With impeccable logic, Slate points out that, if marriage is good for same-sex couples, it should be good for a polygamous ménage, too.
As the Slate article notes, when it comes to redefining marriage, we’re not done yet.
I feel slightly sorry for both TEC and the ACoC: they struggle mightily to keep up with the foibles and fashions of the culture in which they are so pleased to be immersed, yet they are still fumbling with the, by now, passé blessing of same sex couples. Where is the generous pastoral response for polygamists, where are the polyamorous clergy proudly coming out to be consecrated as bishops in bullet proof vests, where are the Big Love or Die movies? Very disappointing.
Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.
[…..]
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.
With Edward, the rather more convincing proof of his affection for Mrs. Simpson lay with all that he was willing to give up ….
And, as far as I’m concerned, it’s the Big Lie that homosexuality and polygamy are beneficial to women — or to men.
Here is an excellent treatment of the topic.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.php
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/swedish-court-sentences-muslim-who-stabbed-his-sister-107-times-to-4-years-in-prison/?
The old saying “same junk, different day” applies to this line of thinking. It is nothing new in the ongoing attempt to denigrate loving relationships between two people by distracting folks from that real relationship with something allegedly related. However, it is easier to justify polygamy from Scripture than it is to justify what has been labeled as “traditional marriage as we have always had it.” The Hebrew Scriptural norm wasn’t necessarily monogamous relationships. It was not “one man and one woman” but rather “one man and as many women as he could support or afford.” Our well respected and beloved patriarchs had more than one sexual relationship in almost every case. Solomon probably held the record. Even in the Christian Testament, polygamy is only prohibited for deacons and bishops. So let’s stick with the real issue: honoring monogamous, loving, respectful, relationships between two people, regardless of the gender of the two people involved. Love doesn’t recognize gender….love just recognizes love.
“Love doesn’t recognize gender … love just recognizes love.”
Or maybe not. Again, read and think the article on Judaism and Christianity’s rejection of homosexuality posted above, Bruce.
http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/feminists-assaulted-in-transgender-attack-at-portland-conference-for-social-change-womens-books-destroyed-and-bodies-defaced-with-permanent-magic-markers/
Polygamy has Biblical precedent. The contradiction in terms that is “gay marriage” has none at all.
Not a valid comparison either. The point is that we generally can’t justify much of what we claim by Scripture. Or conversely, we can find a way to justify everything by Scripture. Same gender relationships as we know them were fairly unknown in the ancient world. Women, in particular, were the property of men and except for the very wealthy, were under their control. The male/male “model” was based on the domination of a slave, servant or a conquered enemy. None of these relationships, if you could call them that were based on loving, mutually faithful, committed relationships. However, Jesus continually highlighted relationships that were not exploitive, or abusive or coercive as being “right” relationships. He regularly condemned those that were exploitive, abusive or coercive. The model was and is to love neighbor as self. That back tracks to the Ten Commandments, half of which relate to our relationship to God and half of which relate to our relationship to each other. Inaccurate comparisons are not helpful whether to polygamy or any other relationship that doesn’t model loving neighbor as self.
Well, Jesus did talk about twice how marriage is between a man and a woman. In Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9, Jesus re-affirmed God’s plan for marriage, about how a man and woman are to leave their parents and become one flesh. While Jesus may have been talking about divorce, He still re-affirmed the original way God intended marriage.
Furthermore, whenever Jesus used examples of marriage, it was always about the bride and the bridegroom. He even compares Himself as the bridegroom and the church as His bride. He wasn’t ambiguous in any way about what marriage is like or who it is between.
Another reason why gay “marriage” doesn’t work is because the relationship is strictly about the adults. In a heterosexual marriage, a man and a woman come together for the production of children, about whom the relationship is about around. Gay couples are incapable of physically making a baby. You can’t put two sperm together or two ovum together and creating anything other than a liquid mess.
And while Jesus said to love they neighbour, if we see our “neighbour” doing something that is considered a sin or harmful, we do have an obligation to point it out to them. Matthew 18:15, Galatians 6:1, James 5:20 and Ephesians 4:15 spring to mind. After all, We are to “judge” sin, but always with the goal of presenting the solution for sin and its consequences—the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6).
So therefore, the Christian church should NOT recognize relationships whose sexual actions are considered sinful.
I should clarify: what I meant was, a marriage between a man and woman puts the focus on the upbringing of children. Gay relationships are the focus of the adults, considering they are incapable of bringing a child into the world naturally.
Many heterosexual couples can’t conceive and we don’t begrudge them their marriage.
Wearing glasses and deodorant isn’t strictly natural either.
But there is still the possibility they can. With God, all things are possible (Matt. 19:26). Many couples, while thinking they are incapable of bearing children, have years down the road been able to do so naturally. And as I said, homosexual couples can’t produce children normally or naturally: penis into vagina, sperm into egg, cells into a child.
How about a heterosexual couple that gets married at 80 years old?
Do you wear glasses? Or deodorant? Would you begrudge a hard of hearing person a hearing aid? The “natural” line of opposition is mildly foolish, and in any case, has nothing to do with Christianity. Even atheists can use that argument.
Whether something is “natural” or not — and good luck defining that — is irrelevant. Relevant questions are, is it right or wrong, good or bad, kind or unkind? That’s what Christ will judge you on.
Jack, I get to see dozens of same gender parents raising children and I do not see what you have stated. I see a drastic change when they go from childless to having one or more children. Yes, just like heterosexual couples, when there are no children, the focus is on the two adults. And just like heterosexual couples, the same gender ones focus on their children….often to the loving amusement of their peers. Homosexual couples are every bit as focused and attentive toward their children as heterosexual couples. And they can be just as lovingly obnoxious about them as well…..pictures, iPhone videos, etc. It’s wonderful to witness and it’s blessed by God….so very obviously.
I find it interesting how you can even begin to know whether God would bless such relationships or not. People like to say that these relationships are “monogamous and faithful” so therefore they must be blessed by God. Wrong. That logic doesn’t float here.
Where in the Bible does it ever say that homosexual sex or relationships are considered to be “blessed by God” or even accepted? Even though there may “only” be four or five passages in the New Testament that denounce homosexual activity, that’s more than any Scriptural passages that say, “Yeah, gay sex is OK. That’s how God intended relationships/marriage to be.”
I know they are blessed because they represent the fruit of the Spirit. I know they are blessed because by their fruit you will know them. Those words or similar are used by both Jesus and Paul in various places.
How do we know that heterosexual marriages are blessed by God? I’ve witnessed some that should not exist because of the abuse, exploitation and coercion that exists between the man and woman. They are not good relationships and probably should never have begun. But that is not always something we can discern when we begin a relationship with someone.
You could say the same thing about incestuous and polygamous relationships too. Doesn’t make either of them righteous or correct.
And tell me, where in the Bible is homosexual activity acceptable or accepted? Where in the Bible are homosexual relationships condoned? Book, chapter and verse please.
It is not only valid, it is natural, ordered, moral, logical, sanctified, aesthetic, cultural, historical and has been vetted and vetted and vetted, yet again. Because yours is an entirely ex nihilo position, you have no course but to resort to these weary, illiterate, illogical, contorted, abominable, unreadable, vainglorious, prolix rationalizations. You simply have nothing else.
And from what I can tell, Lisa, all you have is your ignorance about real life situations involving modern day human beings, Children of God who live out exemplary lives of devoted love, mutual caring, raising families, and very high moral standards. It’s clear that you have no serious relationships or even interactions with same gender couples who are committed to each other and to the ideals allegedly embodied in heterosexual marriage. What we have failed to teach over the course of the history of the church is that our use of Scripture must always be in the context of the culture in which it was written and that our citations of Scripture must be within the context of the larger narrative of which all are a part. Failure to maintain both contexts seriously damages the integrity of what God continues to try and convey to us through the new breath of the Holy Spirit in each generation. Spend some time getting to know those whom you would denigrate. To do otherwise is counter to the love conveyed to us in Jesus Christ.
Hard to get much larger context, Bruce Old Boy, than the summary I provided right off the bat vis-a-vis Biblical precedent for polygamy vs sodomite marriage.
How many serious relationships involving modern day human beings do you have with the homeless, aged, sick, imprisoned, poor of spirit ** outside your own demographic ** – or actual married people for that matter?
As before, look to the contorted, grandiose, self-serving, non-Scriptural nonsense you write.
What amazes me about your posts, Lisa, is the bitterness and nastiness that oozes from your language and tone. You seek to “win” these discussions by belittling other people. What you post provides little information. You throw out such terms as “sodomite marriage” when I doubt you even know what a misnomer the word sodomite actually is. The sin of Sodom had nothing to do with sex. It was the sin of inhospitality. Jewish law required hospitality to strangers. The people of Sodom did not provide that hospitality. Unfortunately for them, the strangers in this case were messengers from God. If the issue was about same sex behavior, why did Lot offer his daughter to the crowd? If you look in the book of Judges you will find a parallel story. The end is tragic because the woman is given over to the crowd. She is literally raped to death and her body left on the doorstep of the man who threw her to them. His concern upon finding the body was not the tragedy of her death but that her dead body violated purity laws.
By the way, I am in now way “poor and downtrodden.” I have a very personal relationship with Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. I also know many married couples, same gender and opposite gender who are devoted to each other and very family oriented. I’ve lost count of the number of same gender couples I know who are raising well adjusted, loved and cared for children. In your rush to toss around insults, you forget that you know nothing of substance about your topic.
You didn’t answer the question.
“Sex”, not”gender”. “Gender is a giveaway usage adopted by somebody who believes sexual identity is constructed by us, “plastic” in the terms of the article.
As for “sodomite”, we all know what it means; what exactly went on in Sodom according to modern scholarship is beside the point.
Actually, gender is simply a term used to identify the biology or sex of an individual, namely male or female. Intersexed seems to be the most correct term to those who have both male and female characteristics.
Sex, even when used in these discussions, generally implies some type of sexual activity.
Both terms are part of discussions about sexual orientation which is a spectrum in itself. Those who are exclusively homosexual or heterosexual are at the opposite ends of the spectrum with those who are bisexual being in the middle of the traditional bell shaped curve. Unfortunately the term seems to imply to some that a bisexual individual is actually having sexual relations with both genders at the same time. In reality it simply means that such a person responds sexually to either gender equally.
Unfortunately, there has been little real “social” discussion about all aspects of human sexuality, but that is a different discussion for another day.
Oh, Bruce. Good luck fighting the good fight here. Admirable posts.
Ah, Vincent. Rally you not your meager forces to align with your poor, poor down-trodden, pitiful, woe-begotten friend to fight the good, the pure, the special fight against and among such benighted and dastardly foes? Alas! Whyfor not, I entreat you?
Thank you. The difficulty I have with this “discussion” is not stooping to the depths of nastiness Lisa utilizes in her attempts to intimidate. I had a better upbringing than to do so. More importantly, I would be a pretty poor follower of Jesus Christ if I descended to her level. I will try to remain above the crud and stick to examples rather than verbal bashing.
My poor and downtrodden fellow, as you jumped into this headlong and now, alas, must struggle – magnanimously, how else? – to “remain above the crud,” … did you in fact pay me the courtesy of actually reading the article I posted initially, “Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality”?
No? I thought not.
Yes, Lisa, I read the article. I read nothing I haven’t heard before and the interesting thing about the article is its elevating one Old Testament “sin” to a level above all others in the Levitical Purity Code in which most references are found. The article noted that unmarried men and married men without children were excluded from the ordained. It failed to note that any physical deformity did the same, as did a man having “crushed testicles” or other similar deformities. Also left out was the lower status in society afforded sterile men, “barren” women and marriages that could not produce children. Do you support all of these similar restrictions?
I wonder if you read the article carefully. This struck me from the article:
Choose Life
Judaism cannot make peace with homosexuality because homosexuality denies many of Judaism’s most fundamental principles. It denies life, it denies God’s expressed desire that men and women cohabit, and it denies the root structure that Judaism wishes for all mankind, the family.
This statement is flat wrong in that homosexuality does not deny any of these things. There is nothing listed here for which homosexuality could have a negative impact. In fact, these criteria are supported by LGBT people.
The reality is that marriage between two people of the same gender could not possibly have a negative impact on a marriage between two persons of the opposite gender. Marriages are relationships. Each relationship succeeds for fails on its own. If the “quality” or type of relationship of others really did have a negative impact on other marriages, heterosexual marriage would have been long gone by now. Even the high divorce rate hasn’t eliminated the institution.
So Lisa, this article is no different than similar ones that do not take into account the context of culture around which these rules existed. Other scholars reach very different conclusions, you might want to do some research.
You project prolix and prodigiously, Bruce. My only concern has been Biblical proscriptions of marriage. Your only concern is ceaseless and unctuous promotion of LGBTTTIQQ.
Lisa, I presume this is the question you wanted me to answer: “How many serious relationships involving modern day human beings do you have with the homeless, aged, sick, imprisoned, poor of spirit ** outside your own demographic ** – or actual married people for that matter?”
I have had, still have and will continue to have serious relationships with the demographics you list. I’ve been involved in ministry to some of those categories for over 30 years. I have many friends who are straight and or straight married couples. So I am well acquainted with these folks. And you know, funny how life and reality are, there is virtually no difference between those who are homosexual in orientation and those who are heterosexual in orientation. All our lives were equally mundane and ordinary as we went about the routine “business” of committed relationships as well as those not in relationships.
How much ongoing contact do you have with, for example, with those in recovery from substance abuse? I am regularly involved. What do you do to assist families living at subsistence levels clothe their children? I’m part of a ministry that exists to clothe children who live in poverty and clothe them with dignity.
I could give other examples, but I think the point is made.
I’m puzzled by why you (and of course others) are so threatened by the existence of LGBT folks, much less by those who are of the same gender who want noting more than recognition of their relationships. I see these relationships as having a positive impact on society as they create more and more stable family units caring for children and looking after each other. There is really nothing wrong with that…..
We’re all just one big happy marxist/socialist family.
There was a comment above about extending “gay marriage” to “polygamous marriage”, which is illegal in the USA, and in many countries. I live in the very SW corner of Utah, the home of the FLDS (Fundamentalist LDS) Church. They have NO connection to the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS or Mormon). Those of us who are not Mormon are a minority here. I’m used to that. As an Episcopalian/Anglican, I was also a minority in Minnesota, Chicago, and various other places. (Well, we’re always a minority, but I mean where there is a strong “majority religion”, as Lutheran in MN and Catholic in Chicago when I lived there).
Anyway, we regularly see FLDS women in their little “gaggles” in Walmart and Costco, filling many carts to put large loads in their pickups to take them 45 miles down the road to the two towns most of them live in. They’re easy to identify since they’re always dressed in plain “prairie dresses” to their ankles and have french braids, usually twisted on the back of their head. They respond politely if you say “hello” or “good morning” to them, but have no interest in conversation with “outsiders” or “heathens”.
What is the point in this description? I can’t ignore that some of these women may have been “married” to older men before they were of the legal age of consent (18). That is a crime, plain and simple. There have been some prosecutions, but not many. But….to get to the point at last…
If these polygamous marriages would be sanctioned by the state, then the one husband would be legally responsible for the several wives and large number of children. Since they’re not legally married to more than one wife, all of the others are “unwed mothers of dependent children” who collect significant government benefits that the citizens of Utah and Arizona pay a great deal of money for.
Yes, I’m well aware that we also provide benefits to thousands of other unwed mothers and children, but at least theoretically this is an issue that could be dealt with.
Looked at another way, is a husband having a “real wife” and a couple of mistresses at the office or elsewhere much different from a husband having a “real wife” and several “sister wives”? I realize it is different to the women involved, but is it different to God or to the State?
Our Grace Episcopal Church http://gracestgeorge.org has a female priest who is married to a retired Presbyterian pastor, and despite the generally “lily white” nature of SW Utah, we have parishoners who are black, brown, yellow, white, and of all ages. They include “recovering Catholics”, a couple of Greek Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox, several “recovering Mormons”, and a few who claim no religious background. But we operate the local soup kitchen and many other services to those in need, and offer the Eucharist to all who wish to receive.
So, more than maybe anyone wanted to read, but the idea of legally sanctioned polygamous marriage got my brain and fingers on a roll. (and BTW, got to this blog by a link from our parish web page, via g News Service blog roll.
Blessings to all, from an active member of the church
Christianity supports neither “gay marriage” nor polygamy. Nonetheless, in the long, multi-generational, historical narrative that is the Bible, polygamy once upon a time was prevalent and sanctioned. It is a practice the Hebrews moved decisively away from, and Jesus Christ never recognised at all. And yet, while there is Biblical precedent for polygamy, there is none at all for “gay marriage.”
But, having delinked the institution in “gay marriage” from all traditional, Scriptural, historical and cultural precedent as well as biological consideration, on what basis do we have to object now to polygamy? The tone and substance of the Slate article blithely presumes polygamy even to be fun and empowering. With church and state sanctioning sterile and a-historical unions — and polygamy is neither — on what basis would anyone base an objection anyway?
Ah — because with abortion on demand as the great equalizer — the only consideration in “gay marriage” is for the needs or wants of adults, never the best interests of children. Turns out Islam’s already all over polygamy too. See the article linked earlier.
No Lisa, my concern is the integrity of Scripture and that it not be used to beat others over the head. You will find no description of a marriage ceremony anywhere in Scripture. People are identified as married, husband, wife, etc., but there are no definitions. The creation story simply states that God created male and female. Depending on which of the two creation stories you think is more accurate, the creation of the female will vary.
You insist on focusing on a single aspect of Scripture to the dismissal of hundreds if not thousands of other issues, sins and problems. No sin is defined as having a greater degree than any other except that of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
Marriage was literally created by the church in the Middle Ages primarily to go along with the state’s need to provide for the passage of property to legitimate heirs, which presupposes there were “outside” progeny as well. Romanticizing marriage has been detrimental to it in that it has diminished one of if not the primary reasons for it: companionship and mutuality of relationships.
From a strictly secular viewpoint, I support marriage for same gender couples for the sake of fairness and equity in our nation. I pay thousands of dollars in taxes each year and continue to be treated as a second class citizen. If I had a partner/spouse/significant other we would be denied over a thousand perks or benefits that are taken for grated by heterosexual couples who are married.
Let me suggest, although I know you will not follow up on it, a few resources to give you a broader view of Scripture: The authors are The Rev’d Gray Temple, Jr., The Rev’d William Countryman and The Rev’d William/Bill Doubleday. All have done extensive research, Temple in particular on marriage issues. I read your article, so in fairness you might want to check on these resources.
I’m not sure to whom your “Marxist/socialist family” remark was directed, but I would refer you to the Book of Acts for a description of the early church. No one owned anything individually but all held the resources in common and each received according to their need. So which and what and who are your snide remarks applicable?
Beating people over the head with long-winded, self-serving, baseless rationalizations presumably is just fine though ….
Of course it is. You’re pretty good at it yourself. As any biologist, psychologist or sociologist will tell you, organisms and organizations grow and change and adapt, or they die. The church is a part of that world of organizations.
Yep, people are no different from amoeba and the Church and Madison Ave should become as one.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting what you are implying, Lisa. The church has always gone through changes through out its history. The most absurd claim I ever hear is “as handed down unchanged from the Apostles, Jesus, fill in the blank.” The means available for communication alone have forced the church to adapt. The printed Bible created change and tension….folks could now see “what the Bible says” rather than depending on someone else to tell them. Current communications means, including social media, force the church into new ways of reaching out for evangelism. That’s not a bad thing. We tend to become entrenched and soloed and out of touch with the world we are to serve. That diminishes our effectiveness in spreading the Gospel.
I’m actually sad for your incessant negativity Lisa. Serving our Risen Lord should be occasion for joy. My perception of what you convey is an attachment to all that is negative. I feel sorry for you and hope you can learn to open your heart and your mind to the full spectrum of God’s human rainbow.
I continue to be amazed by people who say that all that we ever need to know about God and Jesus is contained in the Bible (and many would insist on the pre-modern-scholarship KJV). How can any of us believe that God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit (well, I assume we’re all Trinitarians, regardless of other issues) haven’t spoken in almost two thousand years. Would the Almighty quite speaking to us after the Ascension? He spoke frequently to prophets and others in the Bible. Why would he quit? Yes, that is a serious question.
I agree Dan. How can we really claim to be people of faith if we do not believe that God continues to speak to us? Like it or not, Scripture has always been interpreted by generation after generation. And did not Jesus tell us that we would learn more? “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth..” John 16: 12-13a.
The current canon of Scripture was the result of a vote at a council of the church, Nicaea if I recall correctly around 400CE. Did the Holy Spirit influence that vote or was it purely a political activity?
I have been in church gatherings where the presence of the Holy Spirit was palpable. You could see it moving through the gathering.
Scripture would indeed be dead if we were not able to relate it to our own lives in our own day….very different times from when it was written.
I would posit God still speaks to us, but through the Bible. How are we to know what He wants unless we read His word? Just because the Bible was written nearly 2,000 years ago doesn’t mean it’s a dead book. It’s a living, breathing thing which continues to communicate God’s instructions on how we are to live.
Besides, how do we/you even know what Jesus said/did/commanded if not for reading the Bible? A person can’t just say that Jesus’ words are the only thing we have to listen to. How would you know what the fruits of the spirit are if not for St. Paul and Galatians? Hmmm?
So the Bible is a living breathing thing but the church isn’t ?? That makes no sense to my old brain. Explain please.
Bruce has been saying all along that we must read the Bible. He’s precisely been saying that it’s not a dead book. Which it would be if it were as clear cut a program as some make it out to be.
Lisa, I find it most interesting that you are fine with pulling in an article that provides a justification for Judaism’s so-called prohibitions against homosexuality and extrapolating that into Christianity. Yet you are unwilling to do the same with a multitude of other proscriptions that were/are peculiar to Judaism, especially those related to women such as squatting on straw during your monthly period. You don’t uphold any of the dietary restrictions or the purification requirements to enter temple. How do you avoid being hypocritical with such a stance? Similarly, Paul provides the status of women in the church and/or in discussions such as these, yet you don’t seem to abide by his standards either. Again, how do you avoid being hypocritical with such a stance?
I’ve had a four year course of study of Scripture and church history and I read the Bible and pray every day. There are many, many concepts and so-called rules that we do not follow as Christians. It is also clear that the amount of Scripture devoted to rules about human sexuality are dwarfed by the number that relate to right relationships between human beings and between them and their God. Israel spent a whole lot more time in hot water with God over how they treated the foreigner, the widows, orphans and others on the fringes of society than she did over anything related to human sexuality. Jesus said essentially nothing about human sexuality, but he often spoke of relationships. Even Paul spent many more words on relationships than what has been alleged about sexuality.
You may have discerned that I do not take Scripture literally but I do take it seriously. I view it in the context of culture of writing and the context of entire narratives rather than proof texting and piece mealing it. And I am aware of how we have changed our interpretation of many Biblical concepts over the centuries since the current canon was voted on by the church about 400CE. For Scripture to have any serious meaning in our lives and for us to take any direction from it, we must consider all of these factors.
You accuse me of being “long winded” but that is needed to discuss your cryptic and often cynical and nasty remarks. It appears you are unable or unwilling to engage in a real discussion so you only shoot arrows at those who disagree with you instead of engaging with them. That is your prerogative….but don’t criticize those who take issue with you for that. I’ve tried to be very polite and professional with you, but you are nudging me to the point of calling you a hypocrite for failing to follow Paul’s instructions for you to keep quiet just by virtue of the fact that you are a female.
Note Dan’s comment above about organisms dying because they do not grow, change and adapt. That is already taking place and it cannot be blamed on any external forces. It has been an internal decision by many faith communities to look inward, batten down the hatches and dig in their heels over any, even the smallest, calls for change. The “under 30” crowd doesn’t have the interest needed to build up what they see as irrelevant and out of touch and missing the basic teaching of Jesus: Love God and love your neighbor. Jesus was clear about the new commandment to love one another. Guess we just don’t take him seriously enough.
Please don’t assume that we are all that nasty.
Thank you Kate. I don’t make such assumptions. I try not to paint all with the same broad brush. Doing so is what gets us into these messes and fosters disrespect among God’s children.
Holy verbal diarrhea Bruce
Perhaps it’s only me, but come on man. Your posts are way toooooooooo long for me to read. How about a little brevity and get to the point.
It seems churlish to both dismiss a viewpoint out of hand and complain, when your opponent tries to explain it properly, that he’s being a bit wordy about it.
I’ve tried brevity here, it’s been waved off as a hit-and-run. Now you won’t even read five respectful paragraphs? How do you even manage the Bible? Aren’t you the person who told me — a bit glibly and forgetting Babel — that language is a gift from God?
Hello Vincent,
Please trust me when I say that I am not dismissing Bruce’s viewpoint. Nor anyone elses for that matter. But when a post gets to be so long that it will not fit on my screen I am left feeling overwhelmed and find myself skipping over it and not giving it the attention it likely deserves.
What did you do before internet and blogs where all was in scholarly articles of considerable length and in even longer books? Is this a function of aging, or becoming lazy, or?? Yes, that’s a serious question.
Hello Dan,
A serious question? Your post comes accross more as a critisizing jab.
But you say that your question is a serious one, and so please accept this reply as sincere.
I do read books. Presently I have five on the go: The Signature Series by C.S. Lewis, Total Recall autobiography of Arnold Schwarzenegger, The Reckoning by David Halberstam, a book of the tales of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, and The Holy Bible. But please understand that when I read a book I usually sit down in a comfortable chair with an enjoyable drink on the side table (usually a “green tea” but sometimes a whisky), perhaps with Mozart playing on the stereo in the background, and I settle in for a quiet evening.
Alternatively, when I read a blog such as this I am looking for what might be described as a “conversation”, where people exchange and share information, ideas, and perspectives, in what is hopefully a polite and respectful way.
Kind regards,
AMP
Thank you for the sincere answer to a sincere question. I understand and accept your distinction. These days almost all of my reading, including the Bible and novels, is done on my iPad 4. It contains hundreds of books including most of my church and scripture resources.
Almost all of my reading and conversing is done in the same places and conditions. Sorry I didn’t think of that distinction for others.
After 12 eye surgeries I’m blessed indeed to not be blind and to have access to modern devices that facilitate reading anything anywhere
Blessings and thanks
We live in a “sound byte” world. Believe me I truly wish I could post shorter comments. The problem is that sound byte grenades are lobbed into the discussion that are not accurate. That is a deliberate ploy to confuse and confound and foster misinformation. It is not usually possible to respond to those sound bytes with a sound byte and convey adequate information. The situation is compounded when the one posting is not respectful and is really just “stirring the pot” instead of conveying information or teaching. No one is forcing anyone to read posts. If you can take one of my posts, edit it and reduce its size, please do so….that’s something I can learn from seeing done.
Too long, and in consideration of their being baseless, shameless, long-winded promotions of “LGBTTTIQQAA marriage” rights, I regret to say vacuous as well, which is the real reason you don’t feel like bothering to read them. The prolixity has nothing to do with age of sound bites (will rationalizations never cease) and everything to do with the dearth of ideas and principles. People really should read and think on John 8:44. The Left relies upon massive propaganda efforts because its policies are all failures.
It’s okay though … it’ll all come out in the plastic marriage polygamist wash. The so-called progressives have been making war on their native conservatives for at least half a century; and of-late their extreme antagonism has seen them ally with foreign conservatives. Disequilibrium cannot be maintained forever, however; the only question is whether it will be native or foreign conservatives who perform the “restoration” work — progressives themselves being incapable of reform. Polygamy potentially has a huge part to play in that.
Okay, Lisa, here is John 8:44
44You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
I believe Jesus is speaking to a group of Pharisees about Abraham. They have clearly missed the point of Jesus’ ministry.
The rest of your little rant makes no sense. What exactly are you trying to say? Tell us plainly.
Deleted.
Jack S. Pratt says:
May 9, 2013 at 11:20 pm
You could say the same thing about incestuous and polygamous relationships too. Doesn’t make either of them righteous or correct.
RESPONSE: I think you are off base with this Jack. It’s pretty safe to say that there is a large element of coercion, abuse, and/or exploitation in those types of relationships. That negates any goodness or righteousness in them.
And tell me, where in the Bible is homosexual activity acceptable or accepted? Where in the Bible are homosexual relationships condoned? Book, chapter and verse please.
RESPONSE: It’s not so much an issue of what is acceptable or accepted in Scripture. There are many issues that are “accepted” then that we would not tolerate now. It is more of a case of keeping those issues in perspective and context to time and place and culture. As I have stated and which you either missed or ignored, what we label as issues about “homosexuality” are not “stand alone” points in Scripture. They are part of larger contexts. In the Old Testament they are part of a Purity Code that contains hundreds of rules, none of which rank above or below any other and none of which Christians are bound by. In the New Testament, they are included in examples of idolatry and other problematic activities named by Paul and are not the modern day understanding of homosexuality….a term that is barely a hundred years old. It’s also about whether we take something literally or not. You don’t take all of Scripture literally, so why can you justify doing so with a very small number of passages.
We also consider translation errors. Language in the New Testament that has been termed “homosexual” in some translations is not accurate. The words in Greek are malakoi and/or arsenikatoi (and I butchered the spelling on both!). The better translations are “soft or effeminate” and “male pagan temple prostitute.” These hardly relate to what we are discussing today.
Sorry about the length of the response that bothers some of you, but I could not provide an adequate explanation in fewer words.
Hello Bruce,
Hope this finds you well.
If I am understanding you accurately than I must conclude that you and I have differing opinions (perhaps even differing beliefs). As I read through the Holy Bible I see almost all of it as an historical account of actual events. Thus for me the huge majority of what God has written for us is literally true. For example, there really was a King David. Only a few parts are what we might term figurative, such as what God tells of in the first chapters of Genesis when He created everything. It is hard for us mere mortals to accept that He did it all in only six days (as we humans have arbitrarily defined what is a “day”). But I take the account to mean that the creation was occomplished over a period of time from God’s perspective, not ours.
As to the issue of context, here again I feel we disagree. It is my personal belief that through His Holy Bible God is telling us that the world we live in, the context of our lives, is a mess (a mess that we people have made). He goes on to instruct us on how to clean up this mess. So trying to make the Holy Bible fit in with our fallen world is actually a backwards approach. What we should be doing is trying to change ourselves (and in turn the world) into what God wants.
Kind regards,
AMP
Problem with that is we can’t agree about what God wants. Not on the details, and sometimes not even on some of the general principles. _That’s_ what makes Christianity not dead.
Hi AMP,
This will not be a short response because the questions you raise don’t have short answers and they merit as complete an answer as I can provide.
The Bible for me is a wonderful source of strength, amusement, comfort and direction. And yes, I too, believe it contains an historical account. I enjoy reading most of it, although some of the violence in the Old Testament is disturbing as is that found in some of the Psalms. Whenever I read the portions where Noah and God are “discussing” the upcoming events, I have to smile. I envision Noah looking up and saying: “You want me to do WHAT and HOW FAST!?” I also smile when reading the wedding reception story at Cana. I can hear the exchange between Mary and Jesus….probably from our stereotypical awareness of conversations between Jewish mothers and their sons.
What serves no purpose for me is quibbling over such issues as creation taking seven days as days are currently defined. Creation was in God’s time, not ours. And the description was put into terms that humans find meaningful and understand. The length of time really doesn’t matter. What does matter is that God created.
My college degree is in biology, but that does not keep me from believing in both the virgin birth or the resurrection. I don’t care HOW those things took place. I just care that they DID take place. God became incarnate, lived among humankind, died and was resurrected. That’s what matters.
If you take a broad view of the Old Testament, it is both the story of the people of Israel’s relationship with God and of humanity’s inability to treat each other with respect and dignity. Some of the books do relate to the codes that governed the priests in the Temple and what lay people had to do, i.e., what we would probably call keeping a Kosher household. The main point that comes from the Old Testament is that we are to love God and love one another. Within that is the express direction to care for the marginalized in society as well as the stranger and alien residents in the land. It isn’t a handbook for being human. If you read closely, there are contradictions and portions that do not make sense.
The New Testament is a wonderful narration about the Incarnation, Jesus’ teachings (and our resistance to them), civil disobedience, both passive and active, and the redemption of humankind. It is also the story of churches trying to survive as very much minority groups in various places and the assistance given them by Paul and others. Life was quite different in Rome than in Galatia or other towns and the challenges each faced were different and needed different types of solutions. The ultimate teaching of the New Testament is a respect for the dignity of every human being, by seeking and serving Christ in all, loving neighbor as self.
The cultural and physical context of Scripture is a world where there were true pagan religions and idol worship, there was no electricity or form of refrigeration, the only forms of travel were on one’s own feet or those of a beast of burden. Slavery was an accepted way of life. There were strong caste systems in place. Cities and towns were vastly different than they are now. Water was carried from a well with few exceptions. Human waste was disposed of in ways that would not be acceptable to us now. Simply put, we can gain broad direction and information but the direct cultural transfer, if you will, is not possible.
I have always found the “mission statement” for us near the 25th chapter of Matthew’s account of the Gospel. It is the part where Jesus tells the crowd He was hungry and they gave him no food, thirsty and they gave him no water, naked and they did not clothe him, sick and imprisoned and they did not visit. When they asked when all of this took place, Jesus responds that when they failed to provide for the least among them they failed to provide for him. Those words indict us all, especially when we spend far more time arguing over jots and tittles than we do engaging in ministry with the children of God.
Again, a long response, but you asked an important question that doesn’t have a short answer if it is to be a genuine response.
As Christians, I think we have two choices: We can live like we were Jews under the law of Moses and try to spell out exactly what is right and what is wrong and fail miserably. Or we can live like people who have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ and forgiven our sins. (Not that we will not sin again and need forgiveness again….we are still human and make mistakes.) Redemption places our mortal souls in our own hands. We work to determine how best we can serve God through Jesus Christ and his teachings. The answers are not all spelled out for us. We worship God with our minds, the minds that God gave us for reason and skill. We do the best we can and live in the hope and faith that God will always be merciful, even to us.
Thanks AMP and good point.