First, as the title suggests, I'll state the real facts about Amendment One and the concept of same-sex marriage in general. Then I might rant a little, we'll see. First, just the facts...
- There is already a statute on the books in North Carolina that prevents gay marriage. This amendment is unnecessary.
- Most of the people polled who support Amendment One are unaware of fact #1.
- Amendment One is so unique, there's no category for it in the constitution (ie. there is nothing regarding marriage today in it), so it will have to be placed in the "miscellaneous" section.
- Domestic partners (a common term for insurance benefits) of public employees are virtually guaranteed to lose their benefits if Amendment One passes.
- Amendment One is worded very poorly, and there is no case law whatsoever in NC to deal with the term "domestic legal union".
- Amendment One does absolutely nothing to protect heterosexual marriage.
- Adoption of Amendment One would force another constitutional amendment to even allow civil unions in this state.
- Approving Amendment One would be the first time we've enshrined discrimination in our state constitution.
- Opposing gay marriage is a surprisingly bi-partisan issue. A significant percentage of African-American and Latino Democrats support Amendment One.
I have to admit, #9 is the one that annoys me the most. In a country that fought a civil war over rights for people who had no control over their race, some descendants of those those same people would enshrine discrimination into our state constitution against a class of people who have no choice over their sexual orientation.
The Bible is irrelevant in this discussion. Last I checked, most of the laws of Leviticus aren't in the NC constitution either (thankfully). Slavery is also legal and supported in both New and Old Testament. Where's the moral outrage there? Here is a terrific breakdown of the trouble opponents of gay marriage have with respect to the bible. (note: the first link is a trailer to a much longer version).
Gay marriage represents zero threat to traditional marriage. My wonderful marriage of 6 years will not be damaged one iota if some of my gay friends in NC are given a chance to commit to each other in a similar fashion.
Roy Cooper, the Attorney General of North Carolina, summed it up best. Amendment One is "unclear, unwise, and unnecessary."
I'll allow comments if people choose to do so. I merely ask that folks be respectful and address the argument at hand, not the people making them. I said nothing about the folks who support this awful amendment, I hope others will do the same.
Lance, I generally keep my fingers off the keyboard when I read the stuff you write concerning this particular topic. After all, our differences here are merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The root runs very deep, into the foundation of our respective worldviews. However, less-than-accurate comments concerning the Bible compel me to toss in my two cents - not necessarily about the topic itself, but in defense of an accurate view of the Bible and Christianity in general.
ReplyDeleteLeviticus was a book of the regulatory laws pertaining mostly to the levitical priesthood as a part of the Mosaic Covenant with Israel. The Mosaic Covenant was abrogated upon Christ's death, so they are no longer in effect. And, neither are the laws per se that are found in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Those laws, too, were meant for the nation of Israel. So, why you may ask, is the Old Testament relevant at all? Well, many of the laws - like murder, adultery, worshiping other gods, etc. - are timeless refections of God's character. Murder violates the sanctity of human life, so it was punished early in Genesis when Cain killed Abel and the death penalty for murder was prescribed shortly after the flood. It's the sort of thing that is implanted in the human mind from the get-go and no explicit law should even be necessary. So, there are certain behaviors that are not acceptable, regardless of where it happens or when it happens. Many of the passages in the books of Moses fall into this category. This becomes blatantly obvious when certain activities are labelled as abominations to God. I would argue that abominations to an unchanging God do not become acceptable...ever. And even if you want to toss out the whole Old Testament, simply read the first chapter of Romans and you will say that the vast majority of God's "displeasure" with man concerns idolatry and homosexuality. So, your implied argument that an inconsistency is present since most of the law of Leviticus are not in play is an invalid argument.
Now, concerning slavery. When most people picture slavery in the Old Testament, images of 19th Century America come to mind or perhaps Russell Crowe's Gladiator. Any right-minded person would agree that those practices were horrid. And, if the Bible were to deem those behaviors acceptable, it would certainly seem strange, to say the least. But, it does not condone that behavior. It absolutely forbids that behavior. Yes, Israelites were permitted to have slaves, but it is a radically different meaning of the term. In reality, it needs another name. For the most part, slaves were poverty-stricken and unable to feed themselves or their families. In that event, the individual could become a servant of someone else. They generally had families and, if not, they were included as a part of the family. In most cases, it was more like they were an employee than a slave. There are other cases where prisoners of war were taken as slaves. The main point here is that if you actually read the laws concerning slavery you will find that the majority of them were there to forbid mistreatment. They were viewed as fellow images of God and not to be mistreated. It is a radical departure from 19th Century America. So, there is no reason for moral outrage.
The link you provided is a person who takes passages out of context for his own purposes and picks and chooses those that he likes and dismisses the vast majority of the biblical data. That's detestable.
I hope that was coherent. I'm running late, so it was a little hurried. See ya.
ReplyDeleteI am rushed, too, so excuse the typos.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me so sad to see the Bible used to justify judgement and discrimination. As a follower of Sweet Jesus of Nazareth, I think the Beatitudes tell us everything we need to know.
Man's first question to God was, "Am I my brother's keeper?" And the answer was ... yes. We can argue scriptural interpretation all day long, and both of us can mount scholars to prove our viewpoint, but the simple answer is Love One Another. Period.
I am disturbed by the thought that being nice to our slaves makes slavery justifiable. How about being charitable to our brothers and sisters without demanding something in return? Mother Teresa did not make slaves of the lepers she helped - she just helped them.
Quoting Saint Paul on sex makes me smile. Saint Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth 7:8-9 pretty much explains his view on marriage. And please remember that Saint Paul had only one thing to say about "unnatural" sex, but much to say about judging, and about charity and love. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.."
I was in North Carolina last week to help fight for human rights and saw buses of women from Freewill Baptist Churches who had come to help fight for Amendment 1. They stayed at the same hotel we were staying. They were cranky to the hotel staff, did not tip even a dime, and sneered at my son - who is an ordained Christian minister and a hospital chaplain - because he was wearing an Vote Against Amendment 1 tee-shirt. I realize full well that they do not represent all Christians - look at my son! - but they do represent those who use the Bible as a weapon, not a gift.
Saint Paul again - And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
Peace.
Susan
http://juanitajean.com/2012/04/28/fighting-the-freewill-baptists/
http://juanitajean.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20120429-204742.jpg
Susan, I love you. Fred, I love you too, Brother, and promise to respond soon. Studying for a final exam tomorrow is getting priority for the moment.
ReplyDeleteSusan, It's interesting how you accuse me of judging when I am merely stating clearly what is clearly revealed in the Bible. You wouldn't be judging me now would you? Jesus and Paul both addressed judging. They hated it. But, neither one of them advocated lawlessness. You say you like the beatitudes? Me too. But, the difference between you and me seems to be that I pay attention to all of them. God did not grant us the liberty to pick and choose those parts we like and dismiss the rest. Those same verses talk about righteousness. Does that mean anything to you? Or, is it part of the background noise? All of scripture has something very specific in mind when it talks about righteousness. And, all of scripture is the Word of God, not just the parts we like.
ReplyDeleteYou call Jesus "sweet". I agree. There is none more loving than him. But again, we cannot put on blinders and only accept those parts we like. No one in the Bible talked about hell and damnation more than Jesus Himself. He said, shortly after the beatitudes you mention, that if your eye causes you to sin then gouge it out because it's better than going to hell. What do you do with that? Now, we know that He is not advocating bodily mutilation, but His hyperbole should drive a very strong point home. Our Lord takes sin - and that would include homosexuality - very seriously.
I would imagine that you love John 3:16. Well keep reading. What does He say? He did not come to condemn the world. Why not? The world is already condemned. Repeat, the world is already condemned. Sweet Jesus said that.
And, the Bible is a weapon. Read Ephesians 5. But, it is a weapon against evil and unrighteousness. It is not a tool of destruction.
The bottom line is that I am not the one who is saying that homosexuality is a sin. God is. If you don't want to believe that then your beef is with Him and not me.
That said, I hope I'm wrong. I hope that the gate is much wider than I believe it is. I hope that I am surprised upon on "entering those pearly gates" at the masses of people who are there. But, if I take God at His word, it ain't happening. I'm tortured by that thought and that is why I proclaim what Jesus has commanded all of His people to proclaim. In order to be saved, a person must first understand that they need to be saved. And, they need to be saved because of sin. And, if you don't believe that then you may "follow" Him, but He does not know you. (His words, not mine.)
Truth trumps wishful thinking every time.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteTruth is elusive when a) it is written by Men and b) context isn't considered and c) it is translated from two different languages (arguably three since the Disciples spoke Aramaic but wrote in Greek).
Old Testament indictments were written in Hebrew, but even that language has some difficulty with the usage of the word abomination, or toevah as the Hebrew derivative. http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2826/does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_%E2%80%9Cabomination%E2%80%9D
The article is interesting, and I think you maybe remember a discussion John & I had regarding the Greek translation of the word referred to in Corinthians & Timothy, arsenokoitai. It suffers from the same translation issues abomination has.
Now, apply the context for each of the passages. With the exception of Leviticus, which we know equates eating shellfish as having the same gravity as homosexual acts, homosexuality is never called out specifically (meaning addressing the specific act or orientation), least of all by Jesus who never mentions the alleged sin.
More importantly, the concept of sexual orientation didn't exist until I think the 17th or 18th century. So if such a concept didn't exist, how can a document written 1500 years prior address the idea of a man loving another man in a fashion beyond simple lust or outside the bounds of marriage? This is my challenge with the Bible and modernity. We understand the world differently than we did back then. That's why slavery, stoning, torture, etc are considered so anathema today. And yet some things, like polyesther, shellfish and pork are no longer abominations (well, to most). Applying context matters, and I would posit, if you look at the context surrounding alleged and actual homosexual references in the bible, you get far less than a divine truth that homosexuality, especially the type of relationship that wishes to be codified in marriage, is the sin you believe it to be.
I'll admit, this argument has some flaws (especially due to sample size), but I have yet to encounter a single homosexual who has said to me "yeah, I like my opposite gender, but I prefer my own sex". The greatest canard out there is that same-sex orientation is somehow a choice (for most, I won't dispute that some do experiment).
Finally, knowing that these texts, even the old testament, were ultimately written by men, I have a hard time relying on the word of people who choose to use these documents as a means of control. Does the Bible contain some good lessons? You bet. So does every other faith known to mankind. That doesn't mean I consider their artifacts to be any more authoritative for morality in the 21st century than those of the multiple times over translated old and new testaments of the Bible.
Sorry if some of that is less than coherent. I just wrapped up one final and wanted to respond before heading to bed.
ReplyDeleteLance,
ReplyDeleteActually, it was you and I who had the discussion concerning the Greek translation of sodomy, not you and John. And, if I recall, you actually admitted after a little pressing that the concern was only present in a couple of very virtually irrelevant translations of the Bible. There is not a translation issue with arsenokoitai. If you don't believe me, go back and read your own words.
In terms of context, that is how I spend the majority of my time: trying to understand what Moses, Paul, and the rest were actually saying (as opposed to what I want them to say.) The context is as important as the text itself. I'm no scholar, but nor am I some bumpkin off the farm armed with nothing more than an arbitrary url that happens to agree with my preconceived notions, tastes, and pleasures.
Your assertion that eating shellfish has the same gravity as homosexuality is just silly. You know better than that. If it were 1985, you'd probably be saying that they both equate to global thermo-nuclear war. Of course, how could I argue with that? Everything equated to global thermo-nuclear ware back then.
Here is Romans 1:24-27 "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
If you don't see that Paul is identifying homosexuality as sin in this passage then I am absolutely speechless.
There are two things most often identified in the Bible that God detests: 1) idolatry and 2) inappropriate sexual behavior (including adultery, homosexuality, beastiality, etc.)
I know you're not a Christian. That bothers me to no end, but there's nothing that I can do about it. But, don't hijack the Bible and try to make it say something it doesn't or, conversely, deny that it says something that it does. Say you don't believe it. Fine. But, don't try to change it.
How is my interpretation any more or less valid than yours. Your citation of 1 Romans is a great example. Go all the back to verse 16 and include up to 32 you get the bigger picture of what Paul is addressing. A homosexual act is mentioned (for each gender), yes, but it is in a much larger context. First, the act is a result of a rejection of God. The consequence of which is to reject their nature of attraction (ie. predisposition to the opposite sex) and lust for the same.
ReplyDeleteWith that in mind, let's finish the passage:
"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."
In full context, these are some pretty wretched souls. But it seems to me homosexuality isn't the focus of this passage. It is the rejection of God that is.
Now, all that said I'm not going to pretend that I'm going to persuade you of that interpretation of the passage.
Even if that is true, 1800 years of history and progression of scientific understanding have passed since Paul wrote these letters. Never once in the Bible is the concept of love addressed with respect to same sex relations. Nor is orientation, given that the term wasn't even coined until the 18th century.
Interpretations of passages within the bible have been used to justify slavery, subjugation/domination of women, torture, anti-miscegenation laws, and of course, sodomy.
In the course of history each of those listed has found its place in the dumpster in spite of the biblical support. Except for one. Why is that? How did our morality progress to understand different races or classes shouldn't be enslaved? Or that women should be granted equal rights in our society. Or that differing races can procreate without them becoming an abomination? You get the idea.
We know with absolute certainty that it is possible for two members of the same sex to have a loving, stable, fulfilling relationship. That can even include well adjusted offspring (admittedly with assistance). And it can even include a healthy relationship with Christ (insofar as some would deem it). Given that, how do you reconcile that with what we discussed in 1 Romans? I can't. Admittedly I'm not a Christian so perhaps I'm incapable of doing so.
Finally, and I ask you this honestly, do you believe that those who have a same sex attraction/orientation did so by choice? I'll set aside that some people admittedly experiment and I do think that is part of what Paul was addressing, but it is also covered by other in other areas of sexual sin. Obviously I do not, and that is borne out in some respects with scientific evidence, but largely from personal experience with gay friends. I have yet to encounter a single person who said they chose to be gay. Many of those people are devout Christians (one a devout Catholic). If their walk with Christ is so strong (at least to my eyes), how or why would God allow their hearts to be burdened so?
Reasonable response Lance. One of things that I like about you as that you admit it when portions of your arguments are weak. That tells me that you are interested in a mutual understanding of the issues rather than a dogmatic-beat'em-up sort of exchange. And, I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteI want to preface my comments: I said in the earlier post that God seems to view idolatry and sexual depravity as the worst kinds of sin. I say that because they (all of them, not just homosexuality) come up a lot. And, if they are at the top of God's list then that is His prerogative. But, it's not mine. I, nor any other Christian, am allowed to have a personal axe to grind. But, many people do and, it seems, homosexuality seems to be one of the most popular. I really wish they wouldn't do that. As far as I can tell, homosexuality is no more of a sin than heterosexual adultery.
You're right when you say rejection of God, rather than homosexuality, is the focus of the passage. But, I think it's plainly visible that homosexuality should be seen in this context as a part of the problem. It is viewed as an ungodly act, regardless of the other things that those people may have done. Homosexuality is associated with the list of things that you quoted in verse 28 onward. Like you said, there was no word for it until the 18th Century; otherwise, it probably would have been explicitly included.
You mention "1800 years of history and science..." That is completely irrelevant for two reasons. 1) If the Bible is in fact the Word of God then 1800 years of anything would not impact its truthfulness. 2) Scientific understanding has no bearing on godliness. They are in two different realms.
"...to justify slavery": That is unfortunately true. But, like I mentioned in a previous post, we cannot confuse the institution as described in the Bible with that implemented in 19th Century America. They are two radically different things. I'm under the impression (although I can't find a source) that the UK passed a law where people who are unable to pay their debtors are able to work their debt off. They're not beaten or hog-tied. They simply work so many ours per week until they have paid their debt. That's the sort of arrangement present in the Bible. I can't speak for the UK implementation in particular, but it seems an honorable practice.
ReplyDelete"...to justify subjugation/domination of women": In terms of the OT, we must keep in mind that we are talking about an ancient civilization. Manual labor ruled the day and most women could not compete in that area. So yes, women were somewhat dominated by their husbands. But, they were not to be mistreated. In the NT, Paul says that the wife must "obey" the husband. That's bad, right? Well, what must the husband do? He must "cherish" the wife. He must put her first. He must die for her if need be. Well, which is more demanding? I know many godly women who will all tell you the same thing. If you marry a godly man, obedience is not even an issue.
"...to justify torture": I have no idea what you're saying.
"...to justify anti-interracial marriage laws": Nowhere in the Bible is interracial marriage forbidden. The passages that you are thinking about in Deuteronomy are talking about inter-religion marriage, not inter-racial. Big difference. Who did Rahab the foreign harlot marry? She married one of the heads of the tribe of Judah. Who did Ruth the Moabite marry? She married the wealthy Boaz. Both of those women were ancestors of David and consequently in the line of Christ. One of the heroes of Numbers and Joshua, Caleb, was not an ethnic Israelite. All peoples were welcome into the people of Israel...if they worshiped Yahweh. You mention context: This is where it is important.
"...to justify sodomy": Uh, you completely lost me with that one.
"In the course of history each one...": Nope, I must disagree. You've given several examples and each one (that I could understand) is defeated via a plain reading of the Bible in its context.
But, you left a few out: "The Nazis used the death of Christ as a reason to kill the Jews." and "All wars have been fought in the name of religion." Simply because people take the Word of God and twist it into saying what they want it to say, does not impact the veracity of the Word of God one iota.
"two member of the same sex...fulfilling relationship": Lance, our emotions and feelings while we are on this planet are not the telos of our lives. We are happy when we get what we want. We are not happy when we don't. I would imagine that two people of the same sex who share interests could be quite content. But, that is irrelevant. Happiness is not holiness. Sins are sins, not because they make people unhappy, but because they run contrary to holiness.
ReplyDelete"...can even include a healthy relationship with Christ": Nope, can't happen. Now, that is not to say that the person is not saved. But, is the relationship healthy? No. I can carry on an extramarital affair and theoretically still be a Christian, but that relationship with my Savior could not be characterized as "healthy". Sin interferes with that relationship.
Do I think same sex attraction is by choice? To begin with, it is not genetic. Darwin was correct on a micro scale. And, according to Darwin, any gene that would reduce the likelihood of that portion of the population from reproducing would actually weed itself out via survival of the fittest. Plain and simple. Does that mean it's a choice? No, not necessarily. Not long before Jeff passed away, he asked me the same question. I asked him to close his eyes and describe the physical features of his perfect woman. I can't remember his exact words, but he ended up describing Christy in pretty serious detail. When I pointed that out, he was blown away because he hadn't even been (consciously) thinking about her. Was he so infatuated with her because she fit the description of his perfect woman? No. His idea of a perfect woman was formed by the pleasant memories of her. And, he never got over it. Same-sex preferences are in a similar vein. The opposite is true also. We can be so repulsed by certain experiences that no one who remotely fits the description can get our motor running. I can't remember the numbers, but a high percentage of homosexuals come from broken homes. The boys tend to be repulsed by dad for not being there.
Now that I have said all of that, I think that sexual preference is mostly based on past experience. But - and, here is the sin issue - the decision to act on that preference is clearly a choice. They won't be held accountable for a propensity for the same sex. They will be held accountable for acting on it.
"...how or why would God allow their hearts to be burdened so?" Simple. God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Wait, you're allowed to consider historical context for the subjugation of slaves and women but not for other things?
ReplyDeleteI'm exhausted and will respond more later.
You know better than that. Like I said earlier, it must all be interpreted in context. I believe my words were, "Context is as important as the text itself." But, just because you don't agree with what it says does not mean that I'm taking it out of context. I am currently studying Exodus. To better understand that book "in its context", I am also studying the Amarna Letters, the tablets from Nuzi and Ebla, and the laws of Hammarabi, not to mention various Akkadian, Egyptian, other documents scattered across the Near East. And, as I move forward toward the New Testament, I will carry this context with me. The NT cannot be understood to any depth without the OT. And, the OT must be understood in its historical and cultural context. I'm also studying Greek and, hopefully, Hebrew next year. So, what more exactly would you suggest that I do in order to better understand the context? I am not trying to make the text say anything in particular. I am trying to understand what it actually says. Anything else would be blasphemous.
ReplyDeleteI certainly admire your scholarship on this. That's one of many reasons I prefer discussing this with you.
ReplyDeleteFatigue left my earlier statement incomplete. Considering historical context for slavery and domination of women but not for homosexuality is inconsistent, in my opinion.
For example, take Sodom and Gomorrah. Was the violation there (the act that brought the destruction) the acts of homosexuality, or the attempted gang rape of 2 men and the blatant sexual immorality that existed there?
Now, more specifically, considering the laws of leviticus, some of them make sense at the time. Pork probably was a lot less clean back then...ok, maybe its still bad today (for my standards) but if you get it local and grass fed, its clean. There were likely legit health concerns surrounding some of those laws.
Now what about homosexuality (with respect to Leviticus)? Two thousand plus years ago, survival was still very much the focus for most cultures (as opposed to obsesity being one of our biggest challenges). So a sexual act that couldn't create offspring I could see back then being viewed unnatural. Shift that context to today and the understanding, unless you're Tony Perkins, of how sexual orientation manifests itself has changed. I won't pretend the science is ironclad that its genetic, I think very few genetic traits guarantee anything. However I do understand that with every homosexual friend I've met, attraction to the opposite sex, when tested (ie. they try it due to cultural norms) has failed to generate our basest instincts. I'm on a tangent, so back to my real point.
Paul had no concept that some men or women's default state would be attraction to the same sex. As you've conceded, the concept of orientation vs. the more wanton idea of switching teams for a fling didn't exist.
The same is true with slavery and women's rights. As cultures progressed, our humanity and view of right and wrong has evolved in spite of God's word. You have to admit, there are some barbaric practices in the OT, but they are usually shrugged off in the guise of context for those cultures.
Today, even setting genetics aside, psychologically we understand same sex orientation and far more about humanity in general better than we did 2 millennia ago. I can't even conceive of it being a "choice", as some have argued. Who would want to put themselves through that kind of torment?
Placing the context back to my original post, homosexuality no longer deserves that special exception in society as a sin in and of itself. We understand it better today than we did 2500 years ago (for OT). If two people form a loving relationship and wish to have that recognized by the state as a marriage, in my opinion they should be allowed to do so. I would respect(somewhat) any church that chose not to support the ceremony. But in my opinion, this has become a civil right as evidenced by Loving v. Virginia. Many of the same arguments used for anti-miscegenation laws are being applied today to oppose same-sex marriage. (your arguments earlier regarding the biblical support are not-withstanding)
And perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe God was consistent on this subject all along. Let Him judge. In my heart, its wrong to deny an entire class of people the ability to enjoy the benefits (and challenged) of that form of social contract. It helps order another segment of our culture and does nothing to weaken the current institution.
"Sodom and Gomorrah..." - The issue with those places was rampant wickedness. In what form? There were two that were predominant. 1) They oppressed the sojourner. That was a huge deal in the ANE because sojourners were completely dependent upon a host city for their survival. To turn someone away without caring for them was in many cases a death sentence. In our culture, that particular material problem does not, under normal circumstances, apply. 2) There was rampant sexual immorality. This, I would imagine, included both the homosexual and heterosexual variety. God hates that. So, the narrative of the two visitors to Sodom creates a double whammy. Two of things that God hates are pulled together.
ReplyDeleteNow, if we step back and look at the opening chapters of Genesis, we see the creation of man and woman. I think their is an intent in those chapters which describes the normative sexual relationship. One man and one woman. Does it specifically address homosexuality? No. But, God creates things with a natural order. That is clearly visible when we simply look at the complementary nature of the sexual organs (the only two organs that were provided for sexual interaction) of the two genders. And, when things run contrary to that natural order, He does not like it very much. Now, if we go back to Sodom, I think that the homosexual assault of a traveller may perhaps be a triple whammy. (BTW: "Whammy" is a technical term in theology. Let me know if I can help you parse it out.) So, to answer your question: Was Sodom destroyed specifically because of homosexuality? No, I don't think so. But, it was a contributing factor.
"the laws of leviticus..." - First, let's look a the purpose for the existence of Israel. They were to be a treasured possession, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. They were to be an ancient "city on a hill" so to speak. To be all of those things, they were to be set apart. (That's what holy means.) They were to live in a particular land and conduct themselves in a way that reflected God's character. Now, the big thing here is that their conduct (i.e. following the law) is not what "saved" them. No, they were saved by grace through faith and their actions would/should be a response of gratitude for God's redemption. So, what was the purpose of the law? Well, there are several purposes, but we'll just look at two. 1) It informed Israel on how they (not us) could live a life pleasing to God. Now, could they pull it off? Strictly speaking: No. But, it let them know what they needed to do anyway. 2) It visibly separated them from their pagan surroundings. For the most part the uncleanliness of swine was a symbolic thing. They were not to associate with something that was physically unclean as a analog to not associating with something that is spiritually unclean. They were not to wear blended fabrics which symbolically pointed to the same thing (i.e. Don't mix believers and non-believers.) Does God really care about pigs or blended fabrics? No. He was reminding them to be a separate, holy people. IMHO, this is the broadest context and must be taken into account in any discussion of the law.
Now, the holiness that I keep talking about is the timeless purpose of those laws. So I, as a Christian, can eat pork chops and bacon, but my life must be a holy one. I must be different. How, exactly, do I do that? Well, I know there are a few guidelines, but I am not going to pretend to have it all figured out. I'm definitely a work in progress. But, the question that I must ask myself every second is, "What is pleasing to God?" It's not a points system and I'm not after kudos. I simply love Him and I want to please Him because, for some reason that had nothing to do with me "being good", He adopted me. I don't deserve it. I can never deserve it. [Slight tangent, sorry.]
What I'm trying to say about Leviticus is those laws do no (directly) apply today. But, they do serve as guideposts to reflect God's character. We study a particular law, consider the timeless aspect of what He was driving at, and apply it to ourselves in a way that fits our present context. More to the point, homosexuality is never painted in a good light in Scripture. It is always accompanied by other sins. As for Paul not having a concept of orientation: Well, I don't think we can determine what concepts Paul did or did not fully grasp. Any study on that would be choc full o' subjectivity. I'm just going by what he (carried along by the Spirit) wrote. (Now, don't seize on that subjectivity comment. I try to be very mindful of reading our own desires into studies regardless of whether they agree with my position or not. I have set aside many theologians who agree with my various positions because the seem just a little too zealous.)
ReplyDeleteI gotta go pick up Andie, so let me say one last thing. I'll come back later and see if I missed anything.
You won't catch me arguing about legal precedents and what not. I could care less about those things. From a biblical perspective Amendment One is a drop in the bucket. I don't get wound too wound up in temporal worldly politics and issues because, quite frankly, the world is going to hell in a handbasket. The legalization of same-sex whatevers has no bearing whatsoever on the relationship between God and His people (those that are truly His). I may vote for it, but I would never spend time fighting either for or against it. However, 1) When it comes to the point (and it eventually will) where it attempts to impede they way I (or other believers) worship God, I will jump with both feet into that fight. (I take the Catholic contraception issue as a shot across the bow.) 2) I will not allow the Bible to be twisted into supporting such a thing. If a person does not believe the Bible then they need to say that the don't believe it. That's a separate issue. But, I will not sit idly by when someone tries to hijack it. Besides, why would a non-believer care what it says anyway? Do I really care what the Koran says?
Love the whammy part, that made me smile. Fwiw, in many respects you'd have me along side for the freedom of worship aspect, even if I don't agree with it. That's the whole point of the First Amendment, and I think people forget that.
ReplyDeleteI genuinely appreciate you sharing your scholarship on these issues, Fred. We're both a work in progress, but we're both open to learning, and that is what matters in my book. Thanks for the great discussion.