships, sin, forgiveness, repentance, redemption, etc.
One other the consistent theme is sexual purity. This thread is woven throughout the entire fabric of the Bible.
(And, of course, gay marriage and homosexual activity is NOT part of being sexually pure (according to God).)
Thus, it is not really possible to suggest or state outright that we have ‘moved on” from such eternal, divine truths.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM
The instructions on sexual behavior predate the scientific study of human sexuality by 2000 years (at least). That’s fairly dated.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Christ covered homosexuality when He said that He did not change the laws by “one jot or tittle” (Matthew 5:17-18). Hebrew law strictly proscribed homosexuality, and Christ supported that proscription when He endorsed Levitical law.
Christians are required to temper the prescribed penalties with Christ’s admonition that whoever is without sin should cast the first stone. A Christian may be justified in imposing the prescribed sanctions but he or she may or may not feel justified in doing so.
Though we are not required to impose the prescribed sanction in no way justifies the sin or removes a Christian’s obligation to call it sin when he or she sees it.
sinsing on December 10, 2008 at 11:00 AM
All well and good, but said study has yet to produce much of use besides birth control.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 11:00 AM
What do you mean “your kind” ? You hateful wretch.
ronsfi on December 10, 2008 at 11:02 AM
The power of your argument betrays a prodigious intellect.
Aaaanyway, Marriage has already been destroyed. If you can simply hop in and out at will then it nothing but a farce. Legally I just don’t see how you have a leg to stand on. As marriage is largely meaningless, I don’t care either way.
ronsfi on December 10, 2008 at 11:08 AM
OT – Psalm 100:
Shout out to the Lord, all the earth,
worship the Lord in rejoicing,
come before Him in glad song.
Know that the Lord is God.
He has made us, and we are His,
His people and the flock He tends.
Come into His gates in thanksgiving,
His courts in praise.
Acclaim Him,
Bless His name.
For the Lord is good,
forever His kindness,
and for all generations His faithfulness.
(From Robert Alter’s translation)
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 11:12 AM
More than that, but let me cut to the chase re: homosexuality. the bible says don’t do it. Science says, go ahead, but be safe about it. Who’s right, and why?
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 11:13 AM
They might well be both correct.
Science is more interested in the ‘how’ of things while religion is more interested in ‘why.’
Science doesn’t make value judgments, religion does.
I think it’s incorrect to posit religion and science as competitors.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 11:17 AM
I am not one to bring religion into discussions, but I can’t sit here and watch Newsweek reinterpret scripture without saying something. Their spin on this reminds me of Isaiah 5:20:
You can advance all the ethical and social reasons to redefine marriage, and I would be willing to listen. But don’t try and use scripture to back it up. That’s just pathetic.
SRL23 on December 10, 2008 at 11:18 AM
By “be safe” they refer only to the material world, ignoring that sexual perversion has deleterious psycho-spiritual effects. They ignor this because they tend to materialism.
Akzed on December 10, 2008 at 11:18 AM
That’s a perfect solution, but it’s just not catching on.
I’m sorry, but this is the lamest crap people try to use against Christians in this argument. It denies biblical common sense (and if you believe such a thing is an oxymoron, then don’t bother arguing with Christians, as you’ll get nowhere).
The Old Testament is not what Christians follow and for good reason, and if you don’t know that basic theology, then really, you’re wasting your time.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Being that the Old Testament is the scripture that Jesus used and taught from…
…and seeing as Jesus stated that He did not come to change the law…
…then Christians SHOULD follow the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM
BTW – I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “science”, but let’s be honest and state that neither psychology nor psychiatry are ‘sciences’.
Helpful and informative they may be, but they’re not science.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 11:25 AM
That could depend on your interpretation of the bible. On this issue, I don’t see how science and religion can be reconciled.
Science (psychology, specifically) does make a limited values judgment about homosexuality: it’s normal, and it’s unhealthy to repress it. How is that not in direct contradiction with the bible?
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 11:29 AM
That all gets sorted out in the after-life, it really shouldn’t have any bearing on public policy.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 11:33 AM
As I said earlier, psychology is not really a science.
I’ve studied enough of it to know that it is conjecture and guesses based on limited observation of human beings.
It is always changing and always evolving with no central agreed upon tenants.
And psychologist will be the first to tell you that psychology isn’t always ‘right.’
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 11:33 AM
So we shouldn’t wear clothing made out of two different types of cloth and we shouldn’t eat shellfish or pig? And certainly we must all become Jews before we can be Christians then.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM
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
The newsweek article was pretty week. There’s a good breakdown of it here: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=4204 (thanks to Weekly Standard for digging that up).
As to the quote: “[N]o sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else’s —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes” – that’s ridiculous. I would think ALL married couples would want a loving union on such a deep level that you are one in spirit. And if gays do NOT want that spiritual connection, then why won’t they settle for civil unions that allow them the civic benefits of marriage?
For the agnostic crowd, consider this. If people followed Biblical advice, they’d be less selfish about their sexual needs, indeed less greedy in general. God’s lesson is to love one another to the point where you’d give up your coat, your dignity, and ultimately your life for people you don’t know. What’s your better example for life?
If folks stopped defining themselves by their animal urges, they could spend more time on improving themselves and the world around them. Promiscuity is the devil’s best distraction.
hawksruleva on December 10, 2008 at 11:42 AM
So again, you only wear clothing made of one material and all the rest?
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Oh! You were so close! The right answer is “Man and Woman,” not “two people.” So close. But that’s too bad, you lose. Thanks for playing, though.
Troy Rasmussen on December 10, 2008 at 11:45 AM
They’re not always wrong, either.
Of course psychology is a science. I’d love to say that there are centrally agreed upon tenets, but consensus is a dirty word around here.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 11:47 AM
So, again, you don’t obey the Ten Commandments or love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself?
If your argument is that if you don’t obey one you shouldn’t obey any…
…then you shouldn’t be obeying the commandments I just mentioned.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Umm, no, the Bible is pretty clear that Jesus died for both Jew and Gentile. So clear, in fact, that a bigtime Jewish purist, Paul, spent the rest of his life bringing the good news to those Gentiles.
hawksruleva on December 10, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Never said that.
But psychologists don’t even agree with their ‘founding fathers” (Freud, Jung, Skinner, etc.)
I’d disagree.
It’s an attempt to scientifically study human actions and activities.
Unfortunately the same cause doesn’t always create the same effect.
I think the basic rule of science is that it has to have consistently reproduceable events.
Psychology (and psychiatry) don’t have this.
There are psychologists that say that homosexuality is bad and psychologists that say homosexuality is good.
Which psychologists should we listen to?
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Why do I have to obey the version in the Old Testament when I have another version in the New Testament?
And why can’t you answer my question with an answer instead of another question?
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Homosexuals want to get married. It would enrich their lives; make them healthier and happier, as it does for heterosexuals. There is no reason to believe gay marriage will harm anyone, and every reason to believe that it will help people. It is not only bad social policy to deny them, it’s cruel and arbitrary.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM
If that’s your argument, then isn’t the same thing true of every other relationship that is denied the brand marriage?
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 11:55 AM
The clinical evidence is what you should listen to, and it shows that repressing homosexual orientation is unhealthy. Those are reproducible results.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 11:57 AM
You mean like polygamy, etc…? Those kinds of relationships actually do harm the public, as well as the individuals who participate in them.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM
How so?
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Because Jesus was QUOTING the Old Testament…
…not coming up with a new law.
Because you won’t answer mine.
Or, to put it more succinctly, your question is based on an erroneous assumption.
You seem to believe that if you can find one “troubling” thing in the OT that we don’t do…
…that somehow invalidates everything else.
This is simply a fallacy. Because something is difficult to understand it doesn’t invalidate anything/everything else.
There are difficult passages in the New Testament, also.
Are you perfect like God is perfect? (Matthew 5:48)
Has Christ turned you against your mother? (Matthew 10:35)
Do you always cover your head? (1 Corinthians 11:6)
Do you try to teach or assert authority over man? (1 Timothy 2:12)
Shall we throw everything out because we don’t understand the context or implications?
Further, should we throw out the scripture that was good enough for Jesus just because we like shrimp?
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 12:06 PM
This thread is full of LOL’s. No, I don’t obey the Ten Commandments. I haven’t broken them all but I certainly don’t look to them as a guide. The difference between me and most of the people posting here is I will admit it. A good number of you lie, cheat, steal and bang your neighbors and then sit down in front of your computers to tell gay people how they are wrong and evil and how God, Jesus, and all the other beloved children’s characters are pissed at them.
Most of the people in this thread are very quick to pick on the moral lapses they see in others without looking inward. In other words, you are not in a position to judge or question someone else’s morality without having a clean slate yourself. And didn’t one of those guys that Hollywood and the Catholic church want us to believe were white and looked like Chuck Heston tell us that you should only judge if you are free from so-called sin? Seems like this group collectively missed that.
grdred944 on December 10, 2008 at 12:09 PM
But it’s not always so.
Thus, while reproducible it’s not CONSISTENTLY reproducible.
Plus, I wonder what psychologists say about alcoholics who “repress” their alcoholic orientation?
Aren’t there those who look at a larger view of the situation?
BTW – I have no problem with the Bible and psychology disagreeing. Knowing the history of psychology, if you wait long enough it might just come back around to AGREEING with scripture.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM
He said, “you’ve heard it said… but I say…”
That’s not quite the same as quoting. That’s explaining.
So you don’t eat shrimp?
You’re not understanding my question. I’m not arguing in favor of throwing out the entire Old Testament. I’m asking why you keep some laws and don’t keep others.
Just because it’s difficult to understand, it doesn’t mean it’s impossible, and it doesn’t mean that we should just obey those laws without knowing why.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Must be nice to posses psychic abilities.
/sarc
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Lisa Miller and Dr. Al Mohler are evidently both on Laura Ingraham’s show right now.
I saw it at NewsBusters. NB states Miller was not going to show and then Mohler was not going to be on, because Miller wasn’t there.
However, from Mohler’s Twitter they’re evidently both on:
INC on December 10, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Just look at the communities that practice polygamy. It’s not a coincidence that they all end up taking child brides, it’s just a matter of economics.
It’s not just that the relationships are pathological, either. There’s no reason that someone in a polygamous relationship couldn’t be just as happy and healthy in a monogamous relationship. i.e. “Polygamist” isn’t a sexual orientation.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 12:15 PM
You need to read some of the books that have come out on polygamy within some of the Mormon sects. They tell stories of jealousy and manipulaton between wives and children, abuse, etc., generally horror.
INC on December 10, 2008 at 12:17 PM
-sigh-
Do you actually READ the Bible or just talk out of memory?
Yes, Jesus, on occasion, said “you’ve heard it said…”.
But Jesus also quoted straight from the OT (Love God with all your heart and soul, love your neighbor as yourself, obey the commandments, etc. etc.)
Besides, even in those “you’ve heard it said…I say”, Jesus wasn’t CHANGING the law, He was giving insight into it’s reason for existence and a better understanding of it’s applicability.
I do because God later rescinded the dietary laws.
That’s a question that can be asked of everyone.
Why don’t you always wear a hat?
Heck, do you always love your neighbor?
Thus, the question is useless as any kind of crux (or crutch) in an argument.
I never said anything to the contrary.
My original statement is that Christians need to read, study and live by BOTH the Old and New Testaments.
That we don’t follow all the rules is axiomatic (we’re sinful creatures).
That we don’t understand some of the less important and more esoteric rules is not a reason for wholesale rejection of the Old (or New) Testament.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Surely you realize that all of those points can be made of homosexuals. People even throw in the “homosexuals are pedophiles” argument frequently.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Alcoholism? Just guess why I would reject that analogy and we can pretend we already had the argument.
What clinical evidence is presented in scripture? What evidence would it even take to convince you that the scripture is wrong? Is it too presumptuous to assume the answer is, “no amount of evidence?”
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM
But don’t you see? If G-d does exist, gays and rapists and killers (I really don’t like to group these together) have all been created under His watch. Killing and raping and stealing are all natural impulses. Thank G-d though that most of us suppress these impulses.
As for gayness being a choice, you gotta be kidding me. Just the thought of even kissing another man makes me dry heave. It can in no way be a choice. Even for a million bucks – I might do it but I’ll suffer terribly and would be forcing myself. Not because I’m doing something that G-d hates, but because it is physically revolting.
Involving G-d in the debate is not going to make things less divisive. I hate it that homosexuals are forced to choose between G-d’s approval and their natural impulses. Why can’t one be gay and a believer? If you tell me “because the bible tells it so” then I doubt you understand it. I don’t presume to understand the bible either, but I don’t like to see it used that way.
Having said all that, I am still against gay “marriage”. I don’t have to deny gays their natural impulses or G-d’s approval to be against it. The concept of marriage is between a man and a woman, even if that concept is and has been abused since the beginning of time. It is a concept to which all should strive for. But it is inherently between 1 man and 1 woman. Even in the ultra liberal societies where homosexuality was prevalent and there would be concubines and multiple wives, there has never been man-man marriage-like unions. The movement to change that concept is offensive to me, despite having several gay friends to whom I wish only the best.
AlexB on December 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM
That is pure politics. Not a bit of science involved, just license for those who wish to enforce the acceptance of their actions.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Yes, there’s nothing more Christian than insulting other Christians. This really gets old. I disagree with someone on theology and suddenly I’m illiterate or willfully ignorant of my own faith.
Which is exactly what I said. What part of “that’s explaining” says anything else to you?
And where did God do that? Oh, that’s right, the New Testament.
No, that’s an entirely different question. That’s not asking what laws should and shouldn’t be followed, unless you think that there is debate over whether or not people should love their neighbors.
Obviously you don’t believe we should live by the Old Testament, because as you said, you eat shrimp. As you said, and this was my only point to begin with anyway, the New Testament invalidated some of those laws, so ultimately, Christians go by the New Testament, keeping what it holds as still true and disregarding what it disregards. That’s why Gentiles can be Christians and why eating pig is no longer a moral issue (for Christians anyway, not for vegans).
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 12:30 PM
If someone were actually making those points persuasively, I’d oppose gay marriage.
Yeah, like I said. It’s bad.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Just because you have learned to hate it doesn’t mean you can’t learn to enjoy it. Besides, your actions are always your choice. You could even choose to get married, not be cause you lust after your wife, but because you want to raise a family.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Again, psychology is not a science and it gives human value judgments.
Thus the discussion is between the value judgment of humans (psychology) and the value judgment of God (scripture).
Now, if one doesn’t believe in God than the obvious one to choose is psychology.
However, if one DOES believe in God, then the only and obvious one to choose is scripture.
Thus, I can certainly understand why you would disagree with me…
…but I guess I don’t understand why you don’t understand why I disagree with you. (In other words, isn’t it patently obvious what I would choose and why?)
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 12:33 PM
These same arguments can be used for other sexual impulses as well. Some people enjoy excreting on others for sexual pleasure. That completely grosses me out though. So is that proof they were born with that desire?
The same with many other practices like bondage, S&M, multiple partners at one time, etc.
I’m not saying that people aren’t born gay, but I don’t find that argument convincing.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Most of the people here were alive when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Polygamy has been around longer than “traditional” marriage. The argument is fairly easy.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 12:38 PM
When you state that Christ didn’t quote the Old Testament…
…which is easily (and numerously) proven incorrect…
…then it goes a little beyond a simple ‘disagreement.’
Jesus quoting the Old Testament is not opinion, it’s fact.
Thus one must wonder about the theological background and knowledge of a person who asserts otherwise.
It’s almost like saying that the Bible is all for gay marriage.
I never said that Christians shouldn’t read, study and follow the New Testament.
But neither have I said, or WILL I say, that the New Testament somehow supersedes the OT.
One needs both.
-sigh-
Obviously YOU don’t believe we should live by the NT, because you don’t always love your neighbor.
Again, it is a logical and rational fallacy to invalidate everything over a debate over one thing.
You simply can’t get there from here.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Or, Esthier…
…you obviously don’t believe we should live by the New Testament because you don’t always wear a hat.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Why would they even want to do that? Just to mess with us? There’s no motive for such a conspiracy. Psychologists gain nothing by “forcing” tolerance – not acceptance – of homosexuality.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Beautiful.
Bobbertsan on December 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM
If it doesn’t, then what the Old Testament says should matter exactly as much as the New Testament, but you’re arguing that Christians don’t need to follow something in the Old Testament because of something that was said in the New.
That’s the very definition of what you claim you don’t do.
Again, you’re misunderstanding me. If I don’t love my neighbor, that’s moral failing.
However, if I don’t believe Christians are supposed to love their neighbors, that’s something altogether different.
That’s my point with the shrimp. It’s not that you believe you’re breaking a moral law. It’s that you believe it isn’t a moral law. That’s the whole point here.
Not what I’m trying to do.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM
The OT ‘as a whole’ does not supersede the NT.
There are a couple of areas where new teachings are given (mostly just the dietary laws), but most to the OT is still applicable for Christians.
Again, if it wasn’t Jesus wouldn’t have quoted from it without changing it.
Do you always wear a hat?
If not, than you must not believe in the New Testament.
THATS the crux of your argument and it sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it?
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Its not “psychologists.” It is the people that lobby the organizations that set the standards.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Right, cause it’s the other way around.
Only what’s confirmed in the New Testament.
Nowhere in the New Testament does it say I should wear one.
No, it’s not, and yes it is stupid.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Apparently everybody is part gay.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 12:50 PM
“Was” being the operative word.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Mea culpa on the typo, but I think you knew what I meant.
Not that the NT entirely supersedes the OT.
BTW – since you think it does, what, then is your interpretation of this: “Do not think that I [Christ] have come to abolish the Law 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 until everything is accomplished.”?
-sigh-
And you got upset because I asked you if you actually READ the Bible.
1 Corinthians 11:6 “If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.”
So unless you wear a hat (cover your head), then you must not believe in the New Testament.
That IS your argument against the OT.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Yes, as opinions on homosexuality changed. It’s not as though they proved themselves wrong with science.
And plenty of people here have their stats on the dangers of a child living with homosexuals as well as the stats of other countries with gay marriage.
If you’re willing to accept one, why not the other?
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 12:54 PM
A lot of people still do, including those that study the matter. Its just that they have no say in what is written in the handbooks.
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 12:56 PM
They are at liberty to write their own handbooks….it’s just that if they do, they’ll forever be referred to as “cretins”.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Oh Esthier, do you call your dad “father”?
If so, then you must not believe in the New Testament.
Matthew 23:9 “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”
Oh, and don’t even get me started on whether you still have both of your eyes (“And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.”)
Or maybe we can just admit that there are some admonitions that we aren’t exactly sure about…
…and that doesn’t somehow invalidate the rest of scripture.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 1:03 PM
FIFY.
BKennedy on December 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Right. Highly plausible.
They have no right to funding, jobs or a livelihood. If they want to be nasty little bigoted thugs, they can join their klansmen komrades in irrelevance.
You define yourself in the eyes of others. If you advertise yourself as a medieval low-brow POS, don’t expect to prosper.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 1:07 PM
I’m for Gay marriage, there I said it… a gay man can marry a gay woman any time they want.
saltydogg14 on December 10, 2008 at 1:08 PM
And blacks can sit anywhere they want on the bus, so long as it’s at the back.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Let’s put it this way, I don’t think it means that I can’t eat shrimp. I don’t, but that’s a separate issue.
There are plenty of other ways to cover your head.
1. If you read the whole passage (and I won’t insult you by saying you haven’t) you can see that it’s referring to prayer, meaning women should cover their heads in prayer, not all the time.
2. Furthermore, the “head” of the woman is her husband.
3. It also says further down that, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
So on the one hand, a woman’s long hair is her covering, but on the other hand, long hair is somehow a disgrace to men. Is that what you believe Paul believes? Was Samson a disgrace? Were any of the Nazarenes a disgrace?
4. You believe the Bible is saying that only because that’s your interpretation of that scripture. This has an interesting and likely interpretation http://home.comcast.net/~walkswithastick/1Cor11comm.html
No, what would be my argument if what you were saying was correct, only it’s not.
Cherry picking from the Bible is ridiculous. If you neglect something in it, you should have a good reason.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM
So it’s impossible to find that it’s mental illness without being a bigot? Is that true of every sexual impulse or just the least taboo ones?
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Esthier,
Listen, I don’t really want to have some kind of long running argument with you. Personally, I think most of your posts are insightful and well written.
It’s just that you’re using a lame atheist-type argument here (the atheist argument goes something like – well, if you eat shrimp or wear clothes with more than one fabric then you can’t say anything about homosexuals or anything else for that matter).
I agree that there are rules/admonitions/decrees in the OT that we don’t obey and sometimes we don’t really have a good reason for that. (BTW – the same is true for the NT).
But that doesn’t mean that everything else is negligible.
It means that we have to work harder on understanding it.
And I can come up with no human reason to reject the very scripture that Jesus used and taught from – especially when He states that He wasn’t here to get rid of it.
If you want to have a discussion about one of those ‘rules’ we don’t follow, then I’d be happy to have one.
But I’m not ‘happy’ to have a discussion wherein this ‘noncompliance’ is then used to invalidate everything else. That’s simply not a rational, logical conclusion to come to.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM
No, actually, I don’t.
My eyes don’t cause me to sin. They’re merely tools of mine.
If that’s the case, then you should at least know why you don’t follow them. Just because isn’t an answer.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Actually, I started by invalidating that argument. You attacked for that, and I’m not sure why.
I don’t agree with that. I think we have answers for all of them. That’s the difference between us and our arguments here.
If we don’t have an answer, then what’s the point?
That’s what I believed we were discussing. We follow some and not others. Why?
I’ve been giving my reasons. I hope you have plenty for yours.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM
So wait a minute, you’re saying that there may be contextual issues that might cause us to understand the rule in a different manner than a literal understanding?
Hmmm…….
…I wonder, then, if there might also be contextual and historical issues that might cause us to better understand some of the OT rules.
(BTW – IMHO Paul was speaking to a particular people in a particular place with a particular problem. In Corinth there were problems with Christians being indistinguishable from the temple prostitutes (in actions and looks!))
Exactly!
Thus one can still “believe” in the Old Testament and eat shrimp and wear multi-fabric clothes.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Context would explain, but that doesn’t mean we need to follow the rules that aren’t meant for us.
And we determine what’s meant for us by the New Testament.
Maybe so, but the answer I have goes much further than that. I don’t even believe he was telling those in Corinth that men can’t have long hair. It’s illogical and contradicts the Bible.
Yes, but only with a good reason, mine being the New Testament. Which was my entire initial point anyway.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I wouldn’t say “impossible” simply because our medical understandings are in constant flux.
However, given current understandings, there is no more reason to think of homosexuality as a “mental illness” than there is for heterosexuality or masturbation.
A “defect”? Arguably….especially when viewed from the perspective of a normal reproductive drive….but a “mental illness”? You’re on treacherous ground there.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Do you call your dad ‘father’? Why?
Do you hate your mother? Why not?
Sometimes we simply don’t have GREAT reasons, sometimes we only have good reasons (and definitely we don’t have answers for everything).
If being a Christian meant having an answer for everything in the Bible then there wouldn’t be a single Christian.
The point is in being humble enough to admit that there are sometimes things beyond our understanding – that God is indeed greater than us and that we have problems understanding everything.
As for as the multi-fabric clothe – one needs to look at not only the entire verse but the entire book of Leviticus. God’s laws are meant not only to make the people better (more holy), but to distinguish them from their neighbors.
What gets them in trouble over and over again is when they allow other cultures (i.e. gods) to slip in to their lives/cultures.
As Jews (and as Christians) we are called to live ‘separate’ lives – in this world but not part of it.
When we lose that separation with the secular culture we move away from God.
Now, back to Leviticus 19:19:
“Do not mate different kinds of animals.
Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”
Do you see a theme? It’s about keeping things separate. It’s an analogy – a way of remembering- for keeping ourselves separate from the world.
Thus it’s not to be taken literally – just as we don’t take literally the admonition for clawing out one’s eyeball if you look lustfully upon someone (other than your spouse).
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Simple, one-shot homosexual behavior, no. But the package deal of the various homosexual lifestyles that we call “homosexuality”?
Count to 10 on December 10, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Who decides the rules that aren’t meant for us?
And might not reasonable people have reasonable disagreements about that?
Well, being that male temple prostitutes wore their hair long, I’m fairly certain Paul WAS telling Christians to cut their hair so that they could distinguish themselves from the prostitutes. He was saying that in THAT culture at THAT time, long hair on men WAS a disgrace.
An initial point that remains very, very wrong.
The NT does not “do away” with the OT.
Anyone saying to the contrary is plainly and simply wrong and doesn’t understand what Jesus was preaching.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 1:38 PM
What is a defect that affects the mind if not a mental illness?
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 1:40 PM
I don’t know the answers one way or the other, and I’m not going act as if I do. Condemning gays as “mentally ill” without credible scientific evidence sounds dangerously like the kind of voodoo touted throughout the dark ages. Apparently many people haven’t intellectually evolved beyond that point. Sadly.
It’s also not “impossible” that negroes are genetically inferior to caucasians….it’s just that there is no scientific evidence to suggest such a thing, and acting as if they are inferior is just as bigoted as all this gay-bashing.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 1:40 PM
When is a defect not a defect? I only raised the question, I didn’t offer an answer.
Are all brain defects mental illnesses? Aren’t illnesses, by definition, something that can be contracted and (at least potentially) cured? If something is genetically wired incorrectly, how can it be cured? We don’t refer to Down Syndrome as a “mental illness”.
Lots of thorny questions with tough answers and tougher consequences…..too many to conclusively start discarding gays as “mentally ill” – hence my accusation of bigotry.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 1:44 PM
I know that when I have a question about Christian doctrine, NEWSWEEK is my go-to publication. /eyeroll
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 10, 2008 at 1:46 PM
All sort of urges and impulses exist. If we use our Free Will appropriately, we will resist that which is against our best interest and the the best interest of society.
Never said it was a choice. Don’t believe it’s a choice. I think we are all born with certain predispositions(ie alcoholics are predisposed to alcoholism) and we regularly feel certain urges. Not acting on those things that are contrary to our best interest involves making choices. It involves reason and the use of the various societal and natural laws.
Involving God in the debate, particularly when it’s with nonbelievers, almost always makes the argument more divisive, even when you present a valid argument. I hate that I have to resist various urges that I wish to follow, as well. But I do. It’s part of being a member of society and part of the human condition, and one of the basic things that sets us apart from animals. Acting on the homosexual tendency is what is considered the sin, not having the urge. If we were all precluded from following our faith because we had “sinful” urges, not one damn one of us would be able to practice.
AlexB on December 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM
sheesh on December 10, 2008 at 1:47 PM
A more arguable term might be “mental handicap” in reference to homosexuality….but again, it’s only a handicap from the perspective of reproductive drive, and even that isn’t clear….I know gays that have a drive to reproduce and have kids, and do so….it’s a tad peculiar, but they’re all happy and thriving.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I already answered this one.
Can you stop asking questions you already know the answer two? Surely you understand what Jesus meant when he said that. He was preserving the law, that includes honoring parents.
And that’s exactly what people would say if they want about homosexuality being condoned by the Bible.
Not just that. It was also practice at the time. Mixing different types of clothe would make the clothing weaker.
And yet we take other parts literally. That’s inconsistent to others if there isn’t an explanation.
Jesus Christ and his apostles.
Reasonable people also have disagreements over whether or not homosexuality is a sin.
Please, read the link I gave you. Long hair was not a disgrace for Jews at the time. As it points out, Paul himself had long hair when in Corinth, see Acts 18:18.
Fine. Prove me wrong. Show me some verse that Christians by a large agree that we should follow that isn’t validated in the New Testament and explain why we should follow it.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Here are the “obstacles” one has to jump (or solve) in order to say that Christians don’t need the Old Testament:
If we don’t need it, then why…
1) …did Christ so often and extensively make direct quotes from it?
2) …did Christ state “Do not think that I [Christ] have come to abolish the Law 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 until everything is accomplished.”?
3) …did Christ preach from the OT (and in the Temple)?
4) …Paul quote so much from the OT and use it as a basis for almost all of his teachings?
5) …Paul write to Titus “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.” (keeping in mind that the only scripture at this time was the OT)
6) …Paul write in his second letter to Titus “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” (keeping in mind, again, that the only scripture at this time was the OT).
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Paradoxically, I hope there is a special hell for the bastard(s) that originally fabricated all this “god” & bible gibberish.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Don’t we? Either that or “mental handicap” or “mental deficiency.”
Either way the implication is that something is wrong with the person.
But if someone were to answer those questions, then homosexuality could be legitimately called an illness without bigotry being involved?
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 1:56 PM
I don’t want to misunderstand you, but are you saying you hope that the person who made up God and the Bible is sent to hell?
That’s fairly insulting if so.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 1:58 PM
You’re missing my point, but I don’t know how else to explain it anymore than I have.
Esthier on December 10, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Of course. Big “if”.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Sorry, in all of the back-and-forth I missed that one.
However, let me simply be a little cynical about you having NEVER called your dad (or referred to him) as ‘father.”
I’ll keep asking them until you understand that it isn’t just the NT where there are sayings and ‘rules’ that are to be understood in a particular context.
One can’t make up all kinds of reasons not to take the NT literally and then say if you can’t take all of the OT literally you must not believe in it.
I don’t know enough about ancient weaving to know if this is accurate or not. Obviously there WERE clothes made of multiple fabrics otherwise there wouldn’t have been anything said about it.
However, the ‘weakening’ simply underlies the more ‘lyrical’ nature of the rule.
There’s ALWAYS an explanation, it’s just that not everyone agrees with them (and some are just plain wrong).
I mean, seriously, do you really think our salvation is based on what fabric is in our clothes? If not, then maybe that’s a clue to how to understand what was said.
And yet even the apostles got things wrong – and all of these are long dead.
Please – listen to me.
Paul’s ministry was not to Jews, but to Gentiles.
In Corinth there was a large temple to one of the Greek gods (Aphrodite) that was full of both male and female prostitutes.
These prostitutes had a particular way of looking.
Paul wanted the Christians in Corinth to distinguish themselves from the temple prostitutes – and one of those ways was to wear your hair differently.
BTW – Acts 18:18 doesn’t say that Paul had long hair, only that he had it all cut off. One can have SHORT hair and still have it all cut off. Yes, it is supposed that the ‘vow’ he made was to be a Nazarite, but that would still further separate him from the local Corinthians and make his decision non-applicable to understanding his admonition.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 2:02 PM
No, I get your point very well.
You just don’t like being shown you are in error.
Religious_Zealot on December 10, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Yes. Thus the paradox.
Yeah. Everyone is offended. It should become an Olympic sport for whiners.
LimeyGeek on December 10, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »