Is homosexuality an abomination?

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

anotheratheisthere
Banned
Banned
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:00 am
Location: New York

Is homosexuality an abomination?

Post #1

Post by anotheratheisthere »

Yes.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. (Leviticus 18-22)

On the same page, it uses the exact same word to describe eating shellfish. (Leviticus 11-10 and 11-11)


Please heed the word of God:

Being gay is an abomination.

Eating shrimp is an abomination.


Being gay is just as much an abomination as eating shrimp.

Eating shrimp is just as much an abomination as being gay.


If you ever ate a shrimp cocktail you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert homosexual.

If you ever had gay sex, you committed as grievous a sin as the most pervert shrimp cocktail eater.


If you are a gay Christian who judges and condemns people for committing the abomination of eating lobster, then you're a hypocrite.

If you're a Christian who eats lobster and you judge and condemn people for committing the abomination of being gay, then you're a hypocrite.


Gay people and people who eat seafood are abominations! Both groups are disgusting! You make me sick! How can you POSSIBLY want to have gay sex and/or eat shrimp, clams, oysters and lobster? PERVERTS!

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I think we should amend the Constitution to specify that anybody who eats lobster, shrimp, clams or oysters will be deported and/or waterboarded.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #51

Post by East of Eden »

micatala wrote:
Most churches today allow divorce. Most churches today allow divorced people to remarry. I have never heard anyone in a Christian church refer to divorce or remarriage after divorce as an "abomination to God" and yet, we have arguably even more explicit instructions from Jesus himself than we do regarding homosexuality. Divorce and remarriage after divorce constitute adultery except for the caveats that adultery has already occurred.

Now, this does not answer either the question regarding whether God considers homosexuality an abomination, or whether all CHristians should consider it so. However, it does clearly indicate that many, if not most or nearly all Christians and Christian churches and denominations are employing a double standard here.

Most Christians allow adults to make their own decisions about divorce and remarriage without standing in their way or officially labeling their actions as abominable. We allow them to stand before God on their own and accept responsbility as they see fit for their actions.

Some of the Christians who do this will not allow gays the same respect or freedom within the church.
You are right, there is far too much acceptance of divorce in the church. The correction for this is not to abandon Biblical standards on homosexual activity also.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE

elle
Apprentice
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:31 pm
Location: United States

Post #52

Post by elle »

East of Eden wrote:
micatala wrote:
Most churches today allow divorce. Most churches today allow divorced people to remarry. I have never heard anyone in a Christian church refer to divorce or remarriage after divorce as an "abomination to God" and yet, we have arguably even more explicit instructions from Jesus himself than we do regarding homosexuality. Divorce and remarriage after divorce constitute adultery except for the caveats that adultery has already occurred.

Now, this does not answer either the question regarding whether God considers homosexuality an abomination, or whether all CHristians should consider it so. However, it does clearly indicate that many, if not most or nearly all Christians and Christian churches and denominations are employing a double standard here.

Most Christians allow adults to make their own decisions about divorce and remarriage without standing in their way or officially labeling their actions as abominable. We allow them to stand before God on their own and accept responsbility as they see fit for their actions.

Some of the Christians who do this will not allow gays the same respect or freedom within the church.
You are right, there is far too much acceptance of divorce in the church. The correction for this is not to abandon Biblical standards on homosexual activity also.
What you and your church condone is your business IMO. But do you really intend to suggest that divorce should be outlawed?

I think there is too much emphasis on the "Church" as if all Christians believe or should believe the same things.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.--Carl Sagan

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #53

Post by MagusYanam »

East of Eden wrote:Repentance comes before redemption.
Sorry. It didn't for Jesus. Jesus welcomed all people to his table fellowship, even if they were (by the wider society's standards) 'unclean'. He did not demand that they purify themselves or repay their social debts before they could share his company.
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

- Søren Kierkegaard

My blog

User avatar
GentleDove
Apprentice
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA

Post #54

Post by GentleDove »

micatala wrote:I appreciate gentledove's thorough and thoughtful post, and will try to respond in detail in the near future. For now, let me address just one issue.
gentledove wrote: Everyone argues from a bias and a network of presuppositional beliefs, unproven by natural science (even naturalistic atheists), called a worldview, through which he interprets facts and evidence. Everyone has the “burden of proof� for his or her worldview. Each and every person—not just “some Christians"--is trying to “impose� his doctrines on everyone else. Are you not also here arguing that I should accept that homosexuality is the same as eating shrimp?
There is a difference between imposing a view on someone else, and attempting to persuade them to accept that view of their own free will.
I agree. That’s why I put quotes around the word “impose.� I am just posting on a debate site. That is not at all physically “imposing� or forcing my beliefs on anyone. I am arguing from my point of view, and you are arguing from your point of view. Neither one of us (at least on this debate site) is “imposing� anything on anyone.
micatala wrote:There is also a difference between deciding what is moral and proper for oneself and deciding not only for oneself but for everyone else. I am advocating that, as Christians, we should acknowledge the right of gays to decide for themselves whether their relationships are sinful or not.
I’m not “deciding� for anyone else, either. If I were, you know I would sure decide differently than much of what I see around me. However, I agree that that is not my place to do so because God in His Bible has not given me that right.

I am not claiming a “right� to “decide� what the morality of everyone should be. Morality is by definition universal. For example, if it’s wrong for me to kill someone without proper justification, then it is wrong for you and everyone else to do so. I am not transcendent above creation, and my personal morality is not universal. It is not incumbent upon every living human to obey my word, because I am not God. God is the Personal One Who has the right, the only right, to declare what is right and wrong, to impose His morality on all human beings everywhere, universally. Yes, on some creaturely level every person does decide for themselves what sin is. The question is, does his (or her) opinion of what is right and wrong line up with what God says is right and wrong? When I say that homosexuality is morally wrong, I don’t mean that it’s morally wrong because I think so. I’m saying that homosexuality is wrong because that is what God says in the Bible.

Do you believe that God exists objectively and created and is transcendent over all mankind? Or do you believe that “god� is concept that each human brain spits out, and “morality� is therefore relative and applicable to the body that particular brain is in? Your answer to who “God� is will answer how you view “morality.� Do you believe human beings are their own gods, to decide for themselves what morality is? Or do you believe that God is a Being apart from human beings, Who decides for all human beings what right and wrong is? Do you believe such a Being would or would not reveal His morality to the humankind He created?
micatala wrote:I am attempting to persuade you, based on the Bible, that this position is supportable from a Christian perspective. I am not trying to persuade you to personally accept that, with respect to your own actions, homosexuality be considered equivalent to eating shrimp.
I understand that, but I still don’t believe that the Bible says God approves of homosexuality. If you say, some people who profess Christianity believe homosexuality is all right, again, that “alternate,� relativistic morality is not incumbent upon me to accept. Christians and God are not equivalent and interchangeable beings. That is your opinion or some people’s opinion, and not a transcendent, universal morality.

If you think I’m making up my own personal, relativistic “morality,� and claiming the Bible backs me up, and therefore I am claiming that I’m speaking for God (rather than reporting faithfully what the Bible says), then I challenge you to show me from the Bible that the God of the Bible approves of homosexuality and approves of marriage between homosexuals. I would then be forced by my own professed worldview, to be consistent, to acquiesce to the morality that says practicing, unrepentant homosexuals are going to heaven, and being a homosexual is one option in God’s plan for human sexuality.
micatala wrote:I am not trying to impose my view on other churches or other Christians. I would certainly accept that each church or denomination can decide for itself what its teaching will be. I will say I am disappointed that many churches and individual Christians continue to make homosexuality an issue, and insist it is sinful in all situations. However, I will do no more than attempt to persuade others, and I do this mostly because I feel much harm is being done to gays who are or would be believers by the current positions many churches and Christians take.
I appreciate that, and I also merely attempt to persuade. It is my duty and joy as a Christian to extol God’s word to “honor the marriage bed,� and to proclaim His plan for human sexuality is for one man and one woman to marry and live for God together.

Because we live in God’s world (whether we like it or approve of God’s morality or not), it does homosexuals no good to pretend to them that God accepts them without their sincere repentance; especially since when you go to Scripture to show me that God approves of homosexuality, you can’t find the verses that say that. In fact, we find only words, God’s words, that say just the opposite. It’s horribly cruel and soul-damning to give homosexuals or any sinner a false gospel, that they are saved without repenting of their sin. This life is their one chance to repent before being condemned eternally to hell. It is cruel to lie to them about the way of salvation. Do you think they will be grateful to you from hell that you approved their sin when they still had a chance to hear the truth, repent, and be saved? Sometimes the truth is hard to hear and sometimes painful. But much much better the truth than the lie.
micatala wrote:In disagreements between believers in a society where everyone is free to pursue their faith according to their own consciences, "imposition of views" isn't or shouldnt be an issue.

WHere imposition IS an issue is in the legal realm, which is not really the topic of this thread. However, I will say that bans on gay marriage ARE an imposition of one view onto others, and an inappropriate one which I view as unconstitutional.

Imposition means that one person is limiting the freedom of another, or using coercive or forceful means to get them to change their behavior.
That is the role of the civil magistrate and the state, according to the Bible: To restrain evil and to be a magistrate of God’s justice. Of course, the state, especially in these times, is failing miserably in its duty. No matter which side “gets their way,� we cannot have two moralities at the same time. We cannot have homosexual “marriage� and no homosexual “marriage� at the same time. One morality will prevail, at least for the time being. Will it be morality according to the One Who has the right to define and hold us accountable to that morality? Or will it be a “man is the standard of ‘morality’� according to sinful people who have rejected God’s true morality and want to enforce the opposite on God’s people and other people?
micatala wrote:Now, a person who claims that anyone must follow their particular views in order to be considered a Christian is, in some sense, trying to impose their view on the body of Christ as a whole. WHile I find this unfortunate, those attempting this through public discourse have no standing or capacity to force others to behave or believe as they would have them and so, I would not characterize this as an "imposition" per se, even though there attempts may make some people upset or angry.

However, when they attempt to have their religious views enacted as law, then, in my view, we definitely do have an imposition and a major problem. Even if one accepts that homosexuality is an abomination to God, this is a religious belief and so enacting it into law in a country where we have freedom of religion is entirely inappropriate.
Again, if you believe that calling homosexuality a sin is the relativistic, personal, view of a few people who call themselves Christians (but who are really misrepresenting God), then show me where God approves of homosexuality in the Bible in the same way He has shown us He approves of heterosexual marriage.

This is a rhetorical question, though you may answer it if you wish: Are you planning to stop voting, micatala? Or are you going to attempt to vote into law that which would impose via the state your relativistic, personal views, unsupported by Scripture, on Bible-believing Christians and everyone else?
micatala wrote:Having a majority impose their religious view on gays is just as bad as if a majority of Catholics in a given location passed laws against eating fish on Fridays during lent, or Baptists requiring everyone to undergo water baptism, or evangelicals requiring everyone to pay a 10% tithe to a church.
None of the three examples you gave involve a Biblical moral law imposed by God universally on all of humanity, and specifically the outward behavior of which is to be condemned by the state (according to the Bible), as homosexual behavior is. None of the three examples you mentioned are “enforceable� by the civil magistrate or the state in the Bible. The analogy just doesn’t hold up.
micatala wrote:However, the legal discussion is really for another thread. In this one, I'll continue to stick to making the case that it is not necessary for Christians to consider homosexuality an abomination, and will address the issues you raised in your last post.
All right; I appreciate your good sportsmanship and graciousness.

User avatar
GentleDove
Apprentice
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA

Post #55

Post by GentleDove »

joeyknuccione wrote:From Page 5 Post 42
GentleDove wrote: The Bible says it’s the Word of God; but if you presuppose that the Bible is not the Word of God, then you wouldn’t take it on its own authority. I believe the Biblical worldview comports with reason and reality; whereas I think other worldviews are lacking.
This is why I challenge folks to show the Bible is actually the words, wants or wishes of the proposed God. I don't doubt GentleDove has come about his position by his own. What I do doubt is anyone's claim to know the words, wants or wishes of God. I challenge the reality of donkeys talking to folks, the reality of folks rising up out of graves after three days, and various other claims within the Bible.
GentleDove wrote: As I stated in another post, I don’t believe that sin is a sin because in my estimation someone has been victimized. A sin is wrong because it is a repudiation of God’s holiness and righteousness, which He lets us know by telling us in the Bible what sin is.
And I challenge folks who claim they know what God considers a sin. How can we know GentleDove knows God's opinion in this regard?
A presupposition is a basic belief, unproven by natural science, by which someone interprets all facts, or “evidences.� Everyone has presuppositions about the nature of god, the universe, human nature, which are not provable or falsifiable by evidences.

For example, think of the statement: “All facts must be proven empirically, by what can be seen, tasted, touched, experimented upon, for them to be taken as “true.� How could one test that statement itself empirically? How could one prove the meaning of each of the words used in that statement, empirically? There is much, much more to human experience than that which can be empirically evidenced.

Along these lines, I must point out that all ultimate authorities are self-authenticating. If there were something beyond that authority that authenticated it, then that authority would be the final, ultimate authority. For example, those who believe that their own reason is the ultimate authority, believe that even though that belief has not been independently verified by any other authority or proven by the scientific method.

The truth is that I did not come about my position of believing the Bible is the Word of God on my own. My worldview was changed by a Being outside of myself by the faithful preaching and teaching of the Bible, and once that worldview was changed (I was an adult), I “re-learned� everything I ever thought was true in terms of that new worldview. All the same facts I thought were evidences for atheism now I saw as evidence for Christian theism, and in fact, everything made much more sense and the facts comported better than under an atheistic worldview, or network of presuppositions. (The Bible calls this being “born again,� being “transformed by the renewing of our minds,� “taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,� being “conformed to the likeness of Christ,� and “having the mind of Christ.�)

A Christian can’t convert anyone to faith in God or a Biblical worldview. All a Christian can do is faithfully proclaim the word of God (which we believe communicates, from God, the Christian worldview). It’s up to God to accomplish His purposes by that word. Unlike some other religions, it is not the Biblical worldview to “force� people to faith by the sword or by passing laws. All Christians who have attempted to do so have been disobedient to the Word of God, as can be shown from the Bible, which is an objective standard by which all human beings’ actions can be judged; both Christians’ actions and non-Christians’ actions because both Christians and non-Christians can read what it says. Christianity is not an esoteric or mystical or irrational religion; if it were, I would be most skeptical of it.
joeyknuccione wrote:
GentleDove wrote: Consider the contrary. Why should governments hand out licenses at all if anyone can marry anyone (or anything, for that matter)?
Because they offer them to some.
But my question was, why offer them to any?

You seem to be arguing here for an impartial standard of justice. But if there is no God, then why should your subjective opinion of “impartiality� and “justice� have any persuasiveness to me at all?

Why would someone’s opinion of the “right� of the state to give a marriage license have any hold on me? If my opinion is that the state has no “right� to give out marriage licenses, then it’s my opinion against other opinions, and I decide that my opinion wins. Also, I define marriage my own way.
joeyknuccione wrote:
GentleDove wrote: Why shouldn’t three women and a 5 year old boy marry a Doberman pincer?
Because a 5 year old and a Pincer can't be reasonably assumed to offer informed consent. The three women should be able to declare themselves.
Here again, you evidence a need to insert a “moral� standard or check on children or animals being married. You write “should.� But where is this “should� coming from? How is your opinion transcendent and universal such that your opinion that a child and an animal are not capable of “informed consent,� whatever that means, “should� obligate the three women to not marry each other plus a boy and a dog? After all the three women want it, the boy and the animal are pretty happy, they all love each other, and it’s three against two anyway (if push came to shove). It’s really none of your business (or the state’s or anyone else’s), if three women, a boy, and a dog get married. If they live next to you and you see or hear some strange goings-on, buy a set of earplugs and some window blinds. Or watch. Who’s to say that’s wrong? Join them. Why not? What’s “marriage� anyway, but a relativistic, subjective concept, undefined by any but those involved?
joeyknuccione wrote:
GentleDove wrote: Why shouldn’t a 52 year old man keep a harem of 6,000 8 year old girls?
Does GentleDove contend 8 year old girls are able to give informed consent?

I'm only supporting those marriages between folks who can be reasonably considered to make these decisions for themselves, devoid of anyone's personal opinion of who loves who, or who has a right to love who. (insert whom where ever it applies)
(Warning: In the following paragraph, I am speaking rhetorically, attempting to play “devil’s advocate.�) Why should your pious, self-righteous, own personal, subjective opinion about “informed consent� restrict other peoples’ sex lives? There are societies around the world, even some within the boundaries of the United States of America, which approve of this marriage scenario, and who believe the man’s consent is “worth more� than the girls’ consents. What is your opinion or the shared opinion of any other group of people, to overturn what they have decided for themselves is all marriage could be or ever “should� be? Are you saying they don’t have a “right� to love each other? Are you going to try to impose your own, subjective definition of “love� on other human beings? Who are you to declare what someone’s “rights� are or whose “consents� are deemed by you to be valued? How arbitrary!
joeyknuccione wrote:
GentleDove wrote: Then you have all the millions of different defintions of "marriage" to contend with.
I notice these "millions of different definitions" are so often proposed by those who seek one definition of marriage.
As there are billions of potential couples, I contend there could be billions of definitions. Again, if the government is to be involved, it should recognise the diversity of its population in marriage.
If there are billions of definitions of marriage, then isn’t it silly to have “the government� hand out marriage licenses at all? Anyone could and “should� marry anyone or anything, with or without “consent,� or any other arbitrary, subjective, “moral imposition.�
joeyknuccione wrote:
GentleDove wrote: If one rejects the Biblical God, that person has no basis at all for saying anything is universally unethical, or sinful.
Problem is it's the religious folks trying to declare what is "sinful".

I don't consider one person loving another to be unethical, no. Nor do I consider it sinful. Nor do I consider it any of the government's business.
Then you withdraw your “moral� opinion that “informed consent� is necessary to have a marriage? It is not “sinful� or “immoral� for three women to marry a dog and a boy? It is not “sinful� or “immoral� for a man to marry 6,000 8-year-old girls?
joeyknuccione wrote:Can GentleDove offer verifiable evidence his proposed God has a monopoly on ethics or morality?
The impossibility of the contrary. If there is no moral, transcendent, creator God Who made humankind in His image (so that morality is revealed to our consciences), who is capable of revealing Himself through non-physical (spiritual) means, such as concepts and language, who can hold mankind accountable, universally and without impartiality when people disobey Him, and Who makes a way to have mercy on those He will (in other words, the Christian God); then morality means nothing, and homo sapiens evolved from muck would not even have the concept of “should� or morality, or any concept at all. We would have bodies and brains with no mind or morality at all, and any sound we made or any scribblings we made would be meaningless manifestations of random electro-chemical reactions in our brains, which would not have any universal moral obligation according to the brain of anything else, because we don’t have the same brains.

Yet that isn’t what we find in reality.
joeyknuccione wrote:
joeyknuccione wrote: I think one would be hard pressed to show God is actually involved in any processes here on Earth.
GentleDove wrote: Because if He weren’t, there would be chaos. God's law, written in the Bible and in our hearts, works as a restraint against evil. The further we, as a society, move away from His law, the more evil our society becomes.
Is it GentleDove's contention chaos can't be found on this planet?
Not utter chaos, no. For example, the Christian can make sense of the principle of induction and the uniformity of nature, which makes science possible, gives us security to know the sun will rise tomorrow morning, and everyone’s identity will remain the same, etc., because this is the Biblical perspective. How can a non-Christian proceed on the basis that tomorrow will be like today or that a similar scientific experiment under similar circumstances will have similar results? Only by borrowing the Christian worldview on this point (and many others).
joeyknuccione wrote:One man's "evil" is another's night with the hot twins.
And if those twins are, in his judgment incapable of “informed consent,� then it’s another man’s “evil.� Yet if there’s no God, nothing obligates anyone to anyone’s opinion of “evil,� not even to his own opinion of “evil.�
joeyknuccione wrote:I challenge GentleDove to offer verifiable evidence his proposed God has issues with some folks getting married. I'm not talking about claims in a book, I'm talking about some verifiable means by which we can know the proposed God is upset over human behavior.
The Biblical principle that everyone reaps what he sows is well-known to be universally true.

Or try obeying Him (according to the context of all of Scripture and the Christian worldview), and see what happens. If you’re anything like every person I’ve known who sincerely tries this (including myself), you will see how far you fall short and how much you need His mercy.
joeyknuccione wrote:
GentleDove wrote: There is evidence; for example, the historical evidence of the Bible; however, if you rule this out, a priori, as constituting evidence, then you won’t see it as being evidence.
Heck no, I don't rule anything out. What I do ask is that if we are to use the government to restrict the rights of others based on the wants or wishes of a god, we should surely be able to verify such.
But you also wish to restrict the “rights� of others. Who “verified� to you that “informed consent� should be the standard or morality for everyone? (And don't tell me you read about "informed consent" in a book! :D )

User avatar
GentleDove
Apprentice
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA

Post #56

Post by GentleDove »

Jrosemary wrote:
Gentledove wrote:The scribes and Pharisees did not hold the view of sin that I stated. Jesus taught that there is a way to seem righteous on the outside, but inside be “lawless.� The Pharisees broke the commandments of God by adding and subtracting from His Word based on what seemed right in their own eyes. For example, they ignored Biblical law about showing mercy. They would not admit to sin, but denied that they sinned, and wanted to be shown to be righteous on their own merits and by their own terms. (See Matthew 5:17-20,
Matthew 23:1-28, and Mark 7:5-7.)
First of all, it's not possible to blanketly characterize the members of a wide and varied movement within Second-Temple Judaism this way--that would be like me saying all Fundamentalist Christians of the 20th and 21st centuries are evil hypocrites. Obviously such a statement would be grossly unfair and patently false.

The Pharisees were not fundamentalists, so I'm not trying to compare the two groups. I'm trying to show that to make the blanket statements you do about the Pharisees is likewise grossly unfair and patently false. In fact, I find it troubling that you'd make such a statement about the Pharisees at all.
I was paraphrasing and citing Jesus, and as I believe He is God, I also believe I can take His word for it and take Him as an authority on the law of God, even more than the learned Pharisees, as well as an authority on human nature and, specifically, each and every human being He made. Please note, He was talking about a generation of Pharisees, not all generations. In addition, Jesus saved some Pharisees, in spite of their “Pharisaical sins� (as recorded in the NT). He did praise the Pharisees for keeping of some of the law, but He did also criticize them when they broke the law, as in the case of rebuking Jesus for letting His disciples gather grain kernels for their meal or for healing on the Sabbath.

The bigger point Jesus was making was that we, who are merely human beings, cannot be right with God by keeping the law of God; we cannot achieve our own righteousness in the sight of God. Jesus was making the point that, throughout fallen human history up through to present day, all people are vulnerable to the sin of believing themselves sinless, and therefore believe themselves the judge of God and not dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. Most of the Pharisees were blind in this way, and they (and we who read it today) needed Jesus’ rebuke, to wake us up and make us humble before the perfection of God and His law.
Jrosemary wrote:Firstly, there were many different schools of thought among the Pharisees; the Talmud preserves many of the arguments that took place between different schools and different teachers. (Most famously between the 'liberal' Hillel and more 'conservative' Shammai.)

Secondly, the Pharisees were not the narrow-minded, legalistic caricatures the New Testament often seems to portray--not unless the New Testament authors tried to find examples from a right-wing fringe of Pharisees. Any number of Christian scholars are quick to point out that to use the term 'Pharisee' to mean 'narrow-minded, legalistic and hypocritical' is a grave injustice to Judaism.

The Pharisees were the men who, among other things, championed repentance, prayer, and deeds of loving kindness over and against the animal sacrifice system of the Temple. They were, in fact, the forefathers of rabbinic Judaism.
I appreciate that the Pharisees and rabbinic Jews, as shown in the Talmud and other writings, highly esteemed the Torah; that they valued God’s law, and sincerely sought to do the right thing and champion morality and good works. In my opinion, Christians can learn much from the Talmud and should take God’s law much more seriously than we (generalizing) tend to do, especially in this modern, or post-modern, age. I personally have much to learn. There was probably no other group of people, generally speaking, who revered and obeyed God’s law better than the Pharisees.

The bigger point Jesus makes throughout the NT, and how Christianity differs with Judaism is, of course, the purposes of sacrifice and the law in the Torah, salvation by God’s mercy and not by our own works in the Law and the Prophets as well as in the NT, the idea that our good works do not erase or counter-balance our sin in God’s eyes, and the redemption won by Jesus Christ, Who is both the seed of the woman and God Himself.

For though I were righteous, I could not answer Him; I would beg mercy of my Judge. (Job 9:15)

User avatar
GentleDove
Apprentice
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA

Post #57

Post by GentleDove »

MagusYanam wrote:
GentleDove wrote:The Sadducees were trying to trap Jesus in a contradiction because they did not believe in the resurrection. When Jesus said they were “quite wrong,� or “greatly mistaken,� He was talking about (in this context) their views on the resurrection.
This kind of trivialises the story, because the Sadducees had a vested interest in denying the resurrection or any eschatological promise of a new social order. They challenged Jesus on the issue of marriage, which figured heavily into their conception of the social order which they sought to uphold. If, in the 'kingdom of heaven', a woman would have seven husbands, it would (to them) mean moral chaos.

Jesus' argument to the Sadducees does not serve as an argument in favour of the resurrection. It serves as an argument attacking and overturning the patriarchal Sadducean interpretation of Torah - asserting that in the 'kingdom of heaven' marriage as it was practiced in the world of the time would no longer be a structure which oppressed women and conceived of them as property.
The Sadducees were trying to make Jesus look like a fool for claiming a resurrection by playing games with Him, trying to trap Him into saying the sexual morality which the OT teaches was false or changed in the resurrection; therefore, (they thought) either Jesus had to deny the resurrection or deny the Bible’s code of sexual morality. They did not expect Him to have an answer that made them look like fools instead.

In Jesus’ answer, the woman in question did not have seven husbands in the resurrection, so how were their supposedly false "patriarchal interpretations" overturned here? How does this passage or other passages teach that the Sadducees were “practicing the kingdom of heaven?�

In addition, I do not at all agree that the Bible taught a social structure that “oppressed women and conceived of them as property.� Are you trying to say that the Biblical doctrine of marriage itself is oppressive to women? The Bible does not teach that the doctrine of marriage is oppressive to women or causes them to “be conceived of� as property. This sounds to me like an idea imported to Scripture rather than exported from Scripture.
MagusYanam wrote:But implied in the Scriptural use of arsenokoitai is the role of social oppressor; people who used their positions of privilege to victimise children. As such, any use of this Scripture to attack homosexuals today (who do not have such positions of privilege) is misapplication.
Arsenokoitai does not connote “social oppression,� or using “positions of privilege� to victimize children. This sounds like a Marxist worldview applied to the Bible as a hermeneutic, which I reject as an attempt to undermine the authority of Scripture.
MagusYanam wrote:
GentleDove wrote:I don’t really understand what you’re talking about, so I guess I can’t address it.
Well then, allow me to be explicit. The system of thought that objectifies or instrumentalises women as property or as childbearers is no longer entrenched in our society the way it was in the Temple state. However, patriarchal definitions of 'marriage' are still being used to exclude and oppress sexual minorities - in this case, homosexuals.
The Bible in no way teaches or justifies the ideas that 1) women are “objectified� or “instrumentalised as property� in the Bible; that 2) homosexuals are being unjustly “excluded and oppressed;� and that 3) therefore, our society needs to change our definition of marriage to exclude women and include homosexuals.
MagusYanam wrote:As I said before, if there were a Scriptural case to be made against homosexuality, it would have to be made on the grounds that homosexuals were perpetuating sexual and social inequalities. However, today we heterosexuals are in a position of social privilege - and have used that privilege to deny homosexuals access to various legal and social rights and protections (visitation, adoption, tax benefits, church membership, &c.). To be perfectly blunt, perpetuating the fiction that homosexuals are intrinsically sinful in ways in which the rest of us are not is at odds with the existential aims of the Gospel. Jesus opened his table fellowship to all people, even those considered 'unclean' by the rest of the society.
The aims of the gospel are not “existential.� The aims of the gospel are repentance of sin and salvation in Jesus Christ, embracing His will and thoughts and moral order. The gospel is the opposite of existentialism. Thank God, He fellowships with repentant sinners who believe in Him and follow Him. In 1 Corinthians, Paul says that the sexually immoral, including homosexuals, will not enter the kingdom of heaven. But then he goes on to say, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.� (1 Cor. 6:11, emphasis added)
MagusYanam wrote:
GentleDove wrote:The Christian ethical attitude is defined by all of the Bible; if someone disagrees with what the Bible says, then I think that person should just admit it.
No - the Christian ethical attitude takes the example of Christ, as set forth in the Gospel, as its moral anchor. There is no other Way for us but through him. The Bible is sacred literature; as a narrative it argues with itself constantly (just as the people who accepted it as holy argued amongst themselves constantly about what it means) - making the text into an idol only serves to diminish the text itself, and how we allow it to speak to us.

Liberal Christianity, for all its faults and excesses, got one thing absolutely right in historical criticism. It brought back the dialogue with Scripture that allows it to speak to us rather than at us.
I agree that the Christian ethical attitude should view the example of Christ as our moral anchor and that there is no other Way for us but Him.

However, the Biblical narrative does not “argue with itself,� and God speaks to us in the Bible, whether we “allow� it or not.
MagusYanam wrote:
GentleDove wrote:For example, they ignored Biblical law about showing mercy.
And isn't that what we do today against homosexuals by denying them legal rights and access to the social and spiritual media of redemption?
Mercy (and justice and all other morality) is defined by God in the Bible, not by you or me or anyone else. Redemption is in Christ, not in the state “granting the right� to marry or any other legality. A word search for “mercy� at biblegateway.com would be a good way to get an idea of how God defines mercy.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #58

Post by McCulloch »

GentleDove wrote:Are you trying to say that the Biblical doctrine of marriage itself is oppressive to women? The Bible does not teach that the doctrine of marriage is oppressive to women or causes them to “be conceived of� as property. This sounds to me like an idea imported to Scripture rather than exported from Scripture.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Here wife is included in the list of things which belong to one's neighbor.

For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
Scripture clearly lays out the hierarchical relationship with regard to marriage.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
MagusYanam
Guru
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Providence, RI (East Side)

Post #59

Post by MagusYanam »

Hi GentleDove,
GentleDove wrote:In Jesus’ answer, the woman in question did not have seven husbands in the resurrection, so how were their supposedly false "patriarchal interpretations" overturned here? How does this passage or other passages teach that the Sadducees were “practicing the kingdom of heaven?�

In addition, I do not at all agree that the Bible taught a social structure that “oppressed women and conceived of them as property.� Are you trying to say that the Biblical doctrine of marriage itself is oppressive to women? The Bible does not teach that the doctrine of marriage is oppressive to women or causes them to “be conceived of� as property. This sounds to me like an idea imported to Scripture rather than exported from Scripture.
I don't get it - what is it exactly that you're arguing against? Where did I ever say or even imply that the Sadducees were 'practicing the kingdom of heaven'? The Sadducees were indeed trying to make Jesus look ridiculous, but in order to make him look ridiculous, they were making assumptions about the 'kingdom of heaven' based on their own patriarchal worldview - assumptions which Jesus rejected.

And yes, I think that some forms of marriage as practiced in the Bible were oppressive to women. Polygamy comes to mind as one of the most obvious examples. Thankfully, the Pauline prescriptions for marriage made the institution far more egalitarian.
GentleDove wrote:Arsenokoitai does not connote “social oppression,� or using “positions of privilege� to victimize children. This sounds like a Marxist worldview applied to the Bible as a hermeneutic, which I reject as an attempt to undermine the authority of Scripture.
Hm. It wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of Marxism. Though I think Marx was right in diagnosing many social problems of his time, his prescriptions were wrong and often disastrous.

That said, my interpretation here is historical-critical, not Marxist. Think about the time period! Homosexuality was linked in the worldview of the time to the sexual abuse of children, given the social practices and expectations of the Roman ruling class (borrowed from earlier Greek culture, in which it was expected and approved for older men to take younger boys as lovers). However, it is not so anymore - child abuse has been criminalised; and we have sociological data that suggest that homosexuals are no more prone to child abuse than heterosexuals are.
GentleDove wrote:The Bible in no way teaches or justifies the ideas that 1) women are “objectified� or “instrumentalised as property� in the Bible
Well, they were, historically.

But you have misread my argument severely: the Gospels and the letters of Paul teach against objectification and instrumentalisation of women.
GentleDove wrote:homosexuals are being unjustly “excluded and oppressed;�
They are. They do not have the same legal and social rights as heterosexuals do - this is fact. See my post above.

And don't try giving me the 'well they have every bit as much right to marry someone of the opposite gender as heterosexuals have', because Anatole France knew better. As he sarcastically put it: 'The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread'.
GentleDove wrote:3) therefore, our society needs to change our definition of marriage to exclude women and include homosexuals
It should. I don't think heterosexuals should have the 'right' to marriage - the society should give 'civil union' permits to couples who ask for them, which individual churches, mosques, synagogues or temples can then bless as 'marriages'.
GentleDove wrote:The aims of the gospel are not “existential.�
Sorry - all religions have existential aims, in that they all attempt to impose meaning on the universe, Christianity included. The meaning that we try to impose on the universe is the divinity of Jesus and the centrality of Jesus in our lives - our lives should be lived with the approval of Jesus as the ultimate goal.
GentleDove wrote:The gospel is the opposite of existentialism.
The Gospel gave rise to existentialism, which is all about choice. You can choose to accept Jesus as the Way in which you live and speak and act, or you can choose not to. Jesus asks me the question - 'who do you say that I am?' - and my answer reflects more on what I am and what I have chosen than on what Jesus is.

But following Jesus should be done sincerely. In following him, there should be no demand on people to deny in bad faith the factual conditions of their own existence; that includes sexual orientation.
GentleDove wrote:However, the Biblical narrative does not “argue with itself,� and God speaks to us in the Bible, whether we “allow� it or not.
Huh. Tell that to the authors of the books of Samuel - they couldn't even decide whether or not having a monarchy in Israel was a good thing.
GentleDove wrote:Mercy (and justice and all other morality) is defined by God in the Bible, not by you or me or anyone else. Redemption is in Christ, not in the state “granting the right� to marry or any other legality.
You don't show 'mercy' or 'justice' to a black man by barring him from sitting down in your restaurants or drinking at your water fountains. You don't show 'mercy' or 'justice' to the poor by leaving their health uninsured. And you don't show a homosexual 'mercy' or 'justice' by telling her that she is unclean in ways which you are not, and thus barred from communion and from the legal and social spaces which are open to heterosexuals.
If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.

- Søren Kierkegaard

My blog

User avatar
GentleDove
Apprentice
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA

Post #60

Post by GentleDove »

McCulloch wrote:
GentleDove wrote:Are you trying to say that the Biblical doctrine of marriage itself is oppressive to women? The Bible does not teach that the doctrine of marriage is oppressive to women or causes them to “be conceived of� as property. This sounds to me like an idea imported to Scripture rather than exported from Scripture.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Here wife is included in the list of things which belong to one's neighbor.
A man’s wife does belong to him, relationally and convenantally. But not in the “objectified� sense of a piece of “property,� as worth less than a man, or somehow not fully a human made in the image of God, as a man is (Gen. 1:27). Pulling a lone passage out of context and placing a preconceived meaning on it does not show what the Bible teaches about a wife’s relationship to her husband.

The Bible teaches that a man’s wife belongs to him as his own body belongs to him. That he must take care of her, protect her and cherish her as such; and as God takes care of, protects, and cherishes His Church (the body of believers). (Eph. 5:25-33, which quotes Gen. 2:24) The Bible also teaches that a husband belongs to his wife as well. (1 Cor. 7:3-4). The phrase “her husband� is used 55 times in the Bible, does that mean a husband is a piece of property a wife owns? Of course not.
McCulloch wrote:For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.
Scripture clearly lays out the hierarchical relationship with regard to marriage.
Yes, the Bible definitely teaches a hierarchy of role, but not a hierarchy of intrinsic worth. The Bible teaches that a wife should respect, love, serve, counsel, and submit to her husband. The Bible also teaches that a husband should love, cherish, protect, understand, listen to and provide for his wife. The Bible teaches that a husband and wife are co-heirs of the eternal life in Christ, so he must respect her, lest his prayers be hindered (1 Pet. 3:7). Only by a shallow and simplistic reading of a few Bible quotes out of context and by coming to the text with a pre-conceived feminist mindset could any reader infer that the Bible prescriptively teaches that women are to be viewed as "objectified property."

Post Reply