How should Christians process the findings of the Supreme Court today regarding same-sex marriages? Should Christians get with the 21st century and let all people be happy? Should Christians stand by traditional understandings of marriage? How much should Christians seek to have their beliefs affect the culture?
Every person certainly has their reasons why they are excited or disappointed with what happened in our nation’s capitol. The ruling confirms something to me that will probably not surprise you but has become clear to me today. The United States is officially a Secular Society.
I’ll unpack this but let me first take a step back. I want you to know, if you are reading this and thinking a caveman is about to grunt out some ridiculous tirade of old-fashioned nonsense, that I think same-sex marriage is reasonable. Not only reasonable but my experience also tells me that homosexuals should be happy. Many homosexuals are probably even better parents than many heterosexual couples. Yes, I just made that statement. Please don’t stop reading now if your blood is boiling. Please hear me out.
Let’s now move toward examining why I said our country is secular and how that should influence a Christian’s response to the Supreme Court. Today’s ruling did not surprise me one bit. After I heard the arguments put forth to the Supreme Court earlier this year I was pretty sure the court would rule in favor of same-sex marriage. I was truly embarrassed as I heard the lame arguments being made against same-sex marriage.
On National Public Radio (NPR) I listened to audio coming out of the Supreme Court. A man made the case marriage should only be between heterosexuals because marriage is intended for human beings to procreate. I cringed as I waited to hear this guy’s weak argument get destroyed. I didn’t have to wait long. If marriage is intended for procreation only, one Justice asked, should we have fertility checks before issuing marriage licenses? Shouldn’t infertile couples also be banned from marriage? How about older couples who have passed the child bearing years…should they also be banned from marriage? I felt so bad for the guy with the weak argument as he stuttered through some lame response.
I believe the man who was arguing against same-sex marriage had a bullet proof argument. He could have utilized the trump card of sola Scriptura. Christians, you see, believe the Bible is not the only authority for human beings. There are many authorities in our life directing our thoughts and actions. Our parents are authorities. Our reason is an authority. Tradition is an authority. Experience is an authority. Christians do not believe the Bible is the only authority in our life. Christians do believe Scripture is the ultimate authority.
Let me give you a quick example. If your parents gave birth to you out of wedlock you are traditionally given the unfortunate label of: bastard child. You grow up with the experience from your grandmother that you are indeed a bastard child. You look around at your seemingly pathetic life and reason that they must be right you are the scum of the earth. Then you turn to scripture and learn God loves you, sent His Son for you, and wants you with Him forever. What authority wins? The concept of sola Scriptura is that God’s thoughts, through His Word, trump all other human authorities.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the lawyer arguing against same-sex marriage would have said:
Honorable Justices. I believe God has spoken in Scripture. I believe He is good and desires good things for His universe and all of humankind. It is our sole argument before this court that the One who holds this world in His hands has communicated marriage to be a heterosexual union. We have utilized time-tested textual critical and hermeneutical principles to arrive at this position.
Jay Leno, David Letterman, Bill Maher, Steven Colbert, Jon Stewart and many others would have kept people laughing for weeks at such a ridiculous statement. The Justices would not have been able to take such a statement seriously. Sola Scriptura is not admissible in court.
There is a strong possibility I would support same-sex marriage if God did not exist. I would allow the lesser authorities of my reason and experience to dictate my decision. Yes, I have heard legitimate evidence in the realms of experience and reason against same-sex marriage but I think most Christians should cede those realms over to those in favor of same-sex marriage.
I think it is helpful to communicate these distinctions in authority when we discuss this issue over the next several days with family, friends, neighbors and co-workers. Younger people, especially, are very high in their reason and experience supporting same-sex marriage.
I invite you to comment below. First, I offer a chain of thoughts to use as a springboard into dialogue.
If there is a God…If He has communicated to humanity…If the Bible is His Word…If God is good…If He has spoken on this issue…If He is in charge…Should we listen?
94 replies to "The Supreme Court vs. Sola Scriptura"
So why not?
Wait. Maybe I read your comment wrong. You DO mean “why not?” to poly-amorous relationships??
After carefully reading all the comments I find that the participants are lacking in the information of what DOMA is and what its intent was. The more important question is not whether homosexuals can marry it is if the role of government should be to give the legal rights of married people over to homosexual unions. Does the Federal Court make the rules for all the people in all the states to abide by the majority opinion of 5-4 that homosexual marriage be recognized? DOMA allowed the states to allow it or deny it depending on what the States allowed. This is a Federalism argument that was overthrown in killing DOMA. Federalism is the sharing of authority with the states and the Federal government. The decision does not allow states to deny homosexual marriages done in another state that allows it when those couples cross to another state that denies it. The centralization of authority to the federal level is what is happening here. We as Christians can best effect homosexuality by how we live our lives and respect the authority of Scripture to answer what it is that is objectionable and permissible by what the Bible teaches. Scripture indeed trumps the authority of the state but it is not recognized by the reprobate people we live with in our culture. Resisting the idea of a central government is a better argument than what Michael explained in his post about the NPR radio event. We cannot say we are against people loving each other to others in our culture because they feel that love is the highest “moral” ground to base their idea of what is right for all Americans. I don’t feel it is helpful for Christians to apologize for their sins by comparing ourselves in the worst cases of child rearing to the best cases of homosexuals and their child raising. It is at best self-defeating to do so. I don’t know the best path to argue yet. I was hoping to learn something here. Perhaps someone will teach us how to better argue what God would want in our country.
I actually have no problem telling people that I am against two people loving each other as that term is understood in our society. Biblical love and the type of love that God is hates wrongdoing. Thus when somebody either leads someone into or willing participates with another in something that is abominable before God they are not loving them. How could they be? If doing something with someone will lead them to eternal damnation how could that ever be loving.?
Lots of luck with that one. It doesn’t work. The old expression says: A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Well fellow Christians this topic is not rocket science, and what is going on today is not a surprise to any of us who follow biblical developments throughout church history. God conveyed to us what He wanted to convey, and regardless of our country’s secular developments, His will is being done. For some this may be a hard pill to swallow, but He is sovereign and will deal with this nation accordingly. Go back into Scripture and look at the trials and tribulations of Israel back then compared to what is going on today. Do any of you see a pattern going on here? On the one hand it is a bit scary knowing that we are clearly living out the end of the prophetic age. On the same token, it is reassuring to know that according to Scripture, we are right on track with what God has revealed to us. The bottom line, regardless of our posturing, opinions, polemics, dogmatics, traditions, or biases, God ultimately is in control and we are along for the ride. Jesus came to convey basically two things. Save sinful mankind from the penalty of The Law, and warn us to be prepared, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. The concept is simple. The Supreme Court is inconsequential by comparison. Don’t trip, it’s all good.
Michael T. says: I’m looking at it from a perspective of which of these children I think is going to be more receptive to the Gospel,
Absolutely. My point exactly
At the very least our concern is the same. Still not sure I agree with you, but I definitely agree with where you are coming from and we are evaluating things with the same concerns in mind. Still I think the earlier comment regarding Tim was perhaps a little harsh and uncalled for. If nothing else my ultimate point would be that when one looks at the worst of the worst of heterosexual parents and the best of the best of homosexual parents and comes to the conclusion that a child is more likely to be receptive to the Gospel with the homosexual parents they may very well be wrong, even deceived on the issue, but “not a man of God” or “apostate”??
Ken,
Did you hear about the Spanish people who emigrated to New Mexico a couple of years ago? For over 500 years, they were fake RC and secret Jews. Now, I guess they are just Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Judaism
Love and peace,
David
Abominations: Tell me again about how bacon was purified, leprosy got cured from being spiritually impure but homosexuality cannot be?
When we are neither male or female in Christ, how does that get conveniently denied for homosexual marriage?
We are all sinners, saved by Grace, with a duty not to judge, hate and shun or worse but to love. Failure to love is the purest abomination.
I do not care if they are traumatized or genetically different. That is not my business. My duty is to love them as they are. Love will show the truth. Sometimes I suspect the crowding and odd gender artifacts of culture have created a pressure this way. One friend though he could have peace in a small fish tank of angel fish by buying all females, but in their frustration, two paired off, dug a nest pit and killed off all the others. Maybe, even if they could be changed to fit the majority mold, it would not be loving to do that this far into their lives, with all their relationships colored with this. If God made them different as a test for us, to teach us to move love up in our priorities, above pride in superior purity, hah! Many of us are not learning.
Some Christians want a spiritual ghetto where they can put all the people that make them uncomfortable, where they can say God no longer cares for that part of humanity, where they can say they did their duty and are done, where they can say those people are lost, damned, impossible, possessed, impure, sinful. Jesus went to those places with his love, and that is so inconvenient. Lets go read some OT or Paul among the Pagans, ignore that Jesus.
Poly-marriage? Historically, it seems to be in three flavors: polygamy, polyandry and group marriage. Polygamy often is a bit male chauvinist sexist women are property like goats and camels with nasty tinges of child brides forced into a relationship and early sex. No plan for the extra boys, as God send 50/50 pretty much. Polyandry seems to have been a way for brothers to share one bride and so not to break up the family plot, in very poor Himalayan society. Group marriage has had a few experimental tries in various forms, like the Oneida community where everyone was essentially married to each other or something such: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community#Complex_marriage Word is the children of the Oneida all went back to hetero monogamy or singleness.
Well, it might work better for some. Imagine a marriage where long before a partner dies, new partners are added. It might last indefinitely. What goes on in there, the rules internal, dealing with jealousy and exclusiveness, that is their challenge. Just keep it legal and loving.
Poly-marriage does not seem to be much of a threat to the majority choice of hetero monogamy. It seems to offer more protection against single parenting. Some couples keep breeding for a son or daughter, getting the same flavor at first. In a group marriage, having many children is counterbalanced by having many parents. The corporation just has more than 2 partners.
The government’s problem is coming up with a flexible tax code, and making so many forms flexible. Our problem is just to love them regardless.
@ David G. Pinkett
“Abominations: Tell me again about how bacon was purified, leprosy got cured from being spiritually impure but homosexuality cannot be?”
Do you not understand that there is a difference between God’s Moral law and the Ceremonial laws (e.g. dietary restrictions)? This should be quite obvious otherwise we would have carte blanche to commit adultery and murder (and yes homosexuality) or any other sin prohibited by the Law.
Here is a rhetorical question for you. I routinely go 7-10 miles over the speed limit. I also struggle with a pornography addiction (both of these statements are true). Which one do you believe grieves the heart of God more?
Finally, while it was true that Jesus spent his time with sinners, not a SINGLE ONE of those sinners is EVER recorded as asking for a rubber stamp seal of approval of their sin. On the contrary, they recognized their sin and cried out for forgiveness. Does the homosexual community as a whole do this? Far from it. They want acceptance of their sin as normative.
I understand (probably better than most) that we never reach the point where we “sin no more”. In fact the “slowness of my sanctification” often causes me to doubt if I myself am of the faith. But if we ever reach the point where we want God to just accept our sin as normative because we are sinners (i.e. we were just born that way), then one MUST examine themselves to see if they are of the faith.
Sin is a very big deal to God (Romans 3:25-26). Do not be deceived into thinking otherwise.
1. Strongly Second what Marvin said
2. “Abominations: Tell me again about how bacon was purified, leprosy got cured from being spiritually impure but homosexuality cannot be?”
Very simply. Bacon was unclean as part of the covenant between God and his people, Israel, which set them apart from other nations. Homosexuality on the other hand is unclean as a result of the established natural order of the universe. Furthermore Christ specifically announced the cleanliness of bacon to Peter, while the New Testament carries on the Old Testament condemnation of homosexuality
3. “We are all sinners, saved by Grace, with a duty not to judge, hate and shun or worse but to love. Failure to love is the purest abomination.”
(in my best Inigo Montoyo impression) Love, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. You have a very American rather than Biblical conception of love.
“Love (agape as in “God is agape” or “agape your neighbor as yourself) does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the Truth”
1 Corinthians 13:6
In other words if you are supporting someone in committing acts that are evil before God you are not loving them. If you are committing acts together with another person that are evil before God you are not loving them. Simply put your “love” and Biblical love are not the same.
Dear David G. Pickett,
Please read this article by my friend Bill Craig.
It might clarify a few things for you.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-christian-perspective-on-homosexuality
“A government of the people, by the people, for the people” has, I think, always carried with it a secular flavor. That’s why it has so much of an universal appeal to people of different faiths and cultural backgrounds. Secularization is an unstoppable trend and an unavoidable end, and the only way to avoid it is to make Christ the center of our lives.
Maybe I missed something, but where did all of Greg’s posts go? Did you guys ban him or something?
Bacon and circumcision: Jesus said He did not come to set aside a single line of the law. I am sure the literalists love that line. Now, Peter has a dream, Jesus sends an update, and kosher, circumcision and most of the 613 mitzvah are gone. I guess when God dictated the to Moses, they were for them, then, not us, now. It certainly made the franchise easier to sell outside Israel. When I came up through Sunday School, the ten commandments were all that was left of the Jewish Law as doctrine.
When we changed from the old Brit Torah Covenant to the New Covenant, didn’t all that stuff get set into a historical perspective? Law was a skeleton of a moral society, of the acts of a moral person, in a crude and primitive form, with many leaks, supporting the existing culture in many ways, like loads of male chauvinism. Law created a peaceful space where love could grow, and a loving person has very little chance of being in conflict with the law. Love was the fulfillment of the law, the flesh over that skeleton, with no leaks.
Sometimes the law and the love come into conflict. The message of Peter’s dream is that love wins. (Can your lectures on Greek and Hebrew words for love, as a PK I heard them all before puberty). Jesus said the law and prophets hang from the commandments to love. The law was to support love, not vice-versa. God is love, and sin is our distance from God, the failure of our love.
Even if you cannot get past homosexuality as sin, what are we to do about sin? We are to love the sinner, not insist on our own way, be patient and kind, that the truth of our love and our life can be made manifest to them. They will be able to tell what we dislike without our making a big lecture. Maybe the truth of their love will be made manifest to us! Let’s not hide from our duty, and make sure we never find out! Our aim, our highest priority is their salvation and ours through love.
@ David
The entirety of your screed(s) can be summed up in this one phrase….
“I reject the clear teaching of Scripture (both Old and New Testament) regarding homosexuality.”
No amount of eisegesis regarding what godly “love” means will change that. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. To put it simply, you want to tell homosexuals go ahead and live in sin, God loves you anyway.
I get the impression from you that the only “sin” that really matters in your mind is not tolerating sin (aka failure to “love”). Sin mattered enough to God that He saw fit to subject His only Son to brutal torture and execution to demonstrate His righteousness (i.e. judgement of sin). Do you honestly believe that God therefore will allow those who call upon the name of Lord to continue in all manner of sin just as long as we “love” (whatever “love” means)???
There is no need to repent with the gospel you preach, no need to feel sorrow for our depraved state. You believe in a false gospel. A simple word search in the New Testament for “repent” will find no less than 27 references, and plenty of those are in red letters too. BTW, I do not consider repentance to = not sinning anymore, but rather a simple agreement with God that I am desperately wicked, (however that may manifest itself) and in need of salvation from my sin. Repentance for you seems to be an obstacle in experiencing “God’s love”. I would suggest that you do some soul searching and scripture reading. Ask yourself if a God who would not spare His only Son the unbearable Passion for the sake of divine judgement of sin would have as cavalier attitude towards sin as you seem to have.
So, no answer on why the Dream Jesus contradicts the Man? No answer on how of the 613 the mitzvah, the other not mentioned are now ignored? You have single beds only?
Your condemnation and persecution of homosexuals will preserve your safe and convenient distance from them, and your distance from God.
When we swear to uphold the New Covenant, what did we swear to? There are many interpretations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant
Love is not less exacting than the old law, but more. Christ left us with the Holy Spirit as a teacher, so not all lessons seem to be written in Scripture. When you are baptized in the Spirit, when you are open to learning where your error lies, then it will teach you new lessons about love and Jesus. So many others are repenting of their condemnation and persecution, for the Holy Spirit is alive and strong. Maybe you will have a dream. It should not be that complicated. God, unconditional love, Creation, more love, worship, ministry, humility, Grace.
So, no answer on why the Dream Jesus contradicts the Man? No answer on how of the 613 the mitzvah, the other not mentioned are now ignored? You have single beds only?
Good lord. Do I need to do an entire dissertation on the Law and it’s purpose in God’s salvific plan of redemption? Again, do you not recognize that there is a difference between the Moral law and the Ceremonial law? The point of the Law was to show that we can NEVER be clean. The point of the Law was to point to Christ. The Pauline letters are almost all on point regarding this discussion (i.e. the Law is powerless for the sake of obtaining righteousness, yet there are still many prohibited behaviors, e.g. lawlessness, drunkenness, fornication, adultery, homosexuality etc.) You want my answer to your silly questions, try reading Romans, or Ephesians, or Galatians.
Your condemnation and persecution of homosexuals will preserve your safe and convenient distance from them, and your distance from God.
I neither condemn nor persecute them. All I do is agree with the clearly revealed word of God that it is sinful (something you clearly do not agree with). And I have had many gay acquaintances over the years not to mention a gay aunt with whom I have a very good relationship with. Not a one of them would ever testify that I have in any way condemned them nor persecuted them. So please spare me your sanctimony.
So, for their salvation, you can affirm them as people and potential members of your fellowship, sinners all, potential candidates for ordination, potential pastors?
I ran into a nice bit of Paul in the wiki on New Covenant:
Romans 13:8: Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.
I think the Paul of Romans may seem to contradict some of the earlier Paul, so perhaps Paul learned from the Holy Spirit, too? Well, as a human and prophet, not all of his words regarding very specific situations should be applied to all situations. The generality of love seems to make it the final arbiter. Throwing rocks at their situation is not on the agenda Jesus gave us. The only sin we need to focus on is our own. For others, we need to show the most perfect love we can imagine, that they may be saved, and in the process we are saved.
@ David
Only a few questions
1. What was the purpose of the law?
2. How did Jesus fulfill the law?
The answer to those two question ought to explain why dream Jesus said what he said and did not in the process contradict non-dream Jesus
3. What is love (agape) according to the Bible?
4. Is passively allowing somebody to follow a path that leads to destruction (whether is be homosexuality or perhaps something more acceptable to you like meth or alcohol) loving? Or is the most loving thing to do sometimes to intervene
The answer to these two question ought to answer why we believe that it is actually quite the opposite of love to say to tell the homosexual to just keep on living as a homosexual.
Michael, I’m surprised that you think arguments lame that assume that the institution of marriage is about procreation.
I wonder how you would interpret Christ’s remarks in Matt 22:30?
It seems to me that the attorney failed to distinguish the end of institutions from the various (and legitimate) reasons that individual people enter into those institutions.
So, for their salvation, you can affirm them as people and potential members of your fellowship, sinners all
Of course. Just as long as they agree with God that their desires are sinful. Look, this is no different than my own personal struggle with pornography/lust. There have been times whereby I was wallowing neck deep in the filth for months on end. My heart was hard and I would no longer even feel the sting of shame and sorrow for my sin. But I NEVER, EVER sought to justify my sin nor did I think for a moment that what I was doing was not utterly detestable in Gods sight. Thankfully I am not there anymore, though I still feel the sting of temptation from time to time and stumble. My heart sinks when I do because I know it is an affront to a holy God. I still wonder if I am saved because of the length of time I have had this struggle. How can I be a new creature and still carry around this dead weight of my flesh? But that is another topic for another thread.
potential candidates for ordination, potential pastors?
This is a much more difficult question to answer. It would depend upon the level of victory over their sin. How about this, would you feel comfortable with someone who struggles with pornography as a pastor? Knowing that he continues to struggle with that sin?
The law was a starting point for love.
Jesus simplified the law into love. This did not make life easier, for Jesus knew what love demanded of Him. It does not make our lives easier, for there are so many ways to be selfish or half-loving of both God and our brothers and sisters.
The risen Christ and Peter had an interesting exchange on love in John 21 that only makes sense if you know when they are choosing when to use agape versus Phileo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Ancient_Greek It seems that while Agape is definitely descriptive of the love God has, having God as our Father also describes it as Phileo; Storge would be a stretch, being more the physical bonding of parent and child by birth, support and contact. My love of God is both Agape intellectual and Phileo emotional. The best Christian marriage uses Agape and Phileo to create a safe arena for Eros, as well as a stable resource for child-rearing. Eros alone generally devolves to just hedonism. Hedonism is at least a deep distraction from proper relationships and real love, and often motivates other sins.
If you intervene with great wisdom and art, you might avoid just pushing the one you want to save away, and that would be nice, but it is dicier than love, which is slower but more certain.
I feel gay marriage opposition is like saying persons who lost their larynx and speak by controlled burping are not to be heard, because their speech is unnatural. It fits their situation, and they need to be heard. Love embraces that situation and that need. Marriage allows a sanctified life that manages our Eros. It means we can say, if you are going to Eros, get married lest you sin more. This is a orientation-neutral attitude. There will still be wooing, and some who get hung up in wooing and never want to progress to marriage, and there will be divorce as people learn the real demands of living together. Love will see us through this.
“If you intervene with great wisdom and art, you might avoid just pushing the one you want to save away, and that would be nice, but it is dicier than love, which is slower but more certain.”
You are setting up a false dichotomy here. The intervention itself is love. Did Jesus hang out with sinners and just tell them to go on sinning because God loves them anyhow. GOD FORBID IT!!! He told them to “repent” and “sin no more”. The fundamental problem here is that you seem to think that in order to love somebody you have to accept every behavior they have no matter how abhorrent. This may be societies understanding of love (which is really just a misnomer for tolerance and acceptance), but it is not love in the understanding of the Bible. That is your problem – you do not understand the Biblical understanding of what love is at the most fundamental level. You keep using the word, but it does not mean what you think it means.
I feel gay marriage opposition is like saying persons who lost their larynx and speak by controlled burping are not to be heard, because their speech is unnatural.
Aside from being utterly absurd, this argument is a complete non-sequitor. One has been declared by God to be an abomination whereas the other is merely socially awkward. There is no comparison.
Marriage allows a sanctified life that manages our Eros. It means we can say, if you are going to Eros, get married lest you sin more.
You cannot sanctify something that is detestable to God by slapping the “marriage” label on it. Using your logic, I could justifiably say that as long as I watch porn with my wife as part of our sex life, then it’s OK because we’re married and all that. I highly doubt that God would see it that way.
Let me ask you this (I’m being serious here)…Pedophiles say many of the same things that the homosexual community says, e.g. we can’t help it, for as long as I remember I have had these urges (aka born with it), etc. Should we therefore allow old guys to marry preteen adolescents “to create a safe arena for their Eros”? If not, why not? What is the difference?
Pedophiles: people are always bring pedophiles in to help bash homosexuals. As an argument, it says we should abolish marriage because of rape. The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. Nobody said we should relax the law on this. In fact, underage marriage is a big problem with FLDS polygamy through “spiritual marriage”, along with driving off excess male youth.
We are all sinners. We ordain nothing but sinners. The Scriptures were certainly written down by sinners. Our sin concern should be our own sin. When selecting leaders, we consider everything we know about them in the process, whether we admit it or not. But acts that exclude them from our midst run contrary to our mission of salvation for all, are a deeper abomination, direct failure to love. Love needs contact and time.
When Jesus went to the Prostitutes, what alternative employment did he provide? He told the tax collectors to be fair and just in imposing their conqueror’s levy (talk about a secular attitude). Some adulteresses may have been virtual prostitutes, too. Jesus did not upbraid them about their sexual abominations, never a word, just an embracing love they had too long been denied, and encouragement to find a new way.
I know some will never see the argument of love, for the arguments of OT law give them a sense of righteous superiority, an addiction that is very hard to shake. Yet I am heartened as, almost every day, I hear of the Holy Spirit changing hearts. The gay people showed us our love had failed to measure up on the Jesus scale. God sends us challenges for our education. They are a gift.
David,
For the “love” of all that is good and holy stop calling this “love.” When you speak of love you are not speaking of Biblical love. The kind of love that tears up the temple. The kind of love that disciplines children. The kind of love that is angry and despises things. The kind of love that strikes two people dead ON THE SPOT for simply lying about how much of their money they were giving to God.
“We are all sinners. We ordain nothing but sinners.”
As has been stated ad nauseum there is a difference between sinners who admit their sin and repent seeking forgiveness and those who adamantly state that it is not a sin and then expect everyone else to agree with them. The homosexual community does not recognize that homosexuality is a sin and quite the opposite thinks that it is something that should be celebrated and encouraged.
“But acts that exclude them from our midst run contrary to our mission of salvation for all, are a deeper abomination, direct failure to love.”
Paul didn’t think so. 1 Corinthians 5 deals with a case where a adult male was sleeping with his mother (his father’s wife). Paul tells the congregation to cast him out. Paul does something similar in 1 Timothy 1.
“When Jesus went to the Prostitutes, what alternative employment did he provide”
He told them to not going on sinning. He told them to sin no more.
“He told the tax collectors to be fair and just in imposing their conqueror’s levy”
Collecting taxes is not a sin, collecting additional taxes to line your own pockets is (see Nicodemus). Jesus here is telling them to do their jobs WITHOUT sinning. In other words DON’T SIN!!!
“Some adulteresses may have been virtual prostitutes, too. Jesus did not upbraid them about their sexual abominations”
“Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.””
Jesus seemed to be doing a pretty good job of it with the woman at the well.
“I know some will never see the argument of love, for the arguments of OT law give them a sense of righteous superiority, an addiction that is very hard to shake. ”
It has nothing to do with OT law. The prohibition on homosexuality was repeated more than once in the New Testament and has its grounding in the established order of creation, not OT law. Furthermore, superiority has nothing to do with it. Maybe in some cases, but among more than you would like to admit it is genuine concern for the eternal destiny of our fellow human beings. If I really believe that something is going to lead someone to eternal damnation would I be loving them if I stood by and was a cheerleader along the road?
I am just amazed at how you can bastardize the Christian virtue of love to fit your twisted ideology. You remind me of the Greek philosopher Plutarch who once suggested that a wife should view a husbands adultery as a sign of love and respect saying, “It is respect for her which leads him to share his debauchery, licentiousness, and wantonness with another woman.” The definition and nature of love is rooted in the nature and being of God and revealed to us by the Bible and what you call “love” is not it.
Without this grounding love can mean whatever culture, Plutarch, or myself wants it to mean and is thus meaningless is the truest sense of the word.
We have seen the adjustment of what is an abomination. Furthermore, the bible does use that term with dietary and other sins, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_%28Bible%29
Continued adultery is not loving, so it is not acceptable, for the other married one, the marriage, the children are threatened by it. Homosexuality alone is victimless, so it does not violate the loving of your neighbor that Paul, in the Romans passage that I quoted previously, said fulfilled the law. Certainly, if defiant in this, the community would not find it easy to continue to include them. But is shunning always the best chance for their salvation?
Paul’s writings on homosexuality were half of a conversation, and we can only guess at the other. There were pagan rites where all sorts of sexuality were exploited. Paul’s understanding of sexuality was that of a Jewish man of his time. If Paul had some understanding that homosexuality was normal and natural to these persons, by heredity or trauma/environment, then his expectation that they stay to normal and natural sex would include homosexuality for them. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm
Love as a motivation for hate is a very tricky argument, like tough love. Jesus did not do so much tough love in the modern sense as love even when it got very tough.
It may be tough to explain homosexuality to your children, and how you do is very important. Fear that you may encourage them into homosexuality is not very reasonable, just as getting leprosy from contact was just a superstitious lie. Even children raised as if the opposite gender almost always revert to their normal heterosexual lifestyle and orientation when emancipated. If your child does discover they are homosexual, you need to still love them unconditionally, and encourage them in a safe, loving and monogamous direction.
Pedophiles: people are always bring pedophiles in to help bash homosexuals. As an argument, it says we should abolish marriage because of rape. The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. Nobody said we should relax the law on this. In fact, underage marriage is a big problem with FLDS polygamy through “spiritual marriage”, along with driving off excess male youth.
Um……objection, non-responsive.
Again, why is this any different than gay marriage arguments? Pedophiles say they have always felt the urges they have (aka born with it). Why should we deprive them of a “safe” environment to express there “Eros”? You say is this a “big problem.” Why? Who are we to judge their desires which are “normal and natural to these persons, by heredity or trauma/environment”? Is it because you say so, or that we as a society has done so? On what authority is that based on (other than “evolving standards” of right and wrong?) Well hell’s bells, maybe we should just accept them as well! It’s what you say Jesus would do, right? Just love on em.
I am now curious (given your logic), I want to know if you do think that it would be OK for me to watch porn with my wife. See, I was introduced to pornography by a sexual predator at 13. I have learned over the years that there is just something about the nature of the addiction when it is introduced in that fashion which makes the addiction especially difficult to overcome. So I can legitimately say that my desires are borne from a very traumatic event. Would it be therefore be OK in God’s sight for me to watch porn with my wife as part of our sex life?
There is a lot of talk about what Godly marriage “is” but what about what it used to be? Not ideal but acceptable marriages in God’s eyes were not just between a man and a woman. They were once between a man and several women, today we can that polygamy. They were once between a man and a 14 year old girl, today we call that child abuse. Wives were once property, today we call that slavery. Since Moses, marriages deemed acceptable to God have been changing drastically. As recently as 30 years ago remarriage after divorce was unacceptable (with strong biblical backing, by the way) but now is broadly accepted. I think we are drawing lines in peculiar places to keep as outcasts people we find repugnant while accepting people who are more like us. A big part of Jesus’ ministry was to do the opposite.
“Continued adultery is not loving, so it is not acceptable, for the other married one, the marriage, the children are threatened by it.”
According to whose definition of “love?” Plutarch seemed to think that it was loving according to his conception of the word.
“Homosexuality alone is victimless, so it does not violate the loving of your neighbor that Paul, in the Romans passage that I quoted previously, said fulfilled the law. Certainly, if defiant in this, the community would not find it easy to continue to include them. But is shunning always the best chance for their salvation?”
Isn’t a man sleeping with his mother also victimless? I mean assuming the father is dead one could almost argue that it is a “loving” thing for a man to take his mother as his wife to take care of her. Paul didn’t seem to think so.
And again you fail to define the word love and thus are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation since the word “love” in “love your neighbor” is not the type of love you are advocating. You are using the same word to mean two different things.
“Paul’s writings on homosexuality were half of a conversation, and we can only guess at the other. There were pagan rites where all” sorts of sexuality were exploited. Paul’s understanding of sexuality was that of a Jewish man of his time.”
Objection – calls for outrageous speculation. Certainly the Bible should be understood in the context of the culture. But there is nothing anywhere in the entire arch of Scripture or Paul’s writing in particular to indicate that homosexuality is anything other than blanket sin no different than adultery, stealing, and murder.
“Love as a motivation for hate is a very tricky argument, like tough love. Jesus did not do so much tough love in the modern sense as love even when it got very tough.”
Are you kidding me, the Scriptures are rife with Jesus exhibiting tough love. I’m sorry people who simply walk around telling…
@ Dave H
Jesus made clear why the law of Moses allowed for things that are contrary to the traditional monogamous relationship between a man and woman as we know it today. It was because of the “hardness of their hearts” As to divorce that is a whole different topic, however many Christians would hold that those who are divorced for reasons other than marital infidelity and the like should not be allowed to remarry and many pastors refuse to perform ceremonies for such individuals.
BTW If you are actually interested in reading it Daniel Wallace deals directly with the arguments raised in the website you linked here.
https://bible.org/article/review-mel-white%E2%80%99s-what-bible-says%E2%80%94and-doesn%E2%80%99t-say%E2%80%94about-homosexuality
Now it is Incest that must be brought somehow to compare to homosexuals? Incest is unloving to possible offspring, because of defects from inbreeding. The Amish are suffering from their small pool of genes, and many Jewish communities seem to have more than their fair share of challenged children. Incest is unloving because it prevents a wider network of loving relationships for both, is very much like relating only to yourself. Incest is unloving because of the power differential between the partners.
Homosexual marriage can increase loving relationships just like hetero marriage.
I suspect that, a much as homosexuality may be due to environment, if we have a more open and loving attitude toward sex and gender differences, a lot of the stress that twists people out of normal shape may disappear, and the prevalence of homosexuality will be reduced. Having so much gender separation that the other gender seems like a different species makes homosexuality more normal. At least one of your own understands your needs. The ignorance of one gender about all aspects of the other gender is an amazing aspect of our culture. We teach Calculus and Chemistry but not how our species works. We want to cover up all sorts of sexually differentiating body parts and activities. We have practically driven breast feeding out of existence or into a closet. We need to find a more natural, relaxed, educated attitude toward all aspects of both gender’s bodies and functions. It can go hand in hand with a more loving attitude toward those whose sexual orientation is different.
“Now it is Incest that must be brought somehow to compare to homosexuals? Incest is unloving to possible offspring, because of defects from inbreeding. The Amish are suffering from their small pool of genes, and many Jewish communities seem to have more than their fair share of challenged children.”
This only occurs when inbreeding is widely practiced and done for generations, not when it is practiced in isolated instances. By your logic we should also outlaw homosexuality since if it was practiced in large numbers, for a large period of time it would lead to the extinction of the human race.
“Incest is unloving because it prevents a wider network of loving relationships for both, is very much like relating only to yourself.”
Objection – bald assertion and patently false. One can still have a very wide range of loving relationships even though they save a sexual relationship for their mother.
“Incest is unloving because of the power differential between the partners.”
Again nothing more than a bald assertion and demonstratively false. How in the world would a relationship be unloving simply because there is a power differential? Almost all relationships have some level of power differential. For instance a woman who makes more than her husband could be seen as having greater power in that respect. Furthermore there are many relationships, like parent-child, that are loving despite a huge power differential by definition.
The rest of your statements are completely unresponsive to the objections raised. I’m glad you suspect this or that, but it fails to address any of the issues raised.
Furthermore you still continue to use the word “love” without definition. How are you defining it? As our culture does or as the Bible does. The result is that you are equivocating right and left. In other words your arguments concerning “love” are logically fallacious and thus may be ignored by any rational human being.
OK, if incest works OK for bears, why not people. Even adults now were deeply affected by the biological relationship when minors. When it “works”, is that more a Stockholm Syndrome nightmare? That is where power imbalance is a problem.
My definition of love is well summed up in I Corinthians 13. It drives the right behaviors for the right reasons, under whatever names. Who knows which love power the boat that they all ride in? We are all sinners, but love is God’s plan for our salvation. Love may not be pure this side of Heaven, but it is the best thing we have. Love is God.
Yes, Jesus did not hold the punches, and did tough love when necessary. Just be careful your tough love is driven by real love, not something like blood lust for what you judge are “worse sinners” or “Abominations”. Remember that the object is salvation by love, even for tough love.
Finally, remember that the right definition of sin is not the law, but distance from God, from Love. As Paul said in Romans 13:8: Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law. Love like Jesus had, like Corinthians describes, like God is, it fulfills every bit of the law.
What do you think of the line, “love does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices with the Truth?”
I’m not talking about the OT law nor do I care about it at this point (though it is certainly instructive in a indirect way). I am focused on what the New Testament states. The theories of the gay community on these passages are all over the place, in many cases call for outrageous speculation, and even then are simply not plausible. If you read the article I linked from Dan Wallace you would see this quite clearly.
@ Michael T
I think I will answer for David at this point (since he rarely ever addresses direct questions). He clearly believes that homosexuals don’t “choose” to be gay, that they are born that way. Therefore he believes that IF they are born that way, then it can not possibly be a “wrongdoing”. That and apparently “love” is just a blanket that covers over everything.
David is very much a case study in why theology matters, a lot.
Well, if Love is Patient and Kind, and does not insist on its own way, the truth will always come out. The truth for Christian Homosexual Monogamous couples seems to be that they are as good or better than their Heterosexual equivalents; sometimes better for the commitment to their relationship that it demands to buck social norms.
Yes, the Scripture is all over the place, and there are some parts that are very critical. However, the crab and clams I had last night were Abominations, too. I think Paul paraphrases Jesus here, reminding us that the foundation of it all is simple:
Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 22:37 Deut. 6:5
b. Matthew 22:39 Lev. 19:18
————————–
Romans 13:8: Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.
————————————–
So, I ask that you be Christian, not retro-Jewish! The Jewish people have a much more accepting and affirming attitude toward their Homosexuals, it seems, maybe because they know the trials of oppression so well.
If this love comes hard to you, look to your own mind and soul. Love of God demands humility about your own purity, awareness of your own sinful nature. God’s love drives your salvation, not your self-measured purity. God’s command is to love, not to Judge, criticize and oppress. We all must and will use lower-case-j judgement in coping with reality, but it’s outputs must be inputs to our love of God and all the sinners, whom God, Jesus still loves unconditionally and wants to save, wants us to…
“Well, if Love is Patient and Kind, and does not insist on its own way, the truth will always come out’
This is a mind boggling non-sequitar. One can be as patient and kind as they want to while dealing with nothing but outright falsehood. Patience and kindness has to do with ones disposition towards someone, not whether or not they agree with them or think what they are doing is right.
“The truth for Christian Homosexual Monogamous couples seems to be that they are as good or better than their Heterosexual equivalents; sometimes better for the commitment to their relationship that it demands to buck social norms.”
Seems to me like you are insisting on your own way here. Nonetheless the phrase “Christian Homosexual Monogamous couple” is question begging since it assumes that such a thing actually exists which is the ultimate question at issue. Furthermore one must ask, given the various studies on homosexual monogamy, how many of these actually exist if they could exist.
“Yes, the Scripture is all over the place, and there are some parts that are very critical. However, the crab and clams I had last night were Abominations, too.”
Red-herring. As I said in the last post I am not concerned about OT law at all, much less the purity code.
“So, I ask that you be Christian, not retro-Jewish!
Everything I am discussing comes from the “Christian” New Testament. I guess that the parts that disagree with you we can feel free to cut out though and call retro-Jewish”
“The Jewish people have a much more accepting and affirming attitude toward their Homosexuals, it seems, maybe because they know the trials of oppression so well.”
Red-herring. What does what the modern day Jews think about an issue which was condemned in the NT as sin have to do with anything? You are the one telling us to be Christians, not Jews.
Yes, the Scripture is all over the place, and there are some parts that are very critical.
Your statement implies that there are other parts that are not very critical. Do you not recognize that every single time the topic is brought up in scripture, it is unequivocally denounced as sin, grievous sin (i.e. an abomination to God, they who practice it do not inherit the kingdom of heaven, they have been given over to divine judgment, etc.)?
However, the crab and clams I had last night were Abominations, too.
If you read the context of dietary abominations, the dietary/ceremonial abominations were abominations unto us. However, homosexuality is an abomination to the LORD. God in the NT has clearly liberated us from the dietary law. You simply cannot say that about homosexuality. It is universally condemned as sin in both the Old and New Testaments. Period. No amount of “but what about Love” sophistry will EVER change that fact.