Same-sex discussion (part 3)
This is a response to my friend Chad’s previous post in our discussion.
Before responding, I want to again emphasize that Chad is my brother in Christ and is a serious follower of Jesus who is honestly seeking to be faithful to the authority of Scripture and to lead others into a deeper relationship with the Resurrected Lord. In other words, this shouldn’t be characterized as a “Conservative vs. Liberal” debate (as neither of us would fit either description fully), nor should it be seen as schismatic or divisive. Both Chad and I are faithful members of the UMC and desire to see our denomination be a powerful vehicle for the spread of the Gospel throughout the world. We BOTH lament the horrendous treatment than many within the GLBT community have received at the hands of self-professing Christians and we BOTH oppose any form of persecution, oppression and abuse toward those who are same-sex orientatied. Likewise, we BOTH seek to truly love all people and embrace them as persons of full value and individual worth regardless of whether or not we agree with them or their behavior. This discussion is intended to be a reflection of that desire and a display of Jesus’ followers wrestling seriously with an issue that is of great importance in our society–both within and outside of the United Methodist Church.
Now, Chad, on to your points…
Now I know JM is single (and there is nothing wrong with that!), but perhaps it takes being married (as I am) to find it rather curious to have a relationship to a spouse reduced to just sex (if only!). Healthy relationships are made up of much, much more than what happens twice a week (or month…or whatever).
Chad, I agree with you that marriage cannot be reduced to sex, and I did not intend to imply that it should be. What I did mean to imply however is that the one thing that absolutely and categoricallysets a marriage relationship apart from any other relationship in one’s life is the sexual union between husband and wife. I hope you would agree with this.
In your treatment of the Leviticus passage regarding prohibited forms of sexual relationships you make the following claims:
The entire book of Leviticus is primarily about proper liturgical worship…The point of Leviticus 18 then is not to condemn homosexual behavior outright but about forming a sort of people that are distinct from the modes of worship their pagan counterparts practiced. Sex of any kind in a worship service was something that Yahweh abhorred.
You then go on to cite Ellen’s conclusion that it was focusing on heterosexual persons engaging in homosexual religious sex. There are a number of things I must disagree with you over in this section of your post. First, though Leviticus deals heavily with liturgical practice, it is by no means limited to the liturgical sphere. The various commands for dealing with things such as disease, household cleanliness, livestock and personal property are only “liturgical” in the sense that ALL of Israel’s civil and social life was to be seen as a reflection of YHWH’s holiness. Nowhere was this more important than in that most intimate sphere of their daily life, the family…and particularly the sexual relationships contained therein.
Yes, the practices listed in Lev.18 were practiced by the Egyptians and Canaanites. But nowhere in the text, or in ancient Near East literature, do we find these sexual relationships limited to worship services or ritual. There is nothing in Lev.18 which makes this limitation anymoreso than the limitation on facial hair, skin engravings or incestuous sex were only for those participating in worship services in the Tabernacle. Such a limitation has been read into the text by Ellen, Scroggs, Bosewell and others in order to soften the implications for the Holiness Code regarding what sexual relationships within Covenant Israel were to consist of.
Similarly, in Rom.1, Paul doesn’t limit his discussion to religious rituals or pagan worship. Rather, he deliberately alludes to the Gen.1-2 narrative (using the specific LXX terminology to signify this) in arguing that all sin, including the redefinition of the most basic and intrinsic aspect of human sexuality, flows from humanity in general suppressing the truth of God made evident in Creation and turning to worship of things of their own choosing from within Creation.
I also disagree with the inherent thrust of your argument that Scripture only speaks to the issue of same-sex sexual relationships in the “6 clobber passages.” I know you don’t like him, but I quote Gagnon at length because I believe he summarizes the textual material quite well (from his critique of Jack Rogers’ article “How I Changed My Mind on Homosexuality“):
The notion that ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity only marginally held an other-sex prerequisite for valid sexual unions is absurd. Biblical texts that explicitly reject same-sex intercourse are more numerous than Rogers is apparently aware of. They extend beyond Paul and Leviticus to the “Yahwist” (much of the Tetrateuch), Deuteronomy, the “Deuteronomistic History” (Joshua through 2 Kings), Job, Ezekiel, Jude, and 2 Peter. Texts that implicitly reject homosexual unions run the gamut of the entire Bible, including not only the creation stories in Genesis 1-3, Jesus’ appeal to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 as prescriptive norms (as well as a half dozen other indications of Jesus’ view), the Apostolic Decree in Acts and other porneia (“sexual immorality”) texts, and texts that reject overt attempts at blurring sexual differentiation (e.g., Deut 22:5; 1 Cor 11:2-16), but also the whole range of narratives, laws, proverbs, exhortations, metaphors, and poetry that presume the sole legitimacy of heterosexual unions. Nowhere is there the slightest indication of openness anywhere in the Bible to homoerotic attachments, including the narrative about David and Jonathan. The truth is that, so far as extant evidence indicates, every biblical author, as well as Jesus, would have been appalled by any same-sex intercourse occurring among the people of God. The other-sex prerequisite for marriage is not a marginal view in Scripture. It is the only view and one that is held strongly, absolutely, and counterculturally. There is as much, or greater, basis in Scripture for rejecting same-sex intercourse than there is for rejecting man-mother or brother-sister incest. [emphasis mine]
There are some other things that I want to clear up, which I believe you have misunderstood my point (or I wasn’t clear in communicating them). You said:
It seems that JM wants to imply that alone, a person cannot express the image of God. Rather, a man and a woman are incomplete until they are united together. I don’t think this is what he wants to say, but the implication is there nonetheless: Single people can’t and won’t fully express the image of God …Well, if a relationship is reduced to only sex, and sex only to reproduction (as JM is want to do), then of course a male-female couple is all that can be imagined. But I have experienced singles living in community, worshipping communities, traditional married couples and, dare I say, same-sex couples who look to Jesus Christ as the mediator in their relationships and because of that seem to exhibit this Imago Dei quite beatifully – in ways that gesture to a reconciling God who is making all things new. And if it is the case that the Image Dei is best fulfilled in relationship then who are any of us to deny relationships that are built on mutual love and respect?
First, I do not believe sex is only for reproduction. I never stated this and while many people who oppose same-sex sex do so for this reason, I believe they are wrong.
Second, while a man or woman bears the image of God, they do not bear it alone (as you point out, and with which I agree), but rather in community. As Brueggemann notes, “All human persons stand in solidarity before God. But on the other hand, humankind is a community, male and female. And none is the full image of God alone.” (Interpretation: Genesis, p.34)
But the fullness of the Imago Dei entails male AND female. And the sexual union of the two is what creates “One Flesh” and completes the Image of God in the realm of sexual intimacy. I, as a single guy, do not express the fullness of God’s image. It doesn’t make me any less a bearer of His image, but it does mean that I cannot sexually express His Image unless I join with one who bears the other (female) aspect of His image in Covenant marriage and become One Flesh. “Mutual love and respect” are of course necessary for the sexual expression of the Imago Dei and the creation of One Flesh…but they are not sufficient . It is the erotic aspect of the relationship between male and female which sets the One Flesh relationship apart from all other human relationships such as friendship, family, etc. And nowhere in all of Scripture is the erotic relationship between members of the same sex ever seen in anything but a negative light (though people have unsuccessfully tried to read it into Ruth/Naomi and David/Jonathan narratives).
You close by asking a very good and very important question, and one that I want to give full weight to:
If the 6 “clobber verses” are not nearly as clear as we once thought they were, should this not at least give us pause before we render a verdict?
I agree with you in principal on this and have wrestled with other ethical issues in exactly this same way, concluding, contrary to much popular opinion, that they are not universally prohibited by Scripture (i.e. masturbation, birth control, gambling, etc.), so know that I don’t take a simplistic, Fundamentalist, dogmatic view of an issue as important and painful as this one! You are not the only one who has gotten to know some pretty amazing and wonderful people who have embraced their same-sex orientation. I wish I could say that Scripture remains silent this issue or does not clearly prohibit sex between persons of the same gender. It would be so much easier. But the call of Christ to Discipleship has never been one of ease, and nowhere is this more painful and more countercultural than in the area of sexual holiness. I believe the readings of the “6 clobber passages” that you have adopted rely on reading into the texts limitations which are not only not present, but would have been utterly foreign to any faithful Mosaic Covenant Israelite or New Covenant Christian.
Thank you again for participating in this discussion and I hope that it is spurring you on to more serious and sobering reflection as it is me. Regardless of any discussion of hermeneutics or theology, I believe none of it matters “if we have not love.” I hope that characterizes this debate more than anything else and I look forward to your response.
Your fellow Disciple,
JM
ps: For those who are unaware of or unfamiliar with Gagnon’s work (which, despite his critics, is widely recognized as the most detailed and in-depth work on the subject of Biblical sexual ethics pertaining to same-sex relationships), I recommend watching this video in which he answers many of the “hard questions” often brought up in the discussion (Disclaimer: the music and graphics are admittedly cheesy!):
There are many areas of theology in which Gagnon and I would strongly disagree; but overall, I believe he has not only answered the challenges to the traditional readings of the “Clobber passages”, but has done so in a most detailed and nuanced scholarly manner.
Categories: Biblical Scholarship, Biblical Theology, Blog, Church History, Hebrew Bible, Ministry, New Testament, Political/Social issues, Relationships, Theological issues
JMS, you told me that I should check your most recent post in answer to my question, but I don’t see it addressed here.
You maintain that your version of sexuality exactly mirrors the Bible’s version of sexuality, yet you are against Levirate marriage and Polygamy. I guess your case is that they are somehow excluded from the New Covenant, though I don’t know of any place where either practice is prohibited in the New Testament.
I still maintain that you affirm parts of the Bible that mirror your Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality, and ignore the parts of it that affirm a very different Ancient Hebraic Sexuality.
Likewise, if things have changed from ancient times, and polygamy and Levirate marriage is no longer permissible for Christians, doesn’t it just prove that sexuality is culturally malleable, and proscriptions against it, either from the OT or from the new covenant are equally as malleable?
I don’t see how you can claim that proscriptions against homosexuality in the Bible are eternal all encompassing pronouncements, but other forms of sexuality, like the two I mentioned are just “temporary rules”.
How do you explain this inconsistency?
by Chris McCauley on Oct 7, 2010 at 2:48 am
“You maintain that your version of sexuality exactly mirrors the Bible’s version of sexuality, yet you are against Levirate marriage and Polygamy. I guess your case is that they are somehow excluded from the New Covenant, though I don’t know of any place where either practice is prohibited in the New Testament.”
If we were living within Mosaic Covenant Israel, I don’t think I could have much ground to oppose Levirate marriage; though like Jesus, I would oppose polygamy based on the one-man-one-woman Creation mandate in Gen.2 (which Jesus appealed to in discussion of the true intention of marriage from God’s perspective). But in the New Covenant, these are prohibited by Jesus’ teaching on marriage, and Paul’s Epistles discussions of sexual ethics. In fact, I don’t know of ANY Christian who argues in favor for either as acceptable under the New Covenant. When I say “Biblical” I’m referring to the entire redemptive flow of the Canon, not isolated segments of Israel’s history. This is why you should understand my view of Canonical relationship (in the videos I mentioned available free to view above) before attempting to critique it so vehemently.
by jm on Oct 7, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Just to eviscerate Gagnon from above:
>The notion that ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early Christianity only >marginally held an other-sex prerequisite for valid sexual unions is absurd.
Again, other-sex relations are the norm in all cultures. Homosexuality is a rare condition. Just because they are not the norm doesn’t mean that they are prohibited.
>Biblical texts that explicitly reject same-sex intercourse are more numerous >than Rogers is apparently aware of.
No, they aren’t.
>They extend beyond Paul and Leviticus to the “Yahwist” (much of the >Tetrateuch), Deuteronomy, the “Deuteronomistic History” (Joshua through 2 >Kings), Job, Ezekiel, Jude, and 2 Peter.
This is just listing sources that uphold heterosexual marriage. That is not a condemnation of homosexual marriage.
>Texts that implicitly reject homosexual unions run the gamut of the entire >Bible, including not only the creation stories in Genesis 1-3,
Creative imagination and inference. The fact that one thing is upheld as good doesn’t mean all other things are bad. This is the same fallacy over and over again: the argument that if one thing of a set is called good, all others must be bad.
>Jesus’ appeal to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 as prescriptive norms (as >well as a half dozen other indications of Jesus’ view),
Jesus didn’t appeal to these as prescriptive norms of what a sexual union must contain, that is a lie, and Gagnon knows it. The norm at the time (among Jews) was serial Monogomy (repetitive divorce for the purpose of obtaining multiple sexual partners and absconding from the duty of fatherhood). Jesus didn’t quote these passages to uphold that all sexual encounters had to be married ones of heterosexuals, he did it to counter the prevailing idea of divorce.
Jesus lists other sexualities (Born Euncuh, Castrated Eunuch, and Celibacy) as permissible IN THIS VERY PASSAGE, and Gagnon purposefully ignores it here.
>the Apostolic Decree in Acts and other porneia (“sexual immorality”) texts, >and texts that reject overt attempts at blurring sexual differentiation (e.g., >Deut 22:5; 1 Cor 11:2-16),
Absolute idiocy. The Deuteronomy passage is simply saying that it’s “improper” to’evah to do so, not that it’s immoral. This merely means that it’s an improper custom. Also it is in passages about restrictions for other customs which were tied to other religions (such as mixing cloth). These were prohibited because they were the customs of other religions.
Gagnon is also completely ignoring the place of the Castrated Eunuch in Judaic culture, which was also called the “Third Gender”. These were men, blessed by God in Isaiah, who were castrated, and had a physical appearance of femininity (because of a lack of testosterone) wore women’s clothing and engaged in homosexual sex as the passive partner.
>but also the whole range of narratives, laws, proverbs, exhortations, >metaphors, and poetry that presume the sole legitimacy of heterosexual >unions.
No, YOU, GAGNON presume the sole legitimacy of heterosexual unions, the Bible says no such thing.
>Nowhere is there the slightest indication of openness anywhere in the Bible >to homoerotic attachments, including the narrative about David and >Jonathan.
Completely false, there are numerous homoerotic elements in the story of David and Jonathan. Stripping naked and binding their souls together, David saying his love of Jonathan surpassed that of any woman, kissing embracing and weeping together in a field with a suspicious use of the word “gadal” (to rise up in oneself), and finally making a covenant on each other’s sperm.
>The truth is that, so far as extant evidence indicates, every biblical author, >as well as Jesus, would have been appalled by any same-sex intercourse >occurring among the people of God.
Completely false. If Jesus were appalled by same-sex intercourse, he wouldn’t have blessed the Pederastic partner of the Roman Centurion, blessed unabashedly both born and castrated eunuchs, nor said that only certain people should become married.
>The other-sex prerequisite for marriage is not a marginal view in Scripture. It >is the only view and one that is held strongly, absolutely, and >counterculturally.
It’s just the majority of sexual metaphors mentioned because, guess what? Heterosexuality is the majority amongst people.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 7, 2010 at 4:48 am
“This is just listing sources that uphold heterosexual marriage. That is not a condemnation of homosexual marriage.”
That’s the point, Chris. Scripture’s praise or endorsement for sexual relationships are 100% male-female based. There are zero explicit (or, despite your revisionist readings, any implicit) prescriptions for non-male-female sexual relationships…combined with the fact that there are multiple explicit prohibitions of non-male-female sexual relationships. Israelite culture, including 1st century Judea & Galilee, was monolithic in its rejection of same-sex sexual relationships as being acceptable.
The EXTREME burden of proof, from a Biblical perspective, lies with the one claiming that despite the unanimous prescription for male-female sex and the multiple prohibitions for non-male-female sex, certain forms of non-male-female sex are to be not only accepted, but celebrated. This is something that I wish you and Chad would at least recognize because it’s what so many on the orthodox side of the issue find so baffling when it’s ignored or dismissed.
by jm on Oct 7, 2010 at 7:48 pm
JMS, I’m sorry, but I find your “Imago Dei” argument to be merely conjured up theological ramblings, and not based textually at all.
You say:
>But the fullness of the Imago Dei entails male AND female. And the sexual >union of the two is what creates “One Flesh” and completes the Image of God
Then the only way Jesus could have been God is if he had been a hermaphrodite. Because the only way you can be in the Image of God is if you are male AND female.
And if you personally ARE a hermaphrodite, all you need to have a perfect sexual union is to masturbate.
And that’s EXACTLY how ridiculous your argument is.
What’s next? God is omnipresent. According to that, the only way to have sex in his image is to webcast it over the entire internet. (Or send out a signal across the universe?)
by Chris McCauley on Oct 7, 2010 at 4:57 am
Chris, quit being silly and read my response to Chad’s more thoughtful objection to my Imago Dei point.
by jm on Oct 7, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Only got a moment….
Chris, great comments. I look forward to hearing JM’s response.
Here is one of the several reasons I dislike Gagnon. He writes,
“Jesus, would have been appalled by any same-sex intercourse occurring among the people of God.”
Appalled? Why thrust such a polarizing and condemning emotion upon the Son of God towards his own beloved children, whether they be in a same sex relationship or not? This is EXACTLY the sort of rhetoric I hate and its this sort of thing that I feel is responsible for so much of the abuse and fear our gay friends endure. If even God, whom we claim IS love and this Christ who we claim died for us out of this love, is APPALLED by people in same-sex relationships then how on earth do we expect us sinful humans to “love the sinner but hate the sin”?
This also brings me back to my own post on Elephants and Gay Sex. To say God is “appalled” brings up those same sort of questions.
by Chad Holtz on Oct 7, 2010 at 10:07 am
Hit submit too soon….
And is Jesus only APPALLED by same sex sex? Or is it really true that this is just one sin like all other sins – no better or worse? Are we to believe, via Gagnon, that God walked among us as Jesus just appalled and disgusted by all he saw?
by Chad Holtz on Oct 7, 2010 at 10:16 am
I don’t believe it’s too harsh to say that Jesus is appalled by any sin that stands between Him and us. So is Gagnon referring to the behavior or the person, and does it make a difference?
The question of better or worse is answered from Gagnon’s point of view in the article that JMS provided a link to earlier: http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/HomosexHowBadIsIt.pdf
– Mark
by Mark Shannon on Oct 7, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Mark,
I don’t think Jesus is “appalled” by anything. This is one of the fundamental thrusts of the Incarnation.
The Pharisees might be appalled by the leper or the cripple (what sort of sin did they or their parents do that made them this way?) but not Jesus. The only thing even close to being appalled that I can find in the Gospels as it relates to Jesus’ attitude towards humanity is one of anger – and THAT was always and only directed to those who felt there was nothing for God to be appalled about over THEM, but only the OTHER.
by Chad Holtz on Oct 7, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Chad, I think it depends on what “appalled” means. I would probably not use that term, but only for sensitivity reasons in the current debate. A quick read through, for example, the 7 letters to the churches from Jesus in Revelation shows that Christ can absolutely be appalled by sin among His people (“I am going to vomit you out of my mouth!”). But we also see that such reaction comes from a holy hatred of what sin does to those whom He came to redeem and transform. Within the Covenant people, open accepted sin is seen in the NT as unacceptable and receives a harsh rebuke (for instance Paul’s words to the church members in 1Cor. who were tolerant of the man in a consensual adult sexual relationship with his step-mother). But it is clear that such a reaction is directed toward those within the Church who are claiming the name of Jesus, not the larger pagan culture.
So regardless of whether or not such rhetoric is helpful in this particular dialogue, theologically speaking I believe it is accurate and holds the balance between God’s holy hatred of sin and his gracious love for sinful humanity. You can love someone with everything you’ve got and still be appalled by their actions (ask any parent of someone on death row). I believe the real rub for you is in applying the term “appalled” into the realm of sexual sin. Would this be fair to say?
by jm on Oct 7, 2010 at 7:33 pm
>That’s the point, Chris. Scripture’s praise or endorsement for sexual >relationships are 100% male-female based.
Well, obviously I don’t agree with that because I think that both David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi had homosexual relationships, both of which were praised by the Bible.
But even those aside, I don’t see praise of heterosexual relationships as exclusionary of homosexual relationships.
You could look at movies before 1980 and see that they exclusively praise heterosexual relationships too. Does that mean that everyone in Hollywood at the time thought that homosexuality was evil? Preposterous!
Heterosexual is what most people are, and thus it’s talked about and praised a lot. Any sexuality outside of the main is considered sexually taboo, but taboo doesn’t equal immoral.
Temple sacrifice was the “normative” (to borrow Gagnon’s word) way to worship God amongst the ancient Egyptians. It is praised in many places in the text, and other things like witchcraft, prophecy, sorcery, divination and so forth were branded as evil idolotry.
Does that mean that temple sacrifice was the ONLY way that the Jews worshiped, just because it was the usual or socially accepted way? That they didn’t use things like the Kaballah for prophecy?
So in response to your question, NO, just because something is on the fringe of the culture, and just because other forms of said thing are sinful, it does NOT follow that all forms of it are sinful. Do the appearingly universal prohibitions against divination in Leviticus mean that spinning the Dradel at Chaunukha is some terrible sin? That would be silly.
This is the main problem I have with Gagnon, which is sort of an ethnocentric Anglo Saxon blindness. He assumes that anything that’s not culturally accepted is morally wrong, and that isn’t the case.
Because there’s no way to demonstrate that homosexuality violates either commandment, you turn to cultural arguments, that the culture of the ancient Hebrews didn’t like homosexuality, or passed laws against it.
So what? Just because something isn’t culturally accepted doesn’t mean it’s morally wrong. I could wear a Blonde wig and heels tomorrow to work. Would that be culturally accepted? No. Would that be morally wrong? Of course not.
I’m sure that many people in the ancient Hebrew culture didn’t like homosexuals, just as people in OUR culture don’t like homosexuals. They’re different, and that means they are culturally reviled. But that doesn’t mean they are morally wrong.
>The EXTREME burden of proof, from a Biblical perspective, lies with the one >claiming that despite the unanimous prescription for male-female sex and >the multiple prohibitions for non-male-female sex, certain forms of non-male-
>female sex are to be not only accepted, but celebrated.
No, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that homosexual acts violate either of the commandments. Because if it doesn’t, then all your really saying here is that the culture of the ancient Hebrews didn’t like it, and that’s not a moral argument at all, it’s just an argument about what’s culturally accepted and what’s on the fringe.
Until you can demonstrate that homosexual acts are a violation of the first or second commandment, THEY ARE NOT IMMORAL and all you’re demonstrating is societal distaste of a minority fringe group, which is about as common (and morally relevant) as disliking Brussel sprouts.
IF Paul and Leviticus meant to ban ALL homosexual acts (and I don’t believe for a second they did, but even granting that), that still doesn’t MEAN that homosexual acts are immoral. Paul also says that having long hair is immoral, and a shame to a man. Does that mean it really is? Or is that just his distaste for a fringe culture of his time, that wore long hair?
You obviously can’t demonstrate how having long hair is a violation of either commandment.
And before you try to peg the old “Well, you don’t believe the Paul was right about everything, so you’re not a real christian” card, remember that Mosaic law banned things on the cultural fringe, not because they really were immoral, but because it could lead to real immoral acts from those associations on the fringe.
The reason “trimming the beard” was illegal is because a sect that did trim their beard edges (Hmm… who was into shaving hair a lot? Oh yeah, the Egyptians!) DID do immoral things. Don’t trim your beard edges, don’t be associated with them.
And likewise, Paul, being a devout Jew, would ban things so that Christians wouldn’t be drawn into temptation. It was part of his theological tradition not to mix with temptation.
Maybe the long haired guy was one of those ANE douchebags that would pick up a bevy of prostitutes in Corinth and wear yak aftershave. So Paul advises not to wear long hair, don’t even get involved with these guys.
Was Paul really right to advise people not to wear long hair at that time? Sure. Is having long hair really a sin? Of course not. It does not violate either commandment.
So what I’m saying JMS, is that even if Paul DID intend, in his words, for people to never commit homosexual acts, or to never associate with homosexuals, that still doesn’t pass the rubric of the two commandments.
Unless you’d like to make a serious case at this point that men wearing long hair is universally morally wrong. (And I warn you, my hair is getting long, and them’s fitin’ words).
by Chris McCauley on Oct 7, 2010 at 9:24 pm
We’ve been asking that someone demonstrate how a same-sex relationship is intrinsically sinful, or, how and why it obviously violates love of God or neighbor. No one has done this but several have said this isn’t necessary to show WHY it is sinful – it just is. So with that in mind I’d like to ask a different question.
Can anyone offer another example of something – ANYTHING – we would all agree is a sin but could not come up with any reason why that is sin for no reason other than because “God said so”?
by Chad Holtz on Oct 7, 2010 at 9:36 pm
How about polygamy? What is the intrinsic, negative consequence caused by polygamy that makes it a sin in all instances?
by Mark Shannon on Oct 8, 2010 at 12:10 am
Mark,
Is it a sin in “all instances”? Are you saying that polygamy was a sin all through the OT but God didn’t think it was worth mentioning? And if it is a sin even in the OT, what does it mean that Abraham is our model of faith and David is the person “after God’s own heart”?
by Chad Holtz on Oct 8, 2010 at 9:45 am
I believe it means that, as great as they were, David and Abraham were still flawed human beings requiring God’s grace and forgiveness. I don’t believe that calling David a person “after God’s own heart” was an endorsement of his multiple wives or the murder of Uriah (for instance).
But I should have been more clear that I was only speaking to polygamy under the new covenant. Can we agree that it is a sin in all instances under the new covenant? And if so, why? Has there never been a healthy polygamous relationship (under the new covenant)?
by Mark Shannon on Oct 8, 2010 at 11:58 am
>Chad, I think it depends on what “appalled” means. I would probably not use >that term, but only for sensitivity reasons in the current debate. A quick read >through, for example, the 7 letters to the churches from Jesus in Revelation >shows that Christ can absolutely be appalled by sin among His people (“I am >going to vomit you out of my mouth!”).
It is ridiculous to claim that Jesus has an equal dislike of all sin, it’s clear that he had the greatest hatred for the sin of hypocrisy, and the sin of ignoring the two commandments using excuses from falsely interpreted, mosaic law.
He was perfectly fine hangning out with prostitutes, was great friends with adulterers (even saving one’s life), people who were of different religions, and seen to have sinned theologically against God (the Samaritans), tax collectors (corrupt officials), thieves and murderers (he forgives one and allows him into heaven in about .2 seconds on the cross), and a host of other misfits, the insane, paralyzed, diseased and possessed.
He didn’t have any problem associating with Roman soldiers or instructing them when he was asked by them for advice, despite the fact that pederasty and homosexual acts were rampant among them as they were a “prison culture” (they could not marry or have sex with women under pain of death).
In fact, Jesus has a conversation with a Roman Centurion who’s male sexual partner is sick. Jesus heals the partner from a distance and then gives his famous quote about the faith of the Roman soldiers being greater than the faith of Israel.
What Jesus COULDN’T STAND was people trying to take obscure texts from a holy book, and use it to justify oppression or disdain of the poor, weak, sick, or culturally marginalized by calling them “sinful” while COMPLETELY ignoring their conscience and whether or not it violated the two commandments.
You know… kind of like what JMS is doing right now.
(sorry, I just had to get that dig in)
by Chris McCauley on Oct 7, 2010 at 9:41 pm
>Can anyone offer another example of something – ANYTHING – we would all >agree is a sin but could not come up with any reason why that is sin for no >reason other than because “God said so”?
Polyester. It violates neither commandment but is clearly sinful in some other way. And that’s also supported by Leviticus.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 7, 2010 at 9:44 pm
lol Chris.
I have a hunch that polyester (and similar answers like that) will be all that anyone can come up with. I think we will discovery that homosexuality is the ONLY sin in the history of “sin” that we humans can’t say, “Yeah, it makes sense why this would violate loving God or loving neighbor and separate one from both.”
This is so fascinating to me because anyone who has constructed a theology of sin (as I’m sure JM has done in seminary) most surely would have at it’s center the ruinous effects sin has on a person’s life – both as it stands in relation to God as well as with creation/humanity. Sin is always that which prevents us from the “abundant life” that God desires his creatures to have, the “joy” (John 15:11) which following God’s commands are meant to bring the disciple (I preached on sanctification for 10 weeks recently and John 15:11 was my guiding text throughout – our being “made perfect in love of God and neighbor,” which is Wesley’s conception of perfection/sanctification, is not to make us dour, gloomy, boring robots of a dictator God but God’s desire that we be freed from sin and death so that we can live in “joyful obedience” (from our Eucharist liturgy) to God and neighbor.) And so I am very surprised when I find people reticent when it comes to seeking understanding about God’s commands and WHY they might be sinful. Homosexuality should be no different.
by Chad Holtz on Oct 7, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Chad, I agree.
As a student of Anthropology, Philosophy, and Religion (all religions as well, Christianity is just my favorite) it’s strange to see that people sometimes fail to realize the difference between cultural injunctions and moral injunctions, between temporal and eternal law.
In my experience many Christians are concerned with laundry lists of “do’s and don’ts” as well as whether or not they are going to get into the magical dimension of heaven. Some even think that reciting a few magic words about Jesus’ divinity (if you say them correctly) will secure your magical place in heaven.
But Jesus wasn’t solely focused on the resurrection of the body, or of communion in Heaven with God. That is only PART of the picture. The other part is that the Kingdom of Heaven isn’t simply a magical dimension far off in the clouds, but a state of mind and a state of being here and now. Establishing God’s kingdom here on earth is our job “on earth as it is in Heaven”, and this is largely lost in our Anglo Christian culture.
Christians like to fetishize things that are right and wrong: expressed most brilliantly (or rather, foolishly) in the Catholic Church. In fact, Churches identify themselves with what they consider “on the naughty list”. Don’t do blood transfusions? You’re a Jehova’s Witness. No caffeine? Probably Seventh Day Adventist. No birth control? A Catholic. And on and on and on.
Few are actually concerned with living out Jesus’ message and more are concerned with itemizing it. Fewer still realize that by Following Jesus’ two commandments, we could have paradise right here on earth, or that heaven means many things: A state of Grace, Happiness, communion with God, a better more loving society, etc.
While I disagree with JMS, I appreciate that he is willing to take it to the mat with me intellectually. Most of the time when I confront Christians on what I see as gross errors in their Theology, they refuse to address my objections logically, and instead clam up, or call me a sinner, or refuse to continue the conversation. JMS on the other hand is willing to take the argument all the way until the point where parties can part company amicably, and that’s a rare quality in anyone nowadays.
Most people are unable to separate their beliefs from their ego: an assault on their beliefs is an assault on them personally. Not to mention the fact that we live in a culture where socially getting along is more important to people than the truth of the matter. Thus it is difficult for a philosopher like me to have a discussion with anyone, and JMS is one of the people whom which I can have such a discussion.
JMS has accepted that I’ve proven him wrong in certain cases, and he’s proven me to be wrong, or foolish or both in other cases. As long as we as Christians, continue to pursue the truth we will discover it, as Jesus “there is nothing hidden that won’t be revealed” and “Knock and the door shall be opened.”
We can all as Christians learn a lot more about God and the Bible if we critically examine our assumptions. and each step takes us closer to that Kingdom.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 8, 2010 at 12:19 am
Chad, you ask: “Can anyone offer another example of something – ANYTHING – we would all agree is a sin but could not come up with any reason why that is sin for no reason other than because “God said so”?”
I would say that you cannot demonstrate the inherent harm, by any objective criteria which you (and Chris) seem to require before allowing that same-sex sex can be sinful, in a number of other sins such as:
Using God’s name in vain,
Swearing and profanity,
Envying another person,
mutual consensual sex with an aunt or uncle,
mutual consensual sex with an adult sibling,
mutual consensual sex with one’s step-mother,
use of an animal in sexual stimulation,
mutual consensual sex with multiple partners,
“open” marriages,
sex between an unmarried couple who are “in love”,
praying to God via a graven image,
worshipping God yet also using the services of psychics/astrologers/etc.,
coveting the belongings of an other (but not acting on it),
You might say “No no, these really DO violate the 1st Great Commandment of loving God!” and then try to show how they do from a metaphysical/theological perspective. But you cannot demonstrate the intrinsic and measurable harm that you seem to require of us claiming same-sex sex is in this same category as applying to the above, can you?
At the end of the day, requiring anything IN ADDITION TO “God said so” in order for something to be truly declared as sinful is elevating one’s own perspective of morality above the Biblical self-revelation of God in Scripture and placing Him underneath that extra criteria when it comes to final Spiritual authority. This is the route that some (like Chris) choose to go because they reject the historical Apostolic doctrine of Scripture’s Inspiration (opting instead for the liberal protestantism of the 1800-1900’s doctrine of Scripture as “InspirING” rather than “InspirED”).
So when I see you, a fellow believer who claims to hold to a high view of Scripture and Inspiration, adopting this pragmatic-based approach, I can’t help but see it as inconsistent and to lovingly challenge you to reexamine your presuppositions as to what exactly qualifies something to be sinful.
If we can’t appeal to any Biblical prohibitions in forming our theological ethics, why did Jesus, Paul, James and Peter do precisely that on so many occasions when seeking to demonstrate the moral standing of certain issues, topics or individuals’ teachings? Why did Jesus Himself zero in on the 2nd Great Commandment and pull it verbatim from the very same section of Leviticus (the Holiness Code) which lays out the parameters of sexual activities acceptable to God’s Covenant people if he didn’t believe it actually did reflect in some way God’s commands to His people regarding their behavior?
If “a man shall not have sex with another man” really meant “a man shall not have sex with another man unless they are mutually committed and in love and are not doing so in a pagan worship ceremony,” how can you be so confident that “love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself” is not also similarly limited in scope and intention?
That’s what I mean by this debate not being primarily about sex acts or God being a prude (as your blog post focused on). Rather, it’s about hermeneutical presuppositions and canonical theology. Everything else, such as concepts of “harm” or “oppression” or “love” all come from having first settled the foundational questions of how we derive these terms and concepts in the first place.
by jm on Oct 8, 2010 at 7:13 pm
>Using God’s name in vain,
Takes on a false theological premise (actually several) and thus is a violation of the first commandment.
>Swearing and profanity,
It isn’t wrong intrinsically, unless you are using it in a hurtful or unloving manner to self or other.
>Envying another person,
Violation of the second commandment, as I said because it places personal desires over love of one’s fellow man.
>mutual consensual sex with an aunt or uncle,
Psychologically harmful, a breach of trust, and an abuse of power, crossing agreed upon boundaries.
>mutual consensual sex with an adult sibling,
See above.
>mutual consensual sex with one’s step-mother,
See above.
>use of an animal in sexual stimulation,
That’s rape and sexual abuse of the animal, since animals have the intelligence of human children, thus they cannot consent.
>mutual consensual sex with multiple partners,
Because man is designed genetically to be monogamous and mate for so as to care for young, this is true of many mammals that mate for life. Promiscuity is intrinsically psychologically harmful.
>“open” marriages,
See above.
>sex between an unmarried couple who are “in love”,
Again, humans are genetically programmed to mate for life, and without that component, sex acts are psychologically harmful. Although “Marriage” is a social convention, not a moral one, having a sexual partner without a mutual lifelong commitment is inherently harmful.
>praying to God via a graven image,
Violation of the first commandment.
>worshipping God yet also using the services of psychics/astrologers/etc.,
Theologically harmful, see above for graven image.
>coveting the belongings of an other (but not acting on it),
Morally harmful as in envying another person.
>But you cannot demonstrate the intrinsic and measurable harm that you >seem to require of us claiming same-sex sex is in this same category as >applying to the above, can you?
I just did.
>At the end of the day, requiring anything IN ADDITION TO “God said so” in >order for something to be truly declared as sinful is elevating one’s own >perspective of morality above the Biblical self-revelation of God in Scripture >and placing Him underneath that extra criteria when it comes to final >Spiritual authority.
Just the opposite. At the end of the day appealing to authoritarian statements about the Bible, outside of the rubric of the two commandments, is substituting your own interpretation (Because I SAY THE BIBLE SAYS SO) in place of eternal moral law.
>If “a man shall not have sex with another man” really meant “a man shall >not have sex with another man unless they are mutually committed and in >love and are not doing so in a pagan worship ceremony,” how can you be >so confident that “love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your >neighbor as yourself” is not also similarly limited in scope and intention?
Because the second two are General Revelation, while the first two are temporal interpretations of the General Revelation. Loving God and Loving Neighbor are intrinsic moral laws, evident from both our own psyche, in all cultures and evident “a priori” from logic and existence itself.
Again, this is because you think the Bible is the SOURCE of truth. YOU learned that “Love God” and “Love Neighbor” are true FROM THE BIBLE. People can learn those two things without ever seeing a Bible.
>That’s what I mean by this debate not being primarily about sex acts or God >being a prude (as your blog post focused on).
It’s not at all about God being a prude, he isn’t, and doesn’t have any problem with any kind of sex that isn’t intrinsically harmful. Ancient Hebraic Sexuality is a culture that is “prudish”, that is, has sexual taboos, and Anglo Saxon Sexuality in their culture is “prudish” and has sexual taboos (far more than Hebraic sexuality, which you consistently ignore). But the fact that both cultures are prudish and frown on certain expressions of sexuality doesn’t mean that these expressions violate either commandment.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 8, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Chris, you didn’t prove anything. You merely asserted things. Calling something “theologically false” is no more “proof” than my calling the same-sex act theologically false since it denies the intrinsic male-female nature of Godly sex. And using your argument about general revelation, there is nothing in general revelation that says taking God’s name in vain or envying someone or even consensually sleeping with your aunt (assuming she’s not married to anyone at the moment) or sleeping with your girlfriend if you’re “in love” is wrong. Nothing in nature would lead to that conclusion.
You’re being disingenuous by allowing that such things as using God’s name in vain or consensual adult sex between non-married couples are “objectively” or “intrinsically” harmful and the distorting of the RIDICULOUSLY CLEAR VIA NATURAL GENERAL REVELATION concept of male-female sex is not. You’re free to believe this, but don’t act as if it’s something that anyone should rationally accept. Every argument you use to support the harm and moral unacceptability of, say, consensual sex between an adult and his stepmother (which, incidentally was exactly what Paul was speaking against in 1Cor.) or between three consenting committed adults is applicable to same-sex sex.
So even under your (and possibly Chad’s) pragmatic approach, there are multiple things that Scripture deems sinful which no one outside of those who accept the Bible’s authority would label sinful (which is why no psychology or psychiatry body that I’m aware of argues for the intrinsic harm of things like profanity, taking God’s name in vain or consensual sex between committed, non-married partners. Using the guidelines you are demanding when it comes to showing same-sex sex is harmful, these behaviors should also be acceptable if those involved are doing them in a “loving” way.
by jm on Oct 8, 2010 at 10:46 pm
>This is the route that some (like Chris) choose to go because they reject the >historical Apostolic doctrine of Scripture’s Inspiration (opting instead for the >liberal protestantism of the 1800-1900′s doctrine of Scripture as “InspirING” >rather than “InspirED”).
I disagree. Since you view the Bible as the source of truth rather than an expression of it, you are actually taking on a relativistic view of truth, since no one can know the truth outside of your frame of reference (the Bible).
Since my view of revelation is omnipresent rather than specific, it is rather YOU who are maligning the Bible, because you are restricting truth to within its confines and pages. Whereas I take an eternal omnipresent view of truth and revelation, you are taking a specific one: that the Bible is the only (or best) source of revelation, you are actually maligning both God and the Bible by turning it into an Idol.
Since I view the Bible as one of God’s divine expressions of truth, I believe it is MORE INSPIRED than you do. In my view of revelation the Bible’s words speak in the hearts of all men in all cultures in all religions at all times. Your view is that only people who have read the Bible and believe things about it (as you do) can benefit from it. You see the Bible as a magic item, which only people can utilize if they read it and understand it. I see the Bible as a transcendent force written into the very fabric of reality.
Thus my view of the Bible is that it is MORE inspired than you give it credit for, MORE transcendent, MORE omnipresent and in short, more divinely powerful.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 8, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Nice try Chris. But knocking down straw men is nothing to gloat over. I’ve never maintained “the Bible as the source of truth.” Nor would I. God is THE source of Truth. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of TRUTH. All truth derives from the triune God of the universe. The Bible, being the Inspired (theopneustos – “God-breathed”) revelation of Himself to His people, is true by virtue of this Inspiration.
Go argue against Bibliolatry until you’re blue in the face…heck, I’ll gladly join you in doing so! It’s Fundamentalist folk-theology that you’re attacking; and I have zero desire to defend it. (BTW, the entire first part of Bible for the Rest of Us is dedicated to exploring an evangelical/orthodox view of the nature of Inspiration and authority of Scripture. After you watch it then feel free to critique anything you don’t agree with…which I know there will be much!) 😉
by jm on Oct 8, 2010 at 10:52 pm
It’s weird JMS, because when I challenge you on this, you agree to it, yet it is implicit in the arguments you make (though you expressly deny it).
If you were aware and accepted the fact that the two laws were written on all men’s hearts, why would you ask the question “Well, how do you know if the Bible talking about the two commandments is right?”
I’m actually not sure if you really believe what you claim to believe. While you claim to not be a biboloter it seems to me that you are, though you may not be aware of it.
Riddle me this, Batman:
If you accept that Biblical truths are truly eternal, universal and omnipresent, isn’t it true that any culture could discover them?
And isn’t it also true, that if Jesus’ adage “knock and the door shall be opened” and his anti-gnostic statement that “Nothing shall remain hidden” mean that those cultures could also write their own inspired books?
Yet you maintain that the Bible (and ONLY the Bible) is divinely inspired, and that no other books could ever contain their truth. How is that not Bibolotry?
by Chris McCauley on Oct 9, 2010 at 2:55 am
Chris, I’m not sure what you’re referring to regarding what I claim to believe, so let me clarify.
Contrary to what you may have gathered in our discussions, or what I may have inadvertently communicated somehow, I don‘t accept that “the two laws were written on all men’s hearts.” (That particular phrase, despite how you’re using it, comes from Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31, in which God writes His laws on the hearts of those who enter into the promised New Covenant, so that they follow Him via the Holy Spirit rather than via the Mosaic Covenant).
I believe the human conscience points all people toward the knowledge that God exists, that they are separated somehow from Him/Her/It and that they should treat others as they would want to be treated (Paul talked about this in his speech to the Areopagus in Acts 17). But I also believe that the human heart, as a result of Sin’s dominion in the world, is bent and deceptive. Thus, the highest state that the natural human heart can achieve on its own is something comparable Romans 7b. Without the Spirit of God revealing Himself somehow (either through direct communication, prophetic message or later written accounts of such prior revelation, i.e. Scripture), humanity remains bound in slavery to Sin. This is why I reject so much of your Universalist theological foundation and why we diverge so widely in our understandings of almost everything having to do with the theological aspects of the Gospel, human nature, sin and salvation (though our ethics are similar in many respects). You commit, in my opinion, the equal and opposite error that Fundamentalists commit in their Exclusivism. They downplay God’s self-revelation through nature/creation/conscience, whereas you downplay God’s self-revelation through Scripture. They posit Scripture as the ultimate and only source of knowledge of God needed by humanity; you posit natural revelation as the ultimate and only source of knowledge of God needed by humanity. This is how your position appears to me, at least.
As for your last question, believing that Scripture is the only “theopneustos” collection of texts is not Bibliolatry because Bibliolatry is a folk-theology which elevates Scripture to the level of God Himself (usually substituting it for the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit). I talk about this more in the first three sessions of “Bible for the Rest of Us” (so you can get a better understanding of where I’m coming from when you watch those sessions). Inspiration, on the other hand, maintains that while God can and does speak and communicate apart from Scripture (dreams, visions, prophetic word, general revelation through nature/creation/conscience, etc.), His communication via Scripture, since it is “God-breathed”, is the authoritative standard by which all other claimed communication is to be judged.
by jm on Oct 10, 2010 at 6:12 pm
>Contrary to what you may have gathered in our discussions, or what I may >have inadvertently communicated somehow, I don‘t accept that “the two laws >were written on all men’s hearts.” (That particular phrase, despite how you’re >using it, comes from Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31, in which God writes His laws >on the hearts of those who enter into the promised New Covenant, so that >they follow Him via the Holy Spirit rather than via the Mosaic Covenant).
Naw, JMS, I am talking about Romans 2 and 2 Corinthians 3. In it, Paul makes the case that the two commandments are written on the hearts of ALL men. (and that God will judge all men by how they fulfilled them).
Although your references above (for Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31) are valid too. The difference is that those two are talking about specifically the Hebrew people, whereas Paul here is talking about Gentiles who are not Jewish having both commandments written on their hearts, and that they could have salvation APART from scripture.
You see JMS, just as YOU believe that you can’t have salvation apart from scripture, these Jews believed that without that scripture (which meant being Jewish) there was no way in which the Gentiles could possibly be saved, and so they were advocating that all new Christians also become Jewish (I’m sure you’re aware of this political conflict).
Paul corrects them in this, because he notes that the two commandments are written on all men’s hearts (universal morality) NOT just in the Old Testament (special revelation). Paul SPECIFICALLY NOTES here that the people who have never read this scripture (and are of a different religion) can be saved when he states what I consider this the most important verse in Romans: “It is not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law who will be justified”. And likewise today, we can say “It is not the Christians that are justified but those that make themselves like Christ.”
Thus Paul is reinforcing to the Jews that following the Hebraic culture is NOT the key to eternal life, but that following these two eternal laws is, just as I am reinforcing to you that it’s not by following the Anglo Saxon Christian Culture that’s going to save one, but obeying these two commandments.
Romans 2
12. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13. for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15. in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16. on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
2 Corinthians 3
1. Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, letters of commendation to you or from you?
2. You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men;
3. being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
4. Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
Also, I’d like to point you to one part of Romans, one which EXPRESSLY denies your thesis that there is somehow “other” ethical things we must follow, apart from the first and second commandment. Look particularly at the phrasingL
Romans 13
8. Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9. For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”
10. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Got that?
AND IF there is ANY OTHER commandment (if there are any other moral requirements) it is summed up in saying “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”.
Therefore PAUL HERE is saying that there aren’t moral rules that are somehow “apart” from these two commandments. This is very crucial for you to understand, because here Paul is advocating that there’s no need to continue the ancient Hebraic customs and traditions apart from serving these commandments. The ancient Jews here maintained that they DID need to maintain these customs, even though it no longer served either commandment.
And this is EXACTLY WHY I am telling you that there is no need to continue Anglo Saxon traditions, apart from serving the two commandments. If you were a Jew back then, you’d be arguing “No, no, God told us to do these things, and even though it has nothing to do with either commandment, we just have to do them, because God says so.”
Whatever proscriptions Paul placed on homosexuality, it’s clear from Rom 13 that HE THOUGHT that whatever these homosexual acts were, they were harmful and unloving in his time.
Since we both agree that there is nothing intrinsically harmful in a homosexual relationship, it’s possible to have a loving one, and since love is the fulfillment of the law, you can’t say anything against it, according to Paul.
And so JMS, you have no reason to ban these acts, as Paul himself claims that there’s nothing sinful outside of the transgression of the two commandments.
If you take seriously here what Paul says, that there is “if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in loving your neighbor” And that “Love does no wrong to a neighbor, love is the fulfillment of the law” Then there is NO WAY that you can say that a truly loving, committed relationship between two men is somehow violating some “other moral” principle. Paul here maintains specifically “THERE IS NO OTHER MORAL PRINCIPLE!”
JMS, you say:
>Without the Spirit of God revealing Himself somehow (either through direct >communication, prophetic message or later written accounts of such prior >revelation, i.e. Scripture), humanity remains bound in slavery to Sin.
Then it seems you’re taking the position that the ancient Jews were taking, that apart from scripture there can be no salvation. This is a false doctrine since the two commandments are written on our hearts and available to all. Paul argued against this position (that no gentile could be saved without the written law) just as you are arguing that no non-christian can be saved without the New Testament.
>Inspiration, on the other hand, maintains that while God can and does >speak and communicate apart from Scripture (dreams, visions, prophetic >word, general revelation through nature/creation/conscience, etc.), His >communication via Scripture, since it is “God-breathed”, is the authoritative >standard by which all other claimed communication is to be judged.
But if God can and does speak apart from scripture in dreams visions, etc, why is it that a record of these things couldn’t be written down? And why would they be in any way inferior to the revelation that God has revealed in the Bible? All communications from God are perfect, it’s not like in one method he talks only in every other word! God is supreme truth and his communications are supreme truth, whether they be through conscience, general revelation, dreams, visions or anything.
It being included in the Bible isn’t the authoritative standard by which it is judged, but again, it’s the two commandments that are the authoritative judge. Anything pro-two commandments is from God, and anything against those two (like psalm 137) isn’t: it’s as simple as that.
>They posit Scripture as the ultimate and only source of knowledge of God >needed by humanity; you posit natural revelation as the ultimate and only >source of knowledge of God needed by humanity. This is how your position >appears to me, at least.
Let me say two things: first of all, “natural revelation” isn’t the only means that I believe occurs in other cultures. As you said there are many sources of divine revelation. If a person WRITES DOWN those inspiring dreams etc, and doesn’t distort them by their own free will for some evil purpose (as I believe happened in Psalm 137 for instance), then that is a new piece of scripture. How is it not scripture? How is it not Holy? It came from inspiration of God!
Anglo Saxon Christianity is very self centered, and doesn’t ever think of or consider other cultures in its reasoning. Saying that the Bible is a necessary component to salvation dooms trillions of people to the great pool of fire.
So yes, Revelation is a necessary part of salvation, but the Bible isn’t. If you claim that possession of a Bible is necessary for salvation, you’re just committing the same error that the ancient Jews did, which Paul corrected, the idea that revelation is solely in one document, rather than being omnipresent.
Lastly, you might say “Well, then you can just be a humanist, and need not even be a Christian to be saved” But this again ignores the fact that Jesus’ essence and the two commandments are one in the same thing. If you in any way follow the two commandments, you are following Jesus. And if you in any way love, you are loving someone in God. In fact, since God IS Love, you could even say you are “Goding” them.
It is also the height of Huberis for a human to think “Well, I have revelation through conscience, so I don’t need anything else.” Buddy, you’re a human, and you need all the help you can get! Conscience is only ONE form of revelation, you’re going to need a lot MORE tools in your toolbox than that, and scripture is one of them. As you said, there are many other tools: dreams, prayer, repentance, Jesus’ life, Jesus’ parables, the Beatitudes and so forth and so on. Leaving equipment behind that will help you in life is foolish. Stock up on every kind of revelation you can get!
by Chris McCauley on Oct 11, 2010 at 5:36 am
Chris, your post is too long to quote back and forth so I’ll just do a bullet-point response:
* Neither the Romans passage nor the 2Corinthians passage teaches that God’s commands are written on human hearts in general. In Romans, Paul is in the middle of a discourse (see my translation of this passage in my previous Romans Redux blog posts) wherein he is demonstrating that outward Torah-observance is not the end-all-be-all of what it means to have faith in God (the entire discourse is about the nature of faith, righteousness and the fact that Jews and gentiles are equally guilty of sin and equally in need of the Gospel (which is the entire thesis statement of Romans, as found in 1:16-17). Paul is pointing out that gentiles don’t need Torah in order to know that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and that faith can exist apart from Torah…as it did for Abraham (which he goes on to explain in detail in the next chapter). The 2Cor. passage is referring to the reality of the New Covenant and is an allusion to the previously mentioned passages in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
* I do not take the position that “apart from Scripture no one can be saved”–THAT would be bibliolatry at its highest! “Scripture” doesn’t save. “The Gospel” does. This Gospel is conveyed through the Holy Spirit in many ways and many people have been brought to salvation through direct encounters with God, visions, dreams, etc. (Paul is an example of such a person himself!). But Scripture is a vehicle through which God makes Himself more fully known than anything in general revelation because He has Inspired prophets and Apostles to put into written form what He said and did through them and to them. Your claim that other forms of communication can be just as Inspired is one that you’re free to believe, but one that cannot be demonstrated and must be taken on faith alone. I believe that the New Covenant canon cannot be added to simply because the original Inspired Apostles and the eyewitnesses to the Risen Jesus are all dead. Anything today that claims to be from God must be, therefore, weighed according to how it fits with the writings that we know were written by those who walked with Him and His original Apostles. However, this is getting off into the subject of Canonicity and that’s another discussion for another time, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Main bullet point regarding this discussion of same-sex sexual relationships (i.e. steering us back on topic!):
* You also seem to still be thinking that I somehow believe there are things “besides” loving God and loving others which are part of God’s law. I don’t. Every commandment of God falls under one of these two…including His prohibition of same-sex sexual relationships. That is the entire point that you and Chad both seem to miss because you can’t see how same-sex sex violates the command to love God and love others. My point, on the other hand, is that it doesn’t matter that you can’t see how it violates either; God sees how it does and that is why He prohibits it. The fact that He prohibits it is proof in and of itself that engaging in it violates one (or both) of the two great commandments. Sure, we can offer reasons or conjectures as to how it may be physically, emotionally or psychologically harmful (though you dismiss them all), but in the end, it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t square with our opinion of what loving God and loving others should or shouldn’t entail. If God prohibits an action universally (which is the next step in this debate; and which I will address in my next post on it most likely), then to do such an action–regardless of whether or not it seems “loving”–is a violation of (at least) the greatest command of all. I don’t “agree that there is nothing intrinsically harmful in a homosexual relationship”…quite the contrary; I believe same-sex sex IS intrinsically harmful even if it doesn’t meet your or Chad’s criteria of what constitutes harm. I believe it is intrinsically harmful for the same reason that Paul listed it among those actions that are innately sinful–because it is a form of idolatry in and of itself. It “exchanges the truth of God for a lie” (to piggyback on Paul’s discussion) in that it denies the most basic and self-evident component of the human sexual relationship: the male-female union which displays the image of God in Creation. This is why Paul’s discussion of same-sex sex in Romans 1 is laden with Genesis 1 terminology.
I think you’re right on when you say: “Whatever proscriptions Paul placed on homosexuality, it’s clear from Rom 13 that HE THOUGHT that whatever these homosexual acts were, they were harmful and unloving…” As I noted in previous comments, even pro-same-sex scholars admit this. That is why they do what you go on to do in the very next breath and smuggle in a concept of “…in his time” when there is not a hint of situational or temporary validty in the text itself. Unlike other issues in the NT, particularly in Paul’s letters, there is no counter-tradition or example of acceptance of the thing being prohibited when it comes to same-sex sex. Thus, the comparisons to Paul’s other situationally-specific commands (i.e. head coverings, holy kiss, women silent, slavery, etc.) are invalid.
There is NO acceptance of ANY form of same-sex sex in ALL of Scripture…which is why revisionist scholars are so intent on “finding” (read: “inventing”) examples of such in stories such as Ruth/Naomi, David/Jonathan, and Centurion/servant. That is the epitome of grasping at straws when the whole of the canon is against one’s position.
in his time.
by jm on Oct 12, 2010 at 1:58 am
>Paul is pointing out that gentiles don’t need Torah in order to know that there >is such a thing as right and wrong, and that faith can exist apart from >Torah…as it did for Abraham
Right, this is exactly my point. I don’t see how we disagree here. Except that you seem to some how? I don’t get it.
Paul is saying that faith and love of God (first commandment) and right and wrong (second commandment) are what’s important, not observing outdated interpretations of “God says so” proscriptions in the OT.
How is that different from ME saying that the first and second commandments are what’s important, not outdated interpretations of NT proscriptions?
>But Scripture is a vehicle through which God makes Himself more fully known >than anything in general revelation because He has Inspired prophets and >Apostles to put into written form what He said and did through them and to >them. Your claim that other forms of communication can be just as Inspired >is one that you’re free to believe, but one that cannot be demonstrated and >must be taken on faith alone.
There was so much in this paragraph that was unbelievable, that I had to stop a second to catch my breath and comport myself.
The idea that different kinds of communications from God have differing levels of accuracy doesn’t make any sense. What? Does God “sort of lie” in all his communications other than the Bible? That makes exactly zero sense. Anything God says is true, period. He doesn’t at any time hedge or lie or deceive us. What’s true is true and what’s false is false and what God says is true. He’s not “Fairly accurate” in one form of revelation and “Spot on” in some other form of revelation! How ridiculous! He’s perfect in all his forms of revelation! What, you think God’s revelation isn’t as good in say, French as it is in Greek because God has a terrible accent or something? Preposterous!
Saying that one form of communication from God is better than another is WHOLLY ILLOGICAL. IT is actually just a vestige of Anglo Saxon Culture and misguided faith. It is completely irrational. Why the HELL (no pun intended) would God be bad at one form of communication and bad at another? What, like his thumbs are too big so he’s bad at texting?
>That is the entire point that you and Chad both seem to miss because you >can’t see how same-sex sex violates the command to love God and love >others. My point, on the other hand, is that it doesn’t matter that you can’t >see how it violates either; God sees how it does and that is why He >prohibits it. The fact that He prohibits it is proof in and of itself that engaging >in it violates one (or both) of the two great commandments.
Oh boy. There are so many reasons to object to this line of thinking, and so many things wrong with it, I don’t know where to begin.
YOU think it violates one of the two commandments and you CLAIM that is how God sees it.
The fact that YOU THINK that PAUL prohibits it (in EVERY instance and manifestation) or that YOU THINK that MOSES prohibits it (in EVERY instance and manifestation) is not sufficient proof that GOD prohibits it (in every instance and manifestation).
Your argument is entirely an argument from “mystical magical secrecy”. Your claim is that even though there’s NO WAY to demonstrate that homosexual relationships are wrong, God has some vault in the back of his mind, and without us knowing how or why we are doing something terrible! God hates it for some magical secret reason, and that God, who (coincidentally) agrees with your opinion must be OBEYED! We must obey you (oops, I mean him) without knowing why, even though Jesus and Paul SPECIFICALLY took a stand against obeying Hebraic law, and following interpretations of scripture that didn’t serve either of the two commandments!
Well, I’ll go with the two commandments and you can go with the whole “God secretly hates certain things (which just happen to coincide with things Anglo Saxon Culture dislikes) for no apparent reason” argument for morality.
Not to mention that having things be morally wrong that we cannot discover from our conscience and can ONLY know through scripture TOTALLY creates a RADICAL contradiction in morality!
“Oh you’ve never read the Bible? There’s no way that you could know that homosexuality is wrong, so for you it isn’t.”
“Oh you have read the Bible? Now the super magical secret has been revealed to you and now you know that homosexuality is wrong, so it is.”
And you think that homosexuality being wrong is a UNIVERSAL law of morality? When the only way you can know it is wrong is by reading the Bible? I’m tearing my hair out right now!
>That is why they do what you go on to do in the very next breath and >smuggle in a concept of “…in his time” when there is not a hint of situational >or temporary validty in the text itself. Unlike other issues in the NT, >particularly in Paul’s letters, there is no counter-tradition or example of >acceptance of the thing being prohibited when it comes to same-sex sex. >Thus, the comparisons to Paul’s other situationally-specific commands (i.e. >head coverings, holy kiss, women silent, slavery, etc.) are invalid.
Let me get this straight. Paul was wrong about slavery and women’s rights, but he was spot on about homosexuality. Is that what you’re saying?
>There is NO acceptance of ANY form of same-sex sex in ALL of >Scripture…which is why revisionist scholars are so intent on “finding” (read: >“inventing”) examples of such in stories such as Ruth/Naomi, >David/Jonathan, and Centurion/servant. That is the epitome of grasping at >straws when the whole of the canon is against one’s position.
Doesn’t matter one bit. There’s no concept of environmentalism or that you shouldn’t be cruel to animals in scripture, but that doesn’t mean that dumping oil in the gulf is okay, or torturing a kitty with razors is morally permissible.
Those things are VERY unloving, and even if scripture doesn’t in any way speak against them, they are still hurtful and counter to the law of love, and thus they are morally wrong.
As for David and Jonathan, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You and other Christians insist that swearing oaths of love on another man’s sperm isn’t gay, that kissing and weeping together in a field until David “rises up in himself” isn’t gay, and that stripping naked and knitting your soul with another man isn’t gay. Why? Because it’s counter to your Anglo Saxon Christian sexuality, just as you ignore any way in which sexuality or examples of it in Biblical times are different than your own, from polygamy, to Leverite marriage, to castrated eunuchs, and so forth and so on.
You ignore all sexuality that’s different than your own and solely emphasize where the Bible agrees with your culture, deluding yourself and everyone else into believing that somehow Anglo Saxon Sexuality is exactly the same as Biblical Sexuality. In reality, you’re just trying to selectively cherry pick verses to justify your own sexually oppressive culture, ignoring and casting aside the real two commandments.
In the end, it’s just you working on the side of establishment religion, you look to the Bible to justify the evil your culture perpetrates. Won’t let homosexuals work? God commands it. Won’t let them marry? God commands it. Slavery? God commands it. Oppression of women? God commands it. Capitalism bilking workers? God commands it. Capital Punishment? God (Paul) commands it.
The two commandments don’t matter, just what I (oops, I mean God) commands!
In the end, demonstrate how homosexuality violates either command, or it’s nothing more than a bunch of theological imagination. Just like the justifications for capital punishment, slavery, the subjugation of women, and EVERY OTHER so called “moral rule” that the dominant Christian culture perpetuated so as to oppress their people.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 12, 2010 at 3:25 am
Chris, you can use all the weasel words like “Anglo-Saxon” and “magical” that you want, but it doesn’t detract from the main point that if Scripture universally prohibits something, and God Inspired Scripture to do so, then God universally prohibits something and therefore doing it, whether YOU believe it’s okay or not, is sinful.
Clarifications:
* Discussion of the exact nature of the Doctrine of Inspiration are, as noted in my last response, beyond the purpose of this blog, so I don’t care to argue that point at this time.
* “Your claim is that even though there’s NO WAY to demonstrate that homosexual relationships are wrong…” I don’t claim this, nor have I ever. YOU reject all of the criteria for demonstrating same-sex sex’s intrinsic harm; I do not. I’m making the point (repeatedly, it seems) that EVEN IF it were not possible to demonstrate, if God had said so that would be reason enough. (Hopefully you see this and we don’t have to go over this again).
* David/Jonathan – All I can say is that you REALLY need to learn Hebrew before you attempt to translate Hebrew phrases. There’s a reason why almost no reputable scholar buys your revisionist interpretation…and it ain’t “conservative” bias.
* Both care for the environment and care for animals are taught in Scripture, so that’s an invalid comparison.
* Paul wasn’t “wrong” on slavery or women’s issues by any means. Situational vs. universal is the issue, not “right” vs. “wrong.” The prohibitions regarding same-sex sex bear none of the hermeneutical or exegetical marks of situational teachings which the other issues bear. Apples and oranges.
* To take you up on your final paragraph: Same-sex sex inverts the God-intended design for human sexuality, violates His Inspired Scripture’s universal prohibitions of it, and spiritually damages those who participate in it (as do all other forms of sexual sin), regardless of whether or not they believe it is “loving.” Therefore, to engage in same-sex sex violates both the first and second Great Commandments by its very nature. You’re free to reject this, but to claim that it’s somehow “illogical” or “magical” or “Anglo-Saxon”…and to continue doing so is disingenuous and intentionally obtuse on your part.
by jm on Oct 12, 2010 at 3:46 pm
>Chris, you can use all the weasel words like “Anglo-Saxon” and “magical” that >you want, but it doesn’t detract from the main point that if Scripture universally >prohibits something, and God Inspired Scripture to do so, then God universally >prohibits something and therefore doing it, whether YOU believe it’s okay or >not, is sinful.
Something can only be universally prohibited if it violates the two commandments intrinsically. The end. Whether YOU interpret scripture to say something is wrong or not, is not PROOF it is wrong. What proves it wrong is if it can be demonstrated to violate one of the two commandments. “I interpret this scripture as saying it’s wrong” isn’t good enough.
>I’m making the point (repeatedly, it seems) that EVEN IF it were not possible >to demonstrate, if God had said so that would be reason enough. (Hopefully >you see this and we don’t have to go over this again).
And this point is logically impossible because of the contradiction in divine command theory. If immoral acts aren’t evident in themselves, then they aren’t universal. THERE CANNOT be a distinction between what is “intrinsically morally evident” and “what God commands”. This is the point to which you seem unable to wrap your head around. God cannot command a universal moral code which is not inherently evident in conscience! That is an impossibility!
You seem to be unable to comprehend this point. There cannot be any distinction between Universal moral commands evident from conscience, and God’s revelation in scripture. While God can issue TEMPORAL commands (such as mosaic law), the only UNIVERSAL ones are the two commandments.
>Paul wasn’t “wrong” on slavery or women’s issues by any means. >Situational vs. universal is the issue, not “right” vs. “wrong.” The >prohibitions regarding same-sex sex bear none of the hermeneutical or >exegetical marks of situational teachings which the other issues bear.
Oh, you’ve decided that they don’t bear the “exegetical marks” of being situational, huh? Well I’ve decided the other way. Where does that leave us?
>To take you up on your final paragraph: Same-sex sex inverts the >God-intended design for human sexuality, violates His Inspired Scripture’s >universal prohibitions of it, and spiritually damages those who participate in >it (as do all other forms of sexual sin), regardless of whether or not they >believe it is “loving.” Therefore, to engage in same-sex sex violates both the >first and second Great Commandments by its very nature. You’re free to >reject this, but to claim that it’s somehow “illogical” or “magical” or >“Anglo->Saxon”…and to continue doing so is disingenuous and intentionally >obtuse on your part.
NO IT IS ILLOGICAL
Universal proscriptions MUST proceed from the two commandments, not “because God says so” THERE IS NO “because God says so”, apart from the two commandments: that’s illogical! The two commandments ARE WHAT GOD COMMANDS AND SAYS. To say that he commands something instead of, or besides those, or that something violates those two, but we cannot know why is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION of his commands!
Do you understand that saying: “What’s morally right and wrong is demonstrable and universal. All people are held accountable to the self-evident two commandments.”
And then simultaneously saying:
“Also, over here we have these bad things you shouldn’t do which you can only learn from the Bible. We don’t know why, but they violate both commands and you’d only know that from reading this book”
IS A HUGE CONTRADICTION??? I don’t understand how to help you understand this.
__________________________________________________________
You are tying to take culture out of the equation as if that doesn’t weigh heavily on temporal proscriptions in the OT and NT as well as your approval or disapproval of sexual acts today. The fact, however, is that sexual proscriptions and taboos are an integral part of culture, NOT necessarily universal morality.
You callously ignore the fact that sexual taboos change with culture, and you try to take culture out of the equation entirely.
You want to pretend that your sexuality doesn’t descend from Augustine and the Middle Ages, and pretend instead that they are “Biblically Based”. You won’t engage any of my arguments about polygamy, Leverite marriage, homosexual acts of castrated eunuchs, or any differences between Ancient Hebraic Sexuality and Anglo Saxon Sexuality.
In addition to ignoring differences in culture between Ancient Hebraic and Anglo Saxon cultures and sexuality, you ignore the cultural cues about Molech and his customs, of which homosexuality was one. You ignore the fact that culturally, the Ancient Hebrews weren’t allowed to engage in other sexual practices so that their culture could remain distinct.
You ignore the cultural practices of Rome and its traditions of abusive Pedophillia, pederasty/sexual slavery, temple sex worship, and prostitution. You ignore all of the cultural history about homosexuality in Rome at this time, and instead maintain that Paul’s letters are some sort of universal proscription, ignoring what was going on in the culture and that homosexual acts were used as a means for Idolotry and the most vile forms of evil.
And you ignore that homosexuality in our culture is vastly different from that ancient roman culture, in that it is a loving committed relationship by two consenting adults. In all you’re trying to ignore culture entirely, and pretend that you’re on a direct phone call with God about sexuality. I can imagine you saying:
“Good news guys, I just got back from reading the Bible, and I’ve decided that it agrees with everything about our current culture of Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality!”
Last of all, when making claims about morality, you seem blissfully unaware of the contradiction between universal and temporal laws, forgetting that universal laws must be self evident and temporal ones are not.
When asked to demonstrate HOW a homosexual act is universally wrong, you demur, instead explaining that you’ve just gotten back from the Bible and that we should trust YOU in your interpretation of it, rather than submitting ANY kind of evidence to demonstrate that homosexuality is evil.
>and spiritually damages those who participate in it (as do all other forms of >sexual sin), regardless of whether or not they believe it is “loving.”
Ah, I see it “spiritually damages them” In other words, it hurts some magical, non-measurable, hidden gnostic element that we can’t see, but just have to take your word on.
Kind of like how witches needed to be burned at the stake for masturbation in the middle ages (because masturbation causes some unknowable harm), how the big bang is “ungodly” somehow, how the Copernican revolution “Angers God” and Galileo had to be censured, and how the Cathars needed to be massacred because it displeased God that they didn’t engage in the Sacraments.
All these ^ are ethical questions that are resolved by pointing to some magical invisible or supernatural quality that supposedly “offends God” but not demonstrable, evident or can be deduced from the two commandments, and causes no harm to anyone. In other words, all of the above is merely theological hogwash designed to justify the acts and opinions of a specific culture.
In the end, you’re just parroting propaganda to foster your own Anglo Saxon Culture, ignoring the cultural aspects of the time that anit-homosexual passages were written, glaring ethical contradictions (between temporal/eternal laws), and complete disjunct between the sexuality of a tribe living in the dessert 4000 years ago and your own. Do you agree that polygamy is okay since the ancient Jews practiced it and God approved of it? Do you take it upon yourself to marry the widowed wives on the male side of your family? Of course not!
But you just affirm the things that match up with what you believe about sexuality and ignore the rest.
>All I can say is that you REALLY need to learn Hebrew before you attempt to >translate Hebrew phrases.
I’ve already talked to multiple scholars and two different Rabbi’s about this passage, so nice try. Do you think you’re the only person who I’ve talked to about this argument? My limited knowledge of Hebrew in no way obscures the homoerotic content of this passage, in fact, the homosexual relationship can be seen plainly in the translated English, it’s completely obvious. (You know, except in modern translations where they mistranslate all the words on purpose to make you think that David and Jonathan are “just friends”)
Anyone who doesn’t see the homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan is shutting their eyes and putting fingers in their ears.
But since it doesn’t fit in with your Culture, you just ignore it, and pretend that they were “friends” (even though the text never calls them that). There are so many textual points that connote a homosexual relationship, I could devote a whole chapter of a book, JUST on that alone.
I find your sexplanations for the DOZENS of points of textual evidence as wholly unconvincing. If there were just one or two points of evidence, perhaps you could argue them away, but as it is there are just far too many.
The broader context of the story is OVERTLY homoerotic as any impartial observer (as opposed to someone desperately trying to prop up their cultural ideas) can plainly see.
I’m not sure we are going to get any farther on this topic, it’s obvious that we’re not going to agree, even at a basic level. But feel free to respond. I feel as if we’re just going over the same ground again over and over.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 14, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Two scholars who agree that David and Jonathan had a homoerotic relationship.
http://www.amazon.com/When-Heroes-Love-Ambiguity-Gilgamesh/dp/0231132603/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1287090390&sr=8-1
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2007/2007-10-46.html
by Chris McCauley on Oct 14, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Two scholars who agree that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and fled to France to found a dynasty of Merovingian kings.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/holyblood_holygrail.pdf
Listing fringe pseudoscholarship is fun, isn’t it!! 😉
by jm on Oct 15, 2010 at 1:03 am
“Something can only be universally prohibited if it violates the two commandments intrinsically. The end. Whether YOU interpret scripture to say something is wrong or not, is not PROOF it is wrong. What proves it wrong is if it can be demonstrated to violate one of the two commandments. “I interpret this scripture as saying it’s wrong” isn’t good enough.”
You mean “if it can be demonstrated to Chris’s satisfaction.”
“God cannot command a universal moral code which is not inherently evident in conscience! That is an impossibility!”
Which is exactly why Paul traces it (and all other condoned sins) right back to the Fall of humanity and the seared conscience which “exchanges the truth about God for a lie” and suppresses what is made clear from creation (such as the man-woman complementarity of sex).
“Oh, you’ve decided that they don’t bear the “exegetical marks” of being situational, huh? Well I’ve decided the other way. Where does that leave us?”
It leaves us with me calling your bluff and saying that you haven’t done the exegetical footwork necessary to make such a claim or engaged.
“Ah, I see it “spiritually damages them” In other words, it hurts some magical, non-measurable, hidden gnostic element that we can’t see, but just have to take your word on.”
In the exact same way that you believe envying someone, hating someone in your heart, coveting another person’s spouse, taking God’s name in vain, or praying to an idol does. Your account of how these things are “harmful” is wide open to this exact same critique you’re trying to apply.
“Anyone who doesn’t see the homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan is shutting their eyes and putting fingers in their earsThe broader context of the story is OVERTLY homoerotic as any impartial observer (as opposed to someone desperately trying to prop up their cultural ideas) can plainly see.”
Yes, the 99% of Hebrew scholars–Jewish and Christian, Liberal and Conservative–are wrong and the handful of people you’ve talked to are right…and you’re able to make this judgment despite not knowing Biblical Hebrew… 😉
Yeah, we’re gonna go in circles here I’m afraid. If anyone’s bothered reading this far they can draw their own conclusions.
by jm on Oct 15, 2010 at 1:18 am
Sorry, need to repost this.
Let me get this straight. Paul was completely wrong about slavery and women’s rights, but he was spot on about oppression of homosexuals. Is that what you’re saying? REALLY good argument. You really have me convinced.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 12, 2010 at 3:28 am
One last thing: If the two commandments AREN’T written on all mens hearts, then how do they know how to be good, and to love God, as Abraham did, (without the use of scripture).
I’m also in complete disagreement with your hermeneutic in writing that the law being written on our hearts happens AFTER we become Christians, or AFTER we are in covenant with God.
Here’s my interpretation of Romans 2
Romans 2
12. “For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law,”
People who are evil, even though they don’t have the OT, will perish (not have eternal life).
“and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;”
People who have the OT and are evil will still be punished.
“13. for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”
Not the people who have the Bible in their tradition, but those that do morally good things will be justified.
14. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law,
They know right and wrong from their conscience.
“these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,”
They are bound to follow their conscience, even though they don’t have an OT, and are thus a law to themselves.
15. “in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,”
THEY, meaning these gentiles who have no scripture, show the work of the two commandments written on their hearts (not people in a covenant, but foreign people who are not Jewish).
>”their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or >else defending them,”
In other words, held to the same standard as everyone else (Jew and non-jewish)
16. “on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”
And they will be judged according to how well they followed these laws written on their hearts.
And remember that the Noahide Covenant, in Genesis 9 which God made with ALL humanity (not just Jews, not just christians) already had affirmed the two commandments for all humanity, not just for Jews or Christians, but for other religions and cultures as well.
So saying that we need to be in a covenant relationship (a Jew or a committed christian) in order to have the law written on our hearts is NOT accurate. All humanity is already under a broader covenant, that of the two commandments given to us after Humanity’s near destruction in the deluge.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 12, 2010 at 2:14 pm
[…] Click here for a response to this (part 3). […]
by What Does the Bible Say About Same-Sex Marriage? « Jeff Figearo's Blog on Oct 14, 2010 at 6:03 pm
>You mean “if it can be demonstrated to Chris’s satisfaction.”
No, you haven’t demonstrated it AT ALL in ANY WAY, other than to cite your own interpretation of scripture.
>Which is exactly why Paul traces it (and all other condoned sins) right back to >the Fall of humanity and the seared conscience which “exchanges the truth >about God for a lie” and suppresses what is made clear from creation (such as >the man-woman complementarity of sex).
Okay, first of all, you didn’t address the fact that you made a GLARING ethical contradiction, in that you asserted that something can be universally morally wrong, and yet be some “secret” that we don’t understand without God’s Special Revelation.
Secondly Paul there is talking about Idolotry there, not “tracing something back to the fall.
Rom 1:25
“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.”
“Worshipped and served the creature” here is referring to using homosexual sex to worship idols that were made out of creatures. There are several possibilities within Roman mythology. He’s not talking about the “fall of humanity” he’s talking about homosexual sex practices used to worship Roman Gods.
>It leaves us with me calling your bluff and saying that you haven’t done the >exegetical footwork necessary to make such a claim or engaged.
There is no bluff. I have done the exegetical footwork, and I don’t agree with you.
>In the exact same way that you believe envying someone, hating someone >in your heart, coveting another person’s spouse, taking God’s name in vain, >or praying to an idol does. Your account of how these things are “harmful” is >wide open to this exact same critique you’re trying to apply.
No, I’ve DEMONSTRATED how those things violate both commandments: you haven’t for homosexuality. Your ethical demonstration amounts to a lot of big words and non-textual assertions coupled with a lot of “God says so which makes it wrong” and “We don’t know why it violates either commandment”.
If you don’t know WHY it violates the commandments, then you HAVEN’T, JMS.
An ethical demonstration or to “make something demonstrable” means that you can explain plainly why doing some action violates an ethical principle.
Appealing to authority (your own authority, I might add) is NOT an ethical demonstration.
If I say, “Rape is wrong”, and you say “why” and I say “because in each instance it hurts someone”, that is DEMONSTRATING how or why it is wrong.
If I say “Rape is wrong” and you say “why” and I say “Some guy, or book said so” that is NOT demonstrating why it is wrong.
So when you say “Homosexuality is wrong” and I say “why” and you say “Well I’ve looked at this specific book that I think is important, and I’ve decided to interpret that Book as saying that its wrong”, that is NOT demonstrating HOW it is wrong, because it is NOT giving a logical reason.
>Your account of how these things are “harmful” is wide open to this exact >same critique you’re trying to apply.
No, because I’ve DEMONSTRATED that they violate an Ethical principle. You haven’t DEMONSTRATED that homosexual acts violate anything except your appeal to authority (appeal to your OWN hermeneutic authority too, how delicious!).
>Yes, the 99% of Hebrew scholars–Jewish and Christian, Liberal and >Conservative–are wrong and the handful of people you’ve talked to are >right…and you’re able to make this judgment despite not knowing Biblical >Hebrew…
Fallacy of the majority, a majority, by the way, that “liberal” or conservative, have very conservative views about homosexuality.
You’re trying to hide behind a shield of supposedly having superior knowledge which invalidates my arguments because of that knowledge. But your arguments against me have NEVER been anything to do with ancient Hebrew in any case. You’ve never, in any case said “Oh you’re wrong about what that Hebrew word means.” All of your arguments have been about my INTERPRETATION or the CULTURE involved. NOT the words in question.
Any questions about the words or phrases involved, and I can ask my Rabbi, Which I do anyway.
If I learned Hebrew, do you seriously think that my eyes are going to be suddenly opened, and I will realize that David and Jonathan are straight? And If that’s true, why don’t you just demonstrate that with the Hebrew?
by Chris McCauley on Oct 15, 2010 at 5:37 am
>Listing fringe pseudoscholarship is fun, isn’t it!!
I think “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” is a bit exaggerated, but it is true that the native populace in France, Ireland, Scotland and England all CLAIMED to have a bloodline from Jesus. This of course doesn’t mean it’s true, but it’s true that people claimed that.
The conflict at the root was a clashing between the native religion of Europe (celtic and druidic) clashing with Roman Christianity. This conflict was borne out symbolically in the Aurthurian Legends as Arthur was the link between the old religion and the New Christianity. The conflict is also played out in Tarot cards, (which were a means of information for the native side of the argument) and the symbolism is present in the cards: For instance a church being built on the holy grail (the Blood of Jesus) in early tarot cards, the pope being hurled from a tower with lightning, etc.
The conflict goes all the way into the monks and hermitages in Ireland, where they would insert drawings symbolizing their old religion in the Bible itself as well as other literature (like the Book of Kells).
What happened in the end (which is the moral of the Arthurian Tale) was a compromise and syncretism between the two religions. The gods of the Celts were changed into saints and veneration of them was allowed to take place (St. Christopher is an example of this), and thus they could still worship the old gods in some fashion. Easter and Christmas were “rechristened” (no pun intended) as Christian holidays.
While the actual fact of the bloodline of Jesus is EXTREMELY dubious (even the extra-canonical gospels don’t confirm it) it’s true that people believed it, and it’s true that it was used to try to “trump” the authority of the apostolic succession of Peter with a direct bloodline to Christ.
“Holy Blood/Holy Grail” has been roundly criticized by scholars, particularly the supposed link between the Templars and the Grail (which has been soundly disproven). I think the same thing is true of the Da Vinchi code, which is highly over exaggerated scholarship. In using it’s overzealous suppositions as a target, though, the Baby is often thrown out with the Bathwater (and certainly there is a lot of bathwater). It’s unfortunate that this happens with scholarship, because critics take the opinion that if MUCH of something is untrue, that means ALL of it is untrue.
The discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and at Nag Hammadi are the most important archaeological finds in history, and the extra-canonical Gospels give us a much clearer look at the five centuries after Christ’s life. The Gospel of Thomas (or parts of it) may even predate the canonical Gospels. Likewise the conflict between Druidic/Celtic religion and Roman Christianity is one of the most important cultural conflicts in history! But this all gets overshadowed by exaggerated claims and people looking to disprove these claims.
It would have been better if these topics were presented to the public in a circumspect and historically accurate way explaining their significance without drawing dramatic sweeping conclusions. the problem is that the public comes away with the idea that ALL OF IT is fiction, when in fact some of it is real, and those things that ARE real have VERY PROFOUND significance.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 15, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Here’s a really great page on the Ace of Cups, which was supposedly a symbol of the Holy Grail, and the mythological bloodline of christ. The image of a Church built upon the Blood of Christ (the native response) as opposed to the authority of Peter is striking. One card even has the pope serving the blood of christ, showing that the Pope is really just a glorified waiter! Hillarious AND extremely historically significant.
http://pre-gebelin.blogspot.com/2007/11/ace-of-cups.html
by Chris McCauley on Oct 15, 2010 at 5:34 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Priestess
This is the card that REALLY angered the Roman Church. It depicts a woman as Pope, and not only that, she’s in the Temple of Solomon! The allusion was that this was either mary magdelene or the legendary Pope Joan, and the placement of this card alongside a card representing the Pope was the ultimate insult to the roman church.
The card has been linked to the Cathars (who also claimed to have a divine bloodline) and who also had egalitarian views of male and female gender roles (outrageous to the misogynous Romans).
Since the place of women in the family and in religion was different in the native European religions (women could celebrate druidic rites, witchcraft, and cauldron brewing) this was a serious cultural conflict between the two cultures. Roman Christianity won out, and women were plunged into the dark ages where they were treated as inferior.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 15, 2010 at 5:44 pm
JMS, I totally apologize, this segment was TOTALLY missed by me, I guess because I was looking for responses at the bottom of the argument. I thought you just ignored this point, and I accused you of ignoring it, but it turns out I was wrong, and maligned you. Sorry for that.
>If we were living within Mosaic Covenant Israel, I don’t think I could have >much ground to oppose Levirate marriage.
Thus, that sexual ethic was temporal law, not eternal. And not only that, there’s no way that you can maintain that Levirate marriage is “Eternally wrong” is there? It’s just a shifting sexual practice of a culture.
And since you acknowledge that Levirate marriage “isn’t” morally wrong, that pretty much blows out of the water the “one man/one woman idea is the only morally acceptable outlet of sex” ethic, which you purport to be ETERNAL moral law, doesn’t it?
>; though like Jesus, I would oppose polygamy based on the >one-man->one-woman Creation mandate in Gen.2
But Levirate marriage IS a FORM of polygamy, a very specific form involving the wife of a widow on your family’s male side. So you couldn’t oppose it, it was the temporal “special revelation” that was in effect at the time.
And there IS NO “one man/one woman” creation mandate either in Genesis or as repeated by Jesus. Jesus was opposing DIVORCE, not POLYGAMY. He was saying that you cannot DIVORCE your wife, not that you cannot marry multiple wives. (Obviously, if you have multiple wives, you cannot divorce any of them either.)
This is another creative “Theological Imagination” that both you, Gagnon, and the Catholic Church applies to the GENESIS passage (and Jesus’ repetition of it.) There is NOTHING in the Genesis passage that states you can only have one wife, NOTHING that states you can’t be a homosexual, NOTHING that states you can’t have sex before marriage, and NOTHING that condemns any other sex act as a sin. All the Genesis passage states is that the two become “one flesh” and the woman leaves her house to join the man’s house. That’s IT!
There’s NOTHING in the passage which prohibits polygamy generally, or Levirate marriage specifically.
But everyone with an Anglo Saxon Sexuality points to this passage as if it upholds everything they believe. It doesn’t! It doesn’t hold up ANYTHING they believe!
>But in the New Covenant, these are prohibited by Jesus’ teaching on >marriage,
No, they aren’t. That was about Divorce, not polygamy.
>and Paul’s Epistles discussions of sexual ethics.
Nope. Paul was well aware that Levirate marriage and polygamy were acceptable to Jews at the time. It’s clear he favored celibacy, but he did NOT oppose either Levirate marriage or more general Polygamy.
>In fact, I don’t know of ANY Christian who argues in favor for either as >acceptable under the New Covenant.
OF COURSE NOT! Because most Christians are following the ANGLO SAXON Christian Sexuality, not Biblical sexuality. They are DIFFERENT THINGS. There is nothing in the New Testament that repudiates Levirate marriage, OR general polygamy as evil or impermissible. NOTHING.
The only thing that prevents it is CULTURE. People THINKING that only “one-man/one woman/in marriage” is the ONLY sexual outlet that is morally permissible. But that’s just what the CULTURE permits, not the BIBLE!
Claiming that the ETERNAL LAW is that only “one-man/one woman/in marriage” dynamic is DEAD IN THE WATER! God specifically endorsed polygamy in the Bible and specifically endorsed Levirate marriage. The idea that god only approves of the Anglo Saxon “one-man/one woman/in marriage” for all eternity is Biblically false, JMS, and you know it!
It’s nothing but a myth of the Anglo Saxon Christian culture. Cherry picking some sexual practices from the Bible (monogamous marriage), and ignoring others (Levirate marriage, polygamous marriage).
>When I say “Biblical” I’m referring to the entire redemptive flow of the >Canon, not isolated segments of Israel’s history. This is why you should >understand my view of Canonical relationship (in the videos I mentioned >available free to view above) before attempting to critique it so vehemently.
And let me guess, the “redemptive flow of the Canon” means that all other forms of sex other than the aforementioned Anglo Saxon ethic of “one-man/one woman/in marriage” for all eternity is morally wrong?
Sorry, but it doesn’t wash: culturally or logically. Levirate marriage was a FACT, plain and simple, and it was mandated by GOD. Which means it cannot be morally wrong.
Which means that the claims that ONLY “one-man/one woman/in marriage” is ethical is FALSE. God ALREADY approved of other sexualities, that of Levirate marriage and Polygamy.
And it’s ignoring God’s promises to castrated Eunuchs (who also engaged in homosexual acts), and God’s promises to people who were celibate (another form of sexuality).
All in all, you have FIVE forms of Biblically approved sexuality:
1. Levirate Marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5)
2. Polygamy (2 Samuel 12:8)
3. Monogamy (2 Gen)
4. Castrated Eunuchs (who were passive homosex partners/crossdressers)
(Isaiah 56: 4-5, Acts 8 26-40, Matt 19: 11-12)
5. Celibate (Matt 19:12, 1 Cor 7)
So to say “Well it’s obvious that the Bible is against homosexuality! It only approves of ONE kind of sexuality.” Is TOTALLY ignorant!
by Chris McCauley on Oct 19, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Chris, it’s easy for things to get lost in comment threads, so no worries. I’ll just note a quick thought based on your final 5 points (the Levirate marriage custom is a fair point and would, like Biblical slavery and Herem warfare, need another discussion completely to do it justice). Castrated eunuchs were not automatically passive partners in same-sex sex, and the entire point of Jesus mentioning them is in the discussion of not everyone being able to marry. He says nothing–nothing–one more time: nothing–that would lead one to conclude that them being homosexually active would be anything other than a blatant disregard for Torah. Also, even if one granted that Levirate marriage and polygamy were totally fine and biblically-mandated (rather than tolerated, as I do), they still do nothing at all to make a case for same-sex sexual relationships being valid or the prohibitions being overturned because they all share the one key trait that same-sex sex does not–gender complementarity (male and female).
BTW, Gen.2 does implicitly prescribe monogamy. The “2” shall become “1” flesh. 😉
Also, since you have such a strong distaste for “Anglo-Saxon” views, I recommend this resource for your studies. It deals specifically with issues such as polygamy, which are still part of many cultures around the world, including the ones from which these scholars come.
by jm on Oct 20, 2010 at 4:17 am
>BTW, Gen.2 does implicitly prescribe monogamy. The “2″ shall become “1″ >flesh. 😉
Again, it does not. Saying that two bodies become one flesh doesn’t necessarily mean monogamy. To follow the analogy, the two become one, and then when another wife comes along those two also become one.
Remember that the Torah proscribed Levirate marriage. So the claim that somehow monogamy is meant to be taken from Gen 2, when polygamy is MANDATED in Deuteronomy 5 is completely contradictory.
It’s you and others putting your “Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality” goggles on and interpreting it in light of YOUR culture. You are NOT interpreting it in the light of the Biblical culture that produced the Torah which ALLOWED POLYGAMY! Why would the culture who wrote Gen 2 try to uphold ONLY monogamous marriage? Why would passages in Genesis uphold ONLY monogamy, and the same culture pass laws against monogamy? That makes no sense.
Ask any Rabbi, and they will tell you that Gen 2 has NOTHING to do with marriage OR monogamy. Nothing could be further from the minds of the people writing Genesis, who repeatedly recount their Patriarchs engaging in polygamy, and needed Levirate marriage to maintain familial lines while they were a nomadic tribe wandering the desert.
Interpreting Gen 2 as propping up the ASCS party line is UTTERLY ANACHRONISTIC.
>Castrated eunuchs were not automatically passive partners in same-sex >sex, and the entire point of Jesus mentioning them is in the discussion of >not everyone being able to marry.
Castrated eunuchs being the passive partners in homosexual acts was so common that the burden of proof falls to you to maintain that they DIDN’T engage in these acts. They were KNOWN to, not just in Judaic cultures, but in many of the surrounding cultures (Egyptian as well for instance). Saying that castrated eunuchs in the middle east didn’t engage in homosexual acts is about as naive as saying that hairdressers in San Francisco who star in musicals don’t engage in homosexual acts.
I’m sure there is a hairdresser (maybe one) in San Francisco who is singing in a musical right now, and doesn’t ever engage in homosexual acts, but to claim that some (or the majority) didn’t is basically putting deliberate blinders on.
It’s just deliberate propaganda fostered by the Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality hereafter ASCS side of the debate to say “Oh yeah, these castrated Eunuchs never had sex.”
EVERY historical text we have states that they engaged in homosexual acts, whether they were from ANY region in the ancient near east. It’s just the ASCS crowd putting their fingers in their ears and going “lalalala”.
That would be about as silly and naive as a future culture saying “Yes, there were Christains in Prison in the 20th Century, but no one in prison engaged in homosexual acts.”
>Also, even if one granted that Levirate marriage and polygamy were totally >fine and biblically-mandated (rather than tolerated, as I do), they still do >nothing at all to make a case for same-sex sexual relationships being valid >or the prohibitions being overturned because they all share the one key >trait that same-sex sex does not–gender complementarity (male and >female).
You are missing the point (two points, actually).
The first point is that currently (and for the last 1600 or so years), the ASCS has seen Levirate marriage and Polygamy as morally wrong. It’s a completely different sexuality, and is held by that culture (up to present day) as morally wrong.
Yet this sexuality is upheld by the Bible as something that IS morally right. So really, ASCS is just cherry picking passages from the Bible that uphold their sexual ethics and discarding or ignoring passages that don’t. It’s just cultural propaganda.
The second point is that the “one man/one woman, only in marriage” view that dominates ASCS, as the ETERNALLY MORALLY TRUE ONLY way that sex can be expressed, is DEAD IN THE WATER.
So the whole idea that God somehow ONLY intends this model for sexual satisfaction is completely and utterly false, due to Biblical law in Deuteronomy 5.
_____________________________________________________________
The inconsistency is that you wave off sexual ethics of the Torah when it upholds sexual practices you disagree with as “Well, that’s just cultural relativity and specific temporal, changeable law”. But when Torah or the NT speaks against homosexuality (which upholds Anglo Saxon Christian Sexuality) you say “Yes, this should be interpreted broadly and eternally”.
And that’s UTTERLY inconsistent.
>is a fair point and would, like Biblical slavery and Herem warfare, need >another discussion completely to do it justice
I don’t agree. While Herem warfare (like in Psalm 136) and Biblical slavery are clearly against the two commandments, Polygamy and Levirate marriage are not. Nor are a lot of other ASCS taboos, like oral sex, pre-marital sex, contraception and masturbation.
Again, it comes down to this: you claim that certain sex acts are eternally morally wrong for some reason (with no reference to the two commandments) and uphold the ASCS party line, and yet when it comes to other sex acts that are listed in the Bible, you ignore the fact that they are out of line with ASCS and chalk that up to cultural relativism.
That’s really just Orwellian thinking: confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance.
It’s a constant stream of propaganda: ignore or distort facts, and keep to the party line of ASCS:
Eurasia has always been at war with Pacifica.
The Bible has always upheld ASCS, just look, there it is in Genesis 2.
Freedom is Tyranny.
The Patriarchs weren’t polygamous.
Eunuchs never engaged in homosexual acts, probably.
2+2=5
Mary was perpetually a virgin.
Sex without procreation is evil.
It all goes back to Augustine, and the Dark Ages. After the Byzantine empire fell, the body was seen as evil, and we descended into sexual terror and hatred of the body, and the repression of women.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 20, 2010 at 5:33 am
Too many rabbit trails to follow, Chris. I only have the time/energy to address two of your more ridiculous claims:
Your claim about Eunuchs is riddled with assumption and takes no account of the Jewish context in which Jesus was speaking–one that unambiguously prohibited same-sex sex. Jesus’ acknowledgment that there were some who had either chosen, or been unable for various reasons, to marry is in no way approval for them to engage in same-sex sex–something that is diametrically opposed to Torah.
“Ask any Rabbi, and they will tell you that Gen 2 has NOTHING to do with marriage OR monogamy. Nothing could be further from the minds of the people writing Genesis...”
You need to talk to more rabbis!
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465160/jewish/Jewish-Insights-into-Marriage.htm
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_divorcereasons.htm
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Relationships/Spouses_and_Partners/About_Marriage/Marriage_and_God.shtml
Please, for the sake of intellectual honesty at least qualify the silly statement above in light of these examples of rabbinic teaching on marriage ALWAYS beginning with Genesis 2. Whichever rabbis you hang around are not at all indicative of Hebrew Biblical ethics if they do not acknowledge the fundamental nature of Genesis 2 to the concept of marriage!
Furthermore, I suggest spending more time with Rabbi Yeshua who SPECIFICALLY invoked Gen.2 in an explicitly marriage-focused discussion as revealing God’s original intention for marriage!
Lincoln Hurst, Prof. at UCLA, Davis, sums it up well:
From: Joel B. Green et al., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 219.
by jm on Oct 20, 2010 at 6:57 pm
>Please, for the sake of intellectual honesty at least qualify the silly statement >above in light of these examples of rabbinic teaching on marriage ALWAYS >beginning with Genesis 2. Whichever rabbis you hang around are not at all >indicative of Hebrew Biblical ethics if they do not acknowledge the fundamental >nature of Genesis 2 to the concept of marriage!
The word “marriage’ doesn’t appear in Genesis 2, JMS. There was no marriage ceremony at this point in Jewish history.
There was betrothal and a MARRIAGE CONTRACT, as well as a two step (Erusin and Nessuin) process for marriage, which also included the possibility of divorce before the marriage was finalized (if the sexual pairing was unsatisfactory, or if the families feuded).
Trying to maintain that marriage NOW in either the Jewish or Christian tradition was equivalent to marriage THEN is just anachronistic, and viewing Genesis 2 as if it’s an endorsement of marriage as its practiced now, which it isn’t.
I might as well say “The two become one! That’s a reference to a Playstation 3 and a DVD MERGING to become one form of entertainment!”
The ancient Jews didn’t have playstations, and they didn’t write about playstations. To claim that Genesis 2 was writing about playstations is thus completely anachronistic and silly, JUST as it is silly to claim that Genesis 2 is a reference to the Marriage Ceremony, as we practice today. They had no such thing then!
Your insistence that Judaism and Torah did not allow and condone Levirate marriage and general polygamy is also false. The Rabbi I talked to explained to me that Ashkenazic and Sephartic Jews split about the issue of general polygamy (both accepted Levirate marriage before the Exile). The Ashkenazic outlawed in the 10th Century, because of the influence of a prominent rabbi, and the Sephartic Jews NEVER outlawed general polygamy at all. After the nation of Israel was created it was outlawed, but is nevertheless still practiced by Sephartic Jews both inside and outside Israel.
The only reason that Jews don’t still practice polygamy is that they were so harshly persecuted in other European countries (notably Italy and Spain) for being polygamous because of the popularity of ASCS. So they simply didn’t practice it to avoid persecution by the dominant ASCS culture.
To claim that polygamy was against Torah, Talmud or Jewish culture, is to simply ignore what’s written in these books and the resultant culture, which YOU DO in order to foster the propaganda of ASCS.
Here’s a better source than yours which actually explains how ancient Hebrew marriage contracts worked, and how they are VASTLY different than marriage ceremonies today.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Relationships/Spouses_and_Partners/About_Marriage/Ancient_Jewish_Marriage.shtml
>Furthermore, I suggest spending more time with Rabbi Yeshua who >SPECIFICALLY invoked Gen.2 in an explicitly marriage-focused discussion as >revealing God’s original intention for marriage!
Again, you’re just looking at it with ASCS rose colored glasses and assume he’s saying that because you can’t DIVORCE a wife, that means you can’t MARRY more than one wife. Does Jesus actually say that? NO! NOWHERE does Jesus say that you can only marry one wife.
You claim that Levirate marriage an polygamy is banned by the New Covenant. Can you produce a single shred of scripture that actually BANS polygamy or Levirate marriage?
I mean something other than symbolic language like “Two become one” that you can apply your theological imagination to.
And you DIDN’T answer the question of if Genesis 2 supposedly endorses ONLY MONOGAMY, why is Polygamy (in the forme of Levirate marriage) supported and mandated in Deuteronomy 5? Is the Torah then contradicting itself?
>Your claim about Eunuchs is riddled with assumption and takes no account >of the Jewish context in which Jesus was speaking–one that unambiguously >prohibited same-sex sex.
You mean a CULTURE that unambiguously had a distaste for same sex-sex.
> Jesus’ acknowledgment that there were some >who had either chosen, or >been unable for various reasons, to marry is in >no way approval for them >to engage in same-sex sex–something that is >diametrically opposed to >Torah.
This is just silly. Jesus did not endorse castrated eunuchs with the unwritten, unsaid understanding that all homosexual acts were evil, and that he didn’t want them to engage in homosexual acts. This is pure assumption on your part. You’re trying to read the mind of Jesus and say “Yep he thought all homosexual acts were wrong.” Sorry pal, you’re not psychic.
EVERYONE knew that this was a group of people that engaged in homosexual acts. Jesus did NOT condemn them for those acts nor did he mention that anything they do is a sin. He did not prohibit them in their sexual acts in any way, just that they weren’t going to be married and that there’s nothing wrong with that (that there are other sexual destinies for people BESIDES the dominant culture of marriage).
AND Jesus opposed things all the time that were Torah law, such as the stoning of the woman caught in adultery, healing on the sabbath, etc. If Jesus was concerned with their sin, he would have said something. Just as Jesus thought the torah law of divorce was too harsh to women (violated the second commandment), and that stoning was too harsh for an adulteress(violated the second commandment), it’s perfectly reasonable to think that he disagreed with Levitical proscriptions about homosexuality. He certainly opposed a host of Levitical proscriptions in his lifetime, everything from sacrificing at temple to eating kosher.
So don’t give me the “Jesus followed torah at all times and thus though all homosexual acts were evil” line, I don’t buy it.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 20, 2010 at 10:07 pm
So to reiterate…
Chris: “Ask any Rabbi, and they will tell you that Gen 2 has NOTHING to do with marriage OR monogamy. Nothing could be further from the minds of the people writing Genesis…”
JM: “Not true. Genesis 2 is the foundation passage for nearly every rabbinical view of marriage in the history of Judaism. Here are 3 sources, in fact.”
Chris: “Well…the word ‘marriage’ isn’t used there. Plus, here’s a bunch of other unrelated stuff about polygamy and Levarite marriage, though all of it is heterosexual…and despite not listing any sources, you should take my word that Jesus saying some people are called not to marry is proof-positive that he endorsed same-sex sex. And I’ll keep using irrelevant terms like “Anglo-Saxon” and capitalizing words like “EVERYONE” in order to make my point.”
Chris, honestly this is the point at which discussing this issue with you loses its last shred of enjoyment and spiritual/intellectual value. 🙁
I probably won't respond to anymore comments on this particular thread; though you're always free to comment on other posts and perhaps we can move forward there.
by jm on Oct 20, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Well, JMS, I’ll make these points as politely as I can. I’m sorry if I was impolite in my responses.
1. You maintain that Genesis 2 endorses monogamous marriage, just as it is practiced today. I disagree because marriage as it exists now did not exist at the time Genesis was written. Since Polygamy is rampant in Genesis and Levirate marriage is endorsed in Deutoronomy 5, to claim that Genesis 2 is a reference to monogamous marriage as it is practiced today is anachronistic.
2. The practice of marriage in ancient Judaic times is vastly different than today. Marriage was a contract, not a religious ceremony. The marriage happened in two separate parts.
3. While it’s fair to say Gen 2 is the “root” of marriage practice in Judaism, it is nothing more than the root. Claiming that marriage as it is practiced now and marriage 4000 years ago exactly coincide is flat out, historically false. Cultures change, and you can’t impose your culture’s idea of marriage on Genesis 2 and claim that’s what Genesis 2 was talking about. That’s like me saying that the Psalms were prophesying about rap music.
>Plus, here’s a bunch of other unrelated stuff about polygamy and Levarite >marriage,
4. That is not unrelated. Claiming that Genesis 2 is an exact replica of ASCS today is ignoring the contradiction between your claimed interpretation of Gen 2 and the stated premise of Deutoronomy 5, as well as the acceptance both in Talmud, Torah law and history of the Jewish people using polygamy.
>you should take my word that Jesus saying some people are called not to >marry is proof-positive that he endorsed same-sex sex.
I didn’t say that. What I said was that Jesus repudiated many of the Levitical laws as no longer relevant and not serving the two commandments. There are many examples, from Jesus eschewing sacrificial practice (and scourging the temple), repealing dietary restrictions found in Leviticus, and repealing penalties in Mosaic law.
It is perfectly reasonable to think that Jesus could have also held that the Levitical codes against homosexual acts are no longer serving the two commandments, as evidence by his upholding of castrated Eunuchs as a legitimate lifestyle (despite the fact that he knew they engaged in homosexual acts). The fact that Jesus did NOT repudiate castrated Eunuchs for their sin (as he did for the adulteress, the tax collectors, and prostitutes) MAY mean that he did not see it as a sin at all.
It’s not “proof positive”, but to claim that Jesus held the same cultural biases as his culture doesn’t necessarily wash. He did NOT share his culture’s ideas about a great many things, from viewing the sick as sinners, divorce, to associating with people of different religions and preaching to them (Romans, Samaritans and others).
Lastly, I’d just like to say that you are interpreting these scriptures in light of your own culture and ignoring the historical cultural context that they were written in. You see these scriptures as upholding the current culture of Christian marriage and sexuality and I do not. I do NOT see Christian Churches in this country claiming that you should marry your brother’s widow, or that Polygamy is okay with your handmaiden as a means of continuing a family line. You yourself have admitted this, and you’ve admitted that these are practices accepted by Torah, Talmud and Jewish History.
I’ve asked you to produce a single shed of New Testament scripture that repudiates either Levirate marriage or Polygamy and you can produce nothing.
What you just don’t seem to “GET” is that what establishment culture does is root through scripture and look for passages that endorse its culture, and ignore anything which doesn’t uphold it. You seem to think that you are arguing for spiritual truth. I think, on the other hand that you are just creating cultural propaganda that upholds the 1600 year traditional culture that homosexuality is evil, which began, largely with Augustine in the early dark ages.
I don’t see your condemnation of homosexuality as grounded in exegetical analysis of the text as it was written in its culture and history. I see you interpreting texts as if they talking about the current Christian Culture and sexuality. You think that the culture was formed BECAUSE scripture endorsed certain sexual practices. I think that rather, the culture of the Celtic/Anglosaxon/Gaulish Europe formed the culture (under the auspices of the Catholic Church and Augustine as its main proponent) and THEN looked through the Bible to try and find justification for its cultural practices.
And that really is our main difference: You see current Orthodox Christian Sexuality as a outgrowth of inspired scripture, and I see current Orthodox Christian Sexuality as an artificial cultural construct, which tries to justify itself by cherrypicking verses from the Bible and anachronistically associating their cultural customs with verses in the Bible.
by Chris McCauley on Oct 21, 2010 at 4:43 am