My stance on gay marriage and why I am a hypocrite

What would you do if?

Moderator: Moderators

jessehove
Student
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:10 am

My stance on gay marriage and why I am a hypocrite

Post #1

Post by jessehove »

While I disagree with gay marriage in my theological head, my head tends to be influenced by its secular liberation:

Here is an article I wrote on why I am against gay marriage but that also makes me a hypocrite:
http://mercyandmessiah.blogspot.ca/2014 ... -i-am.html

jessehove
Student
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:10 am

Post #11

Post by jessehove »

Kuan:

While Jesus does not address homosexuality specifically but he does reaffirm marriage between one man and one women for procreation. This isn't enough to suggest that homosexuality is sinful, but is enough to disclude homosexuality from the act of marriage. As a Christian who believes in the whole of canonical Scripture, Passages like Romans 1 still have to be considered in the conversation. Even if we put Romans 1 in a historical context where Paul is mostly addressing sexual abuse, the universal power and intention of Scripture for all times and places should leave us with at least a moderate level of concern at Romans 1:27. At the very least this passage should tell us something about God's biological intention for sex within marriage. Paul was not aware that his letters would become the canonical Word of God 300 years after he wrote Romans, and yet God chose this letter in the Canon. Therefore we have to believe that historical critical reasoning alone cannot be enough to dismiss the plain reasoning of any one passage of Scripture. Though I still believe historical critical arguments should be considered in relation to the whole of the Bible and taken to account when building our thought for or against certain arguments. Not enough though to say that Romans 1 is simply telling us nothing about God's intention for sexuality though.

Romans 1:27: In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Post #12

Post by Kuan »

jessehove wrote: Kuan:

While Jesus does not address homosexuality specifically but he does reaffirm marriage between one man and one women for procreation.
Please expound. Jesus seems to mostly speak on forgiveness and loving thy neighbor. The latter books by the apostles cover marriage. What verses are you referring to? I dont have a bible present to look the verses up, im on a phone.
This isn't enough to suggest that homosexuality is sinful, but is enough to disclude homosexuality from the act of marriage.
Possibly. I would argue that it was directed to only members of the church and also that it was the cultural norm. We have no way to tell if in todays time whether it should be allowed or not. It definetley is not enough to classify it as a sin.
As a Christian who believes in the whole of canonical Scripture, Passages like Romans 1 still have to be considered in the conversation. Even if we put Romans 1 in a historical context where Paul is mostly addressing sexual abuse, the universal power and intention of Scripture for all times and places should leave us with at least a moderate level of concern at Romans 1:27.
Verse 27 is about pederasty. Which I would never argue for and is immoral. Thats why we need to look at the historical contexts. Pederasty was a common practice, especially among the "heathens" in Greece and the shrine prostitution that was happening.
At the very least this passage should tell us something about God's biological intention for sex within marriage.
Not really, the bible translates fornication from the Greek word 'pornia' or unlawful sexual conduct. So whenever you read the bible and it is talking about fornication, it is not referring to sex outside marriage but unlawful sexual conduct. So what exactly does unlawful sexual conduct mean anyways? Thats the question.
Paul was not aware that his letters would become the canonical Word of God 300 years after he wrote Romans, and yet God chose this letter in the Canon.
Assuming that Paul can be proven to be the actual writer and there have been additions or subtractions...but i don't want this to turn into another one of those discussions.

I must also point out that the Canon as not slected by god but a bunch of christian scholars and priests who debated and discussed what should be part of the gospel and what sould not. I bet there where other writings of Pauls that where not selected. Why would any of those other writings be excluded and why were these ones included? It just smells like a bunch of rotten picked cherries.
Therefore we have to believe that historical critical reasoning alone cannot be enough to dismiss the plain reasoning of any one passage of Scripture. Though I still believe historical critical arguments should be considered in relation to the whole of the Bible and taken to account when building our thought for or against certain arguments. Not enough though to say that Romans 1 is simply telling us nothing about God's intention for sexuality though.
So we can cherry pick the contexts that work for us and ignore the ones that dont? I disagree, context is everything.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

jessehove
Student
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:10 am

Post #13

Post by jessehove »

Hey Kuan Sure the passage comes from Matthew 19

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.


3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?�

4 “Haven’t you read,� he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.�

7 “Why then,� they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?�

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.�

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.�

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.�

In relation to your later thoughts I would say the common theme that arises from your questions are that of faith. We have to faith that the Holy Spirit was at work during the selection process of the canonical Scripture. While there was certainly guidelines as to what would be accepted and what would not be accepted, at the end of the day it comes down to faith in the work of the Holy Spirit through time and space. This doesn't mean we accept anything and everything the Church has to say throughout time and space, but a belief that there is a certain level of continuity in Christian Orthodoxy is kind of a given. If you believe this is true and you do not believe that the canonical process was merely "a bunch of christian scholars and priests who debated and discussed what should be part of the gospel and what should not" than that faith would continue on into believing that the Bible doesn't have to be so deeply dissected to a genuine meaning. But that the apparent meaning of the text perhaps also in relation to other similar passages of Scripture can be considered as a valid option because the Holy Spirit has had a hand in forming Scripture for our understanding.

Using Historical context as your only hermeneutic suggests that we don't trust God to give us knowledge we need in order to come to a faithful interpretation. It means we are constantly looking for new and exciting historical tidbits to add to our worldview, instead of using the Bible as it was intended. To form us, to shape us, to provide us with a mode of worship. If historical context becomes your only lens you will end up shaping the text to what you want it to say more than allowing it to form your own life. We have seen examples of this in both liberal and conservative circles. The Jesus Seminar was an adventure into the ridiculous. Christian Fundamentalist creationists trying to argue that the Bible is basically a science book is also ridiculous. Neither adhere to its purpose.

P.S. I could care less what Paul wrote and did not write and if some of his writings did not make it in the Canon or not. That is not what the canonical process was about anyway. Whoever wrote the various parts of the New Testament were not aware that their words would be formed for the purpose of being God' Word. This envitably means that their words have a higher purpose then even they or their historical context is aware of.

jessehove
Student
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:10 am

Post #14

Post by jessehove »

P.S. 2: There is another version of Matthew 19 in Mark 10 as well. The fact that it is repeated in another Gospel makes it all the more important as a canonical reader.

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Post #15

Post by Kuan »

jessehove wrote: Hey Kuan Sure the passage comes from Matthew 19

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.


3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?�

4 “Haven’t you read,� he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.�

7 “Why then,� they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?�

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.�

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.�

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.�

It appears to me that he used the marriage of a man and a woman as an example because that is the norm. As we have agreed though, there is no basis in the bible to condemn homosexuality as a sin. An interesting thought would be whether God would ordain marriage between 2 men or 2 women... Based upon the verses in the bible, I would say no.

In relation to your later thoughts I would say the common theme that arises from your questions are that of faith.

Obviously, I currently consider myself an agnostic atheist. Im not sure if you knew that.

We have to faith that the Holy Spirit was at work during the selection process of the canonical Scripture. While there was certainly guidelines as to what would be accepted and what would not be accepted, at the end of the day it comes down to faith in the work of the Holy Spirit through time and space.

This would be a topic for a different thread.

This doesn't mean we accept anything and everything the Church has to say throughout time and space, but a belief that there is a certain level of continuity in Christian Orthodoxy is kind of a given. If you believe this is true and you do not believe that the canonical process was merely "a bunch of christian scholars and priests who debated and discussed what should be part of the gospel and what should not" than that faith would continue on into believing that the Bible doesn't have to be so deeply dissected to a genuine meaning. But that the apparent meaning of the text perhaps also in relation to other similar passages of Scripture can be considered as a valid option because the Holy Spirit has had a hand in forming Scripture for our understanding.

I do not believe the church was inspired when they collected those verses. This does have a huge impact on my hermeneutic ideas of the bible. (Did I use that word correctly? Its new and I havent heard it before.)

Using Historical context as your only hermeneutic suggests that we don't trust God to give us knowledge we need in order to come to a faithful interpretation. It means we are constantly looking for new and exciting historical tidbits to add to our worldview, instead of using the Bible as it was intended. To form us, to shape us, to provide us with a mode of worship. If historical context becomes your only lens you will end up shaping the text to what you want it to say more than allowing it to form your own life. We have seen examples of this in both liberal and conservative circles. The Jesus Seminar was an adventure into the ridiculous. Christian Fundamentalist creationists trying to argue that the Bible is basically a science book is also ridiculous. Neither adhere to its purpose.

Context is everything in what we do. It is illogical in my opinion for a omniscient, omnipotent god to give us such a vague, and questionable book and expect us to blindly believe in it and not expect us to look into the actual context. I would expect him to have foreseen our delving into the historical context and inspired the writing accordingly. Historical context is also important because that was how the writers viewed the world and wrote accordingly. If anyone else overlooked the context of a writing for an argument, it would be considered illogical and irresponsible. I will do the same for the bible.

P.S. I could care less what Paul wrote and did not write and if some of his writings did not make it in the Canon or not. That is not what the canonical process was about anyway. Whoever wrote the various parts of the New Testament were not aware that their words would be formed for the purpose of being God' Word. This envitably means that their words have a higher purpose then even they or their historical context is aware of.

I agree, if the bible is the word of god, who wrote what and whats not in it is unimportant. The latter part of this paragraph is interesting. It leads me to question again, why would god inspire such writing if he knew that it would confuse us?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

jessehove
Student
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:10 am

Post #16

Post by jessehove »

I think your question on the confusion that can come from how to read a text is a good one.

1 Corinthians 3:12-4:12 suggests that a veil obscures the whole of Scripture from the ultimate lens by which it should be used, that being Jesus Christ. Within the Old Testament this veil is removed only in Christ himself through a process a sanctification that itself mirrors the form of Jesus death (4:10). We see this hermenutic reapplied time and time again throughout the New Testament. Peter compares the Flood to death and Resurrection with Christ in Baptism (1 Peter 3:21). The Gospels endlessly allude to Jesus as the messianic hope of the Prophets. And Jesus himself declares that he is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets in Matthew 5:17-18. Paul suggests that the Hebraic marking of circumcision which was such a key right of passage to Jewish membership in the OT is now fulfilled in that very same baptism Peter speaks of (Colossians 2:11-13). Hebrews 11 puts all kinds of impositions on classic Old Testament story arches for the purpose of showing the central characters of the story were actually placing their faith in Christ and persevering because of this (this really bugged me during my deconstructionist phase). I find the more I dig into a historical examinations of text, the more I find that those with skills and ability to do the research envitably have their own bias, which really makes it no more reliable then any other lens.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't use historical critical tools in our search for God, but it does mean that often they operate outside the meta-narrative of the Bible for which God intended throughout time and space. For me personally I see historical critical examinations of the text as a way to see the suffering of a people, and how a Christological hope in the text really forces us to acknowledge our sin and see our hope in Christ. Sometimes Christological readings of the text have been used to numb us into imperial acceptance and acknowledging the earthly humanness of the text can sometimes pull us out of that trap. But this can also be used to make us think the text is centrally about us and not about God's work in the world. Here is a balance I tried to strike in a recent blog post I wrote on it:

http://mercyandmessiah.blogspot.ca/2013 ... rical.html

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Post #17

Post by Kuan »

[Replying to post 16 by jessehove]
I think a better phrasing of my question would be, Why does god have to be so vague?

The symbolism in the bible is interesting and noticeable. However, so was the symbolism in Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.
the more I find that those with skills and ability to do the research envitably have their own bias, which really makes it no more reliable then any other lens.
If our own bias renders that lens unreliable, whats the point? Our own bias is what we believe.

This is off topic now though, I want to pose an ethical dilemma to you. Since we both agreed that homosexuality is not condemned as a sin in the bible, why do Christians fight so hard against it?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

jessehove
Student
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:10 am

Post #18

Post by jessehove »

I never agreed with you on that ;)

User avatar
Kuan
Site Supporter
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:21 am
Location: Rexburg, the Frozen Wasteland
Contact:

Post #19

Post by Kuan »

[Replying to post 18 by jessehove]
Can you provide a case that shows homosexuality as being condemned by the bible as a sin?

I apologize, I misread the context, ironically, of this sentence.
This isn't enough to suggest that homosexuality is sinful. . .
When you said this you were referring only to Jesus' stance on the issue and not the bible altogether, correct?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

Kung may ayaw, may dahilan. Kung may gusto, may paraan.

jessehove
Student
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:10 am

Post #20

Post by jessehove »

Before getting into a discussion on whether homosexuality is a sin or not I would want to establish what sin is from an Orthodox Christian perspective. Sin is not simply an individual action that is good or bad. Sin exists as more of a state than anyone one individual action. Augustine calls the state of sin which exists in all the world a state of “disordered desire� where the original goodness of creation is constantly acting in tension with the brokeness of the world. As a result sin is so entrenched in our society that sometime’s God's call to something better might still entail certain aspects of sin, but it is taking us to a better place than we were. One example of this could be my friends who works to provide food, clothing, and shelter for those who are on the street. Often times they don't have the budget to shop at ethical stores. They believe God is commanding them to help these people but in order to do so it sometimes requires them to shop at places like WalMart and Loblaws. It has been well documented that theses stores are unethical. If God is commanding them to help these people, is he also commanding them to shop at these stores? This is the complicated nature of sin, and I hope it shows that for me to declare something as sin, is in no way to suggest that someone is inheritely evil, or somehow worse then anyone else. The nature of the world as it is makes it for easy for most things in this world to be tainted by some level of sin in one way or another.

Does that make sense?

Post Reply