My plans to complete this series have been delayed by a medical emergency in our extended family, which has necessitated an unexpected trip out of state and a lot of time in prayer and family decision-making. It was always going to be a difficult topic to write on. These events in a way bring the difficulty into fuller relief. It is difficult in that it deals with a great, joyful, and hopeful topic that we have sadly failed to fully latch onto. My goal in the end, though, is to encourage and bring hope.
Hope is indeed the topic. At the end of part 2a, I asked,
What is our message of hope to gays and lesbians, as we tell them they must never fulfill their sexual desires?… The hope I would suggest we offer instead is that God can satisfy regardless. This is a true word, and we can speak it believably, but we have considerable work to do first. Do we ourselves know that God can satisfy us when our desires go unmet? We’ll have trouble saying it credibly unless we have tested and discovered how deeply God will work it out in our own faith experience.
Sex is—have you noticed?—a big deal in our world. It seems to be a truism that every person has a right to whatever sexual experience they want, and that putting limits on sexual practice is somehow offensive to humanity. Maybe Freud is to blame for sexualizing our world and persuading our culture that sexual “repression” was a form of neuroticism. While the theistic consensus regarding morality was eroding away, the Freudian imperative arose to take its place as our source for behavioral norms. This—along with the obvious pleasures of sex—added up to making sexual expression a virtual imperative while removing most limits on what form that expression might take.
Psychologists and psychiatrists who follow Freud’s sexual theories have become hard to find. The Freudian framework has been discredited by its utter lack of scientific testability and its poor clinical effectiveness. Yet individuals in Western culture still think they must express their sexuality. So when we Christians tell homosexuals they cannot unite in same-sex “marriage,” and that they should not fulfill their sexual preferences, we’re not just being spoil-sports. It’s as if we’re saying they must deny their own person-ness and stunt their own humanity. They can’t join in the game everyone (and if you look at popular media, we mean everyone) else gets to play.
Thus my question: what message of hope do we have to offer gays and lesbians? As I said last time, “reparative therapy” is no message of hope, whether it is legitimate or not, for it lacks the believability that hope requires. I cannot say to my gay friend, “try this therapy and it will work for you.” Even the most positive accounts of reparative therapy are nowhere near that optimistic.
The hope we can offer the GLBT man or woman instead is the satisfactions of God himself. Psalm 16 speaks of the delights of God, ending with
You make known to me the path of life;
in your presence there is fullness of joy;
at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.
Life, joy, pleasures forevermore—this is indeed a great, exciting, wonderful life! Notice that the pleasures of God are not just “spiritual;” they come to us in many forms, including (Psalm 16:3) other people:
As for the saints in the land, they are the excellent ones,
in whom is all my delight.
Jesus demonstrated joy (Luke 10:21, John 3:29), taught joy (Matthew 5:12, Luke 10:17-20, prayed for joy (John 17:13), gave reason for joy (Matthew 28:8, Luke 24:41, John 16:22). All of life is available for us to find joy. This is the message of the most misunderstood book of the Bible (in my opinion), Ecclesiastes, whose theme can be summarized as, There is much pleasure in earth that we may justly pursue, yet ultimate delight is in God himself.
The Bible never made joy depend on sex. It never made joy depend on good health, either one’s own or one’s loved one’s, as we are being reminded this week in my own extended family. Joy doesn’t depend on possessions or prestige, either. It’s deeper and less world-dependent than that; so much so that to pursue things like these as ends in themselves, apart from God, is to twist and spoil them. The joys God provides, he gives in his own name and according to his own design; which is good in all senses of the word.
But this too needs a believability check. I said this was always going to be a hard topic to write on, and it’s reaching that difficult stage right now. I am asking myself, do I really believe that God can satisfy me fully? When I’m faced with temptation, do I know that there is something better for me if I say yes to the grace of God and no to the counterfeit pleasure of sin? How consistently do I act that way? I am not entirely pleased with the answer I must give to my own question.
I am asking, too, how well does the church demonstrate this? I have counseled (and as HR director, ultimately discharged from service) a Christian missionary who said his wife was no longer “meeting his needs,” so he was going to another woman for that. Dissatisfactions of this sort are denials of God’s satisfying nature, and are largely responsible for the culture of divorce that afflicts the church nearly as much as the world.
God can satisfy. God does satisfy. Both of those are true statements, if anything at all is true in Christianity (as I am quite convinced it is); for God is a God of real love. I can demonstrate their truth propositionally, and I have experienced them existentially. (Though I am not entirely pleased with my own answer to the questions I have raised for myself, still I am very well satisfied in what God has done when I have given him the chance.) The church at large can say the same. How consistently, though, have we demonstrated their truth to the watching world? To those who cannot find fulfillment in genuine marriage we are saying, “remain celibate.” We’re telling them to leave some very significant desires and felt needs forever unfulfilled. How clearly have we shown them that we too know how to be satisfied in God, regardless of our own unfulfilled preferences and desires?
I have seen communities, fellowships, and missional groupings where the members really do demonstrate joy in Christ, whatever their circumstances. I have seen it in Korea, in Cuba (I was privileged to visit there once several years ago), in Africa, and yes, also in the United States. Christian joy is real. I only wish it were more widespread and pervasive. For then I am quite sure we could speak hope more clearly, more assuredly, and more believably to our homosexual friends and family: you can be who you are, experience the fulness of joy in Christ, and do it while living in his full righteousness.
All of us live with unfulfilled wants, desires, and even (in some sense) needs. All of us have a real need to know, both by proposition and by experience, that God can satisfy, and that he does. To treat one another as fully human is to invite our fellow human beings into a fully human and joyful relationship with God. We’ll be much more free to do that, and we can be much more winsome and persuasive in it, if we have experienced God’s deep satisfactions for ourselves.
Highly recommended further reading: John Piper, the master of this topic, on the web and in print.
Part of a series:
Part 1
Part 2a
Also posted at Thinking Christian
December 7th, 2010 | 9:28 pm | #1
“I am asking myself, do I really believe that God can satisfy me fully? When I’m faced with temptation, do I know that there is something better for me if I say yes to the grace of God and no to the counterfeit pleasure of sin?”
I have a very good Christian friend who’s almost 50 and he’s never been married and celibate. In the past the yearning to be married was strong and is still there, and he’s been faithful as a Christian and to Biblical sexual commandments. He told me that he’s complete in Christ, and joyful as a Christian whether he ever marries or not.
December 7th, 2010 | 9:31 pm | #2
That’s exactly the message of hope that’s needed. Those of us who are married have different kinds of unfulfilled desires or “needs,” and we too can discover and share how God satisfies.
December 7th, 2010 | 10:38 pm | #3
Tom,
Thank you again. I too was drawn to the following passage from your blog:
“I am asking myself, do I really believe that God can satisfy me fully? When I’m faced with temptation, do I know that there is something better for me if I say yes to the grace of God and no to the counterfeit pleasure of sin?”
For what its worth, this redeemed sinner has found the following to be helpful for me in facing temptation, particularly sexual temptation:
“Holy Spirit, comforter of my soul, You have promised that You will never leave nor forsake me, deliver me from this <>, strengthen my faith and comfort my soul. I ask this in the name of Jesus my Redeemer. Amen.”
Peace be on you.
December 7th, 2010 | 11:05 pm | #4
Many Christian denominations, have concluded that gays/lesbians, as long as they’re married, and monogomous, can be wholeheartedly welcome in the Christian community, without the need to feel as if their sex lives are “sinful”. In other words they have the complete respect, given to them, that God wants us to give them.
December 7th, 2010 | 11:55 pm | #5
Tom, sexuality is anormal part of life among adults. The reason, or one of the reasons people object, to you, and other when you claim that they (gays/lesbians) cannot have a normal sex life, (i.e., they must remain celebate) is there’s no reasonable basis for it, as long as it’s within a monogomous relationship (it can’t be marriage, because you, and your political allies advocacy of denying them the right to marriage, has been persuasive, despite its lack of a philosophically persuasive foundation).
Despite our problems, Tom, I really do believe that you want the best for gays/lesbians, it’s just that your advocacy of celebacy, is entirely wrong. You cannot find a basis for it in the bible.
A slight disagreement. Freud has not been totally discredited. In fact, some of his views on the unconscious, have received empirical support from modern neurobiology.
December 8th, 2010 | 12:09 am | #6
Bret,
So is it your position that celibacy is never an appropriate way for an adult to deal with his or her sexuality? That it is in essence an unnatural and unnecessary state? And that to assert a Biblical basis for celibacy is to posit a fabrication?
If that is the case, what then do you make of Jesus words in Matthew 19:11-12? Or Paul’s in 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 (particularly in the latter half of the chapter)?
December 8th, 2010 | 12:18 am | #7
Bret:
I can find a basis for it in the Bible. I’m not going to argue the point further with you (see comment 114 here).
December 8th, 2010 | 12:25 am | #8
That’s your right, Tom.
December 8th, 2010 | 12:29 am | #9
david c. I think that celebacy, should be a choice. No one should have it forced on them. I believe that gays/lesbians/transexuals/bisexuals, are as important, and as good as you and me. (I’m not saying you think the reverse!). And, considering that these traits are, for the most part, unchosen, its unfair to place a restriction on their sexual activity, as long as it’s within the context of a marriage, or lifelong committment. I believe that Jesus would agree to this.
December 8th, 2010 | 12:37 am | #10
david c. I believe that celebacy is a respectful position, for those who choose it. I don’t believ that the Church should require it of others, as long as they’re monogomous, and in a life time committed relationship.
December 8th, 2010 | 12:59 am | #11
Bret,
I am confused. The church (and the synagogue before it) has had throughout its history a clear and relatively easily discerned sexual ethic. In shorthand it is: “fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness”. That is the basic Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. It is one in fact that you affirm but wish to expand to include gay partners. So far I can see the argument and while I disagree with it, I can at least see where you are coming from on the issue of marriage.
But you seem to be saying something more. You seem to be saying that the right of marriage should be extended to anyone Christian or non, gay or straight, who is willing to commit to a lifelong, monogamous, relationship? And here is where you lose me, because your argument has been that the insistence that marriage is to be between one male and one female is a “religious” argument that cannot be legitimately applied to all. But surely you can see Bret, that both monogamy and lifetime commitment are in the same category as “between one man and one woman”? That is, they are both specifically and peculiarly religious rationales? What is the basis for not applying one “religious” test but applying two others?
December 8th, 2010 | 12:19 pm | #12
“So when we Christians tell homosexuals they cannot unite in same-sex “marriage,” and that they should not fulfill their sexual preferences, we’re not just being spoil-sports. It’s as if we’re saying they must deny their own person-ness and stunt their own humanity. They can’t join in the game everyone (and if you look at popular media, we mean everyone) else gets to play.”
This implies that all sexual preferences are fine, which I would say is Biblically unfounded.
But moreover, I don’t see how saying that homosexuality is wrong is a denying of the humanity of those who practice it. Imagine for a moment a compulsive gambler (I’m not equating gamblers to homosexuals, I’m merely using the gambler to illustrate a point). That person is habitually irresponsible with her money, which Christ teaches against (especially considering the New Testament focus on the importance of dealing with wealth). However, by calling her out on the sin of gambling, I am not saying she is “less than human,” even though she is habitually committing that sin. I am merely stating she is committing a sinful act. Noticing sin in other’s lives does not tarnish their humanity.
One shouldn’t define their existence based primarily upon their sexual preferences, especially if one is a Christian. As Christians, we are called primarily to define ourselves as followers of Christ. We are to live His incarnational ethic. Because we are called to lead Christocentric lives, we should look to Christ as a model first and foremost; our sexual preferences shouldn’t be our defining trait.
“Many Christian denominations, have concluded that gays/lesbians, as long as they’re married, and monogomous, can be wholeheartedly welcome in the Christian community, without the need to feel as if their sex lives are “sinful”. In other words they have the complete respect, given to them, that God wants us to give them.
This assumes that “as long as one is monogamous, then any relationship is morally permissible,” which I don’t see as Biblical. But another issue to me seems suspect; the hidden premise here is that if we don’t accept homosexuality as permissible, then that somehow is tantamount to allowing Christians to not give homosexuals respect. I don’t see that as Biblical either. I believe that whether one is “in” or “out” of the Christian community, respect should be given. Always. That is the model that Christ set for us, and that is the model we are to live.
December 8th, 2010 | 2:35 pm | #13
And, considering that these traits are, for the most part, unchosen, its unfair to place a restriction on their sexual activity, as long as it’s within the context of a marriage, or lifelong committment. I believe that Jesus would agree to this.
So if one has feelings that they did not choose, then they are not morally culpable if they choose to act on them? That certainly seems suspect to me. “Feelings” are not inherently good. Moreover, while I will acknowledge that homosexual feelings are not a choice (because, of course, feelings aren’t rational), there is no science to suggest that homosexuality is a genetic trait; even scientists who support homosexuality have failed to come up with the “gay gene,” as it’s called.
Moreover, what do you make of Christ’s disciples who say that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10)? Do you think that the Apostles were perverting Christ’s teachings, or did they merely misunderstand him?
December 8th, 2010 | 5:47 pm | #14
Bret, you wrote early this morning, “I believe that Jesus would agree to this.”
On an earlier thread you said that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Now (ignoring for now his contrary declaration in Mark 10 that marriage from the beginning has been between a man and a woman), what evidence do you have for this assertion of yours? None. You said it yourself. This homosexuality-approving “Jesus” of whom you now speak, who has no basis in any historical record, has every appearance of being your own made up version.
The world is full of “Jesuses” who would do whatever those who invent them think their “Jesus” ought to do. There is the Marxist “Jesus,” the feminist “Jesus,” the social-justice “Jesus,” the milquetoast “Jesus,” and on and on. If you want a Messiah-figure to support your cause, all you have to do is ignore the actual historical record, and voilá! there’s a “Jesus” for you that suits your own bidding.
The really lovely thing about these made-up “Jesuses” is that somehow they’re supposed to have some normative pull on the rest of us. After all, if “Jesus” is our authority, then everybody ought to pay attention, right? So we can manufacture an authority for our cause right out of thin air—a religious authority, no less.
To which I say no. If you have no evidence that Jesus would support homosexual “marriage,” sodomy, or lesbian sex, then you have no evidence. You have a self-serving fantasy instead. And fantasies with Jesus’s name attached to them have no more normative authority than fantasies with the Mad Hatter’s name on them. Less, in fact (I would think), considering how they use his name in vain.
There is a Jesus who is recorded in the historical documents, a real one with whom we have to do.
December 8th, 2010 | 6:03 pm | #15
#13 by Tom Gilson is a wonderful example of Titus 1:9.
“He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.“
December 8th, 2010 | 6:47 pm | #16
@ TUAD- Agreed. This is an issue where I feel that people often ignore the injunctions of Scripture.
December 8th, 2010 | 8:36 pm | #17
david c: I see where you’re coming from, and you state your case intelligently. But we have to distinguish between the secular, and religious aspects of marriage. We all, or most of us, accept that, living in a free society, where one can chose to be religious or not, is best for humanity. We also believe that marriage, has many benefits for society, in general, not just for religious people. it seems to be best for raising families, and for having the most meaningful relationships, emotionally, sexually, financially, and so forth, for everyone who’s married, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, all benefit from being married. Nonreligious people, accept all of the above mentioned benefits, but, of course do not accept that marriage has any supernatural components, that religious people accept.
But even though nonreligious people deny the supernatural aspects of marriage (along, of course, with every other supernatural aspect), no one, at least I haven’t seen anyone, denies that they still have marriages.
Certainly, religious people can acknowledge that nonreligious people can be married. Also, we can acknowledge that gays/lesbians, who are nonreligious can be married. If we allow the former, what basis would we have for denying the latter?
Also, I agree with you, in general, the religious groups can have additional requirements, for a marriage to be considered a “Christian marriage”, or a Jewish marriage”, and so forth. And I would argue, that the Christian tradition has frowned on sexual promiscuity, and rightly so, since it’s not conducive to happiness. So, in order for a marriage to be Christian, whether straight or gay, the couple should be monogomous, and it should be intended to be lifelong.
some respond, well, if you open the door to gay marriages, what’s, logically, to stop one from marrying one’s sister, or animals, or poligamy, etc. the reason these other things (incest, beastiality, poligamy, etc.) are not appropriate, is they’re harmful psychologically to the participants, due to boundry breaches in relationships, and, lack of proper sexual development and growth, among other problems, animals cannot give consent, the person having the relationship with the animal, fails to have normal sexual development, as well as social development, etc.
These problems don’t arise in gay relationships, as long as monogomy is maintained.
In a nutshell, marriage is a general term, that applies to religious and nonreligious alike. Christians, and all other religions, should be allowed to have additional restrictions, in order to call it a religious marriage, (such as lifelong monogomy) but, cannot extent their “juristiction” if you will, to marriage in general, since we live in a pluralistic society.
December 8th, 2010 | 8:50 pm | #18
Tom thanks for your intelligent, and insightful comments. You’re right, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, so it’s entirely legitimate, for you to wonder where I derive my claim that Jesus would be for gay marriages.
I base it, on what I perceive to be Jesus’s personality traits, found in the New Testament. He’s open to women, and considers them equal, which is remarkable, considering the rampant misogany, in first century roman society. He goes against legalistic interpretations of the Torah, and is compassionate towards those who have sinned, and condemns stoning.
True, this is not proof, that He would approve of homosexual marriage, but based on these other traits, among many other wonderful traits, that He manifested, I believe, I have faith, that He would accept fully the marriage of homosexuals, who could not change (that is, they could not become heterosexual), and were committed, as committed as a heterosexual couple, to a lifelong relationship.
Tom, you make a good point about all of the “Jesuses” that have existed. They do seem to reflect the people who advocate them, rather than the real Jesus. But I think one reason all of these ficticious Jesuses emerge, is because the real Jesus was so admirable, that people, however misguided they may be, went to attach Him to their pet causes.
But I don’t believe that I fall into that category. I believe, as mentioned above, that the Jesus who would approve of monogomous, life long relationships, marriages, between homosexuals, is a reasonable extrapolation of the traits displayed by Jesus, as recored in the New Testament.
December 8th, 2010 | 8:52 pm | #19
I apologize for my terrible spelling, in the last comments. That’s what happens when one rushes!
December 8th, 2010 | 10:04 pm | #20
Bret,
The issue I see with your argument is that you ignore what the Bible actually says about sexuality. There are several passages where a strong case can be made that the Bible prohibits homosexual practice. For example, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Paul includes “arsenokoites” in a list of sins, and given that he was a Jew heavily steeped in the OT law and the word originates with him, the most reasonable explanation is that he took it from the Greek wording of Leviticus 18:22 in the Septuagint. There seems to be a strong indication from context that he is condemning at least all male homosexual practice, since that is the sense of the Leviticus passage and no exception for monogamous relationships seems possible. When combined with an analysis of the other places where the Bible talks about homosexuality in particular, we get a very strong idea that homosexual practice is always condemned.
Furthermore, as Tom has pointed out, the Bible’s larger witness to sexuality always assumes heterosexuality. When Jesus discusses divorce, for example, he grounds the “twoness” of marriage in the twoness of the sexes. Aside from polygamy in the Old Testament (where a strong case can be made that God was accounting for the hardness of hearts as with divorce, especially in light of the command for kings not to have many wives even in the OT and such), the only exception to this pattern of marriage between one man and one woman seems to be celibacy. No example of a monogamous homosexual relationship approved by God exists in the Bible, at least which stands up to scrutiny. It does seem odd that if God intentionally made a portion of the population gay (as opposed to the Fall causing this to happen) and blessed their monogamous relationships, he wouldn’t provide even one clear example to follow.
I am fully aware that people affirming homosexual practice have responses to all the arguments I’ve made and disagree with many of my statements. However, whenever I’ve studied their arguments, I haven’t found them to be convincing, especially in light of conservative counter-responses. So I’ve come to the conclusion that one can believe in the authority of Scripture (that whatever the Bible actually affirms and was intended to say is true – a weaker claim than inerrancy), one can have a sound view of the relevant scriptures, or one can accept the morality of monogamous homosexual relationships, or any two of the three, but not all three at the same time.
In the comments on another post you suggested I consider that I may be wrong and that God may accept monogamous homosexual relationships. The thing is, I’ve done that, and even as someone with a vested interest in believing there can be acceptable homosexual relationships (as a same-sex attracted person myself, with close friends who are only attracted to their own sex and often find celibacy difficult), I haven’t been convinced.
I don’t want to use this thread to get into an in-depth debate the theology (as I really don’t have the time, it would take a lot of space, and that isn’t really what Tom wants to do with this thread). However, I am curious as to how you generally deal with the Bible’s stance on homosexuality. Do you believe it is simply wrong about these things, because it was written by prejudiced men (rejecting the “authority of Scripture” leg above)? Or do you believe that the conservative view misinterprets Scripture (rejecting my contention that it is “a sound view” of the passages)? Have you thought about it much, and if not, why not?
December 8th, 2010 | 10:20 pm | #21
Neo, thanks your well thought out comments.
Clearly, the bible has, generally two approaches to homosexuality, that are hard to reconcile logically. I’m not saying they cannot, but it seems hard to do so. The “Old Testament”, advocates stoning homosexuals (among others) to death. The New Testament does not, although it seems to condemn it. Christians, of course, believe that the New Testament supercedes the old.
Paul is talking about male homosexual activity. Considering the fact that, homosexual men, and heterosexual men, have a propensity for promiscuous sex, and homosexual women and heterosexual women do not, it’s at least reasonable to believe that Paul was referring to promiscuous sex, among men. He isn’t condemning lesbians.
You’re right, that there is no explicit statement, anywhere in the bible where homosexual activity, within the context of a monogomous relationaship is affirmed, but there no explicit condemnation for monogomous homosexual relationships either, only promiscuous ones.
December 8th, 2010 | 10:40 pm | #22
Bret,
Thanks for the response. It sounds, then, like you believe the conservative interpretation (that homosexual practice is condemned unconditionally) is incorrect; it does not represent what the Bible is intended to communicate. I could respond to your particular arguments (they’re not new to me – I’ve read quite a few debates and articles on this subject) but as I said before I don’t want to get into an in-depth discussion. Perhaps at some point when I have more time on my hands and the topic is relevant to a post topic we can discuss this again and we could have a good discussion.
I guess I’ll ask a hypothetical, though, just to better understand where you’re coming from. If you were convinced to your satisfaction that the Bible did indeed condemn all homosexual behavior unconditionally, what would your response be? Would you try to help your homosexual friends live in accordance with Scripture (as appropriate, by which I mean the same way you would with anyone else you believed to be acting immorally or facing temptation)? Would you believe that this were an error in Scripture? (I ask partially because this is the situation I’m in.)
December 8th, 2010 | 10:41 pm | #23
“Christians, of course, believe that the New Testament supercedes the old.”
I wouldn’t say “supersedes” but “fulfills.” The reason why we don’t stone homosexuals is because Christ absorbed the punishments that would ordinarily be inflicted upon humanity absent His sacrifice. Christ fulfills the law by vicariously atoning for our sins. I hope I didn’t misconstrue what you meant by “supersedes,” but to me it connotes something different than how you used it. I don’t want to misconstrue any of your argument, so correct me if I’m wrong here.
“I base it, on what I perceive to be Jesus’s personality traits, found in the New Testament. He’s open to women, and considers them equal, which is remarkable, considering the rampant misogany, in first century roman society. He goes against legalistic interpretations of the Torah, and is compassionate towards those who have sinned, and condemns stoning.
True, this is not proof, that He would approve of homosexual marriage, but based on these other traits, among many other wonderful traits, that He manifested, I believe, I have faith, that He would accept fully the marriage of homosexuals, who could not change (that is, they could not become heterosexual), and were committed, as committed as a heterosexual couple, to a lifelong relationship.”
This is a pretty big logical leap to assume that Christ assumes that homosexual marriage is permissible. So large of an assumption that it, to me, does not overpower the multiple Biblical injunctions to not practice homosexuality. I don’t really see how “practicing homosexuality” only means promiscuous sex. Because people in the Bible did “practice homosexuality,” it is likely to conclude that those men would have wanted to remain with the person they were practicing homosexuality with; I really doubt that people back then only committed homosexual acts in a promiscuous way. Yet, Christ does not make the distinction that, “so long as you’re committed, homosexuality is okay.” Anytime homosexuality is mentioned it is largely condemned.
Furthermore, other posters on this blog have correctly noted that the language of love and marriage in the Bible is exclusively male and female, and there’s a reason for that: marriage is a creation ordinance that was divinely commanded by God from the beginning of time. The injunction to monogamy is not universally applied; one must first understand Christ’s ethic of marriage before understanding Christ’s ethic of monogamy, precisely because Christ’s ethic of how marriage functions determines who is to be monogamous.
But finally, I’m confused; you say that how Christ treated women (which, I agree was revolutionary given the misogyny of the time) doesn’t prove your case, yet you use that to base part of your justification for homosexuality. I agree with you that it doesn’t do anything to prove the justness of homosexuality, precisely because the two aren’t analogous, but I’m curious if you actually think it doesn’t justify your position or if it does.
December 9th, 2010 | 2:31 am | #24
Neo: Thanks, for your comments. I commend you on your willingness to adhere to principles, which cannot be easy.You deserve tremendous credit for this.
I’ve been thinking how to respond to your hypothetical. I’m unsure how I can, in a satisfactory way. If I knew, without any doubt, that God condemned all homosexual activity, yes, I would do all I could to help homosexuals live a celebete life. But I don’t believe that. As far as the Bible is concerned, it’s really tricky, to interpret it correctly. It’s full of metaphors, and condemnations, that may be for particular circumstances (stoning in leviticus, for example), that we should be hesitant to apply to our circumstances. I know that this is ambiguous, and therefore unsatisfactory, for those who want clear cut answers, for today.
But we see Paul claiming that women should submit to their husbands, and shouldn’t teach in church. few people interpret this literally. But if we can interpret this nonliterally, or ignore it all together, perhaps it’s not incoherent to nonliterally, or totally ignore the condemnations against homosexual behavior? I’m not at all suggesting that one blithely ignore biblical passages that are inconvienient, or not to our liking, but we need to look at the intent of the biblical author, his historical context, and interpret it as intelligently as we can. One could infer (correctly, I might add) that I don’t believe, that God directly controlled the authors of the bible. I believe that it’s much more complicated than that. I think that the biblical authors were human, with all the failings that comes with being human. They were worthy, holy people, and God chose to inspire them. But, and I know this will, perhaps, put me in the doghouse, with some who comment here, but I don’t believe that every word written by the biblical authors is directly from God. That would necessitate, I believe the taking of their free will, or imply that they’re perfect, and only God is perfect. I don’t mean to get too far off topic, here.
December 9th, 2010 | 2:47 am | #25
Nikolai Volk: Thanks for your important comments.
As I mentioned above, to Neo, Paul asserted things, that we don’t adhere to now. But why not? I think we recognize that, for all his wisdom, Paul certainly got things wrong from time to time. We see passages against long hair, dancing, etc., etc. If we can choose to ignore these passages, why not the harsher condemnations against homosexuality?
Another point: Does it say, anywhere in the Bible, that, as long as a homosexual lives a celebete life, he/she can be a faithful Christian? Perhaps someone can find this passage, but I’m unable to. Does it state, anywhere in the bible, that, as long as one doesn’t act on one’s homosexual desires, one is not sinful? I cannot find it. Perhaps, again, someone else can. Maybe the bible is harsher than we think: one could argue that it condemns homosexuals? I don’t know of anyone who advances this position (thank God!) but, maybe it’s the “accurate” one, if the bible nowhere makes the distinction between being a homosexual and acting on it?
If so, aren’t the folks advocating that homosexuals can be good Christians, as long as they don’t act on their impulses, doing the same general thing I’m doing, which is making an extrabiblical extrapolation, that’s not in the bible? Is it that some conclusions, not found in the bible (the conservative one, stating homosexuals can be good Christians as long as they don’t act on their urges), are permissible, but others, such as mine, (that homosexuals can be good Christians as long as their homosexual activity is confined exclusively in marriage, or monogamy), are not?
But if so, how is this consitent with the notion that one’s views on this, must be found in the Bible?
December 9th, 2010 | 3:06 am | #26
Nikolia Volk: I certainly cannot claim that Jesus would have, with absolute certainty, accepted homosexual marriages, but it seems congruent with His nature. Since Jesus nowhere mentions homosexuality, we cannot know for sure.
I’m certainly not claiming that my claim that Jesus would fully support homosexual marriages, is a logically valid syllogism. Due to the uncertainty of the historical record (principally Jesus not mentioning it, or at least the Gospel authors not recording it), one is left with, at best, arguments that make a more or less, plausible case.
Jesus, never minced words, never shrink from telling people of their sins. Therefore, if homosexuality was so terrible, it’s reasonable to believe that He would have mentioned it. I’m in no way claiming that this is sufficient evidence for the notion that Jesus accepted homosexuality, but it could be one piece of a puzzle, and the “whole puzzle” could represent His support for homosexuality. Another issue is His mercy. It seems incongruent with His mercy, for there to exist a condition, that a person has, through no fault of their own, namely homosexuality, and for Jesus to condemn it.
Also, Nikolai, you point out that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. It’s congruent with this, to believe that maybe His views on homosexuality, are part of the fulfilling. That is, just as stoning someone is no longer acceptable, perhaps condemnation of homosexuals, is no longer acceptable? This would be consistent with His not condemning homosexuality, in the Gospel accounts. This is, of course, highly speculative, but plausible, and requires further investigation.
December 9th, 2010 | 4:03 am | #27
“We see passages against long hair, dancing, etc., etc. If we can choose to ignore these passages, why not the harsher condemnations against homosexuality?”
The reason we can still look to the passages condemning homosexuals is precisely how you said it: because Paul was serious about homosexuality, as opposed to how long one could grow his hair, it is quite clear that homosexuality is something that Paul felt seriously went against the Christian order. Keep in mind that Paul never said, “Those who doth grow their hair inappropriately should not receive the kingdom of heaven.” However, he did say “Those who practice homosexuality shall not receive the kingdom of heaven.” That is a very serious statement, and it dispels any idea that homosexuality was only wrong for that culture at that time. Moreover, homosexuality, whenever brought up in the Bible, is universally condemned. The laws about hair growth and other things were unique civil laws (not normative ethical principles) of the Old Testament.
“Does it say, anywhere in the Bible, that, as long as a homosexual lives a celebete life, he/she can be a faithful Christian? Perhaps someone can find this passage, but I’m unable to. Does it state, anywhere in the bible, that, as long as one doesn’t act on one’s homosexual desires, one is not sinful?”
This implies that one having homosexual desires means that she must be defined by that, which I don’t think is true. But to answer your question: yes, that is what the Bible, in effect, says. Obviously there is no verse that says, “if you are a homosexual and are celibate, it is okay.” It’s not that clear. However, because practicing homosexuality is a sin, not acting upon it is the just thing to do. Logically, if something is sinful, not doing it is a good thing to do. Christ would not hold someone blameworthy for both doing and not doing the same thing. Obviously one cannot control their feelings; after all, humanity was corrupted after the fall. That encompasses our wills as well. However, the point of Christ’s redeeming ethic is that He took the penalty for our corrupt souls. But even if celibacy seemed ethically suspect, certainly you wouldn’t just say, “Oh well, just commit homosexual acts anyways.” You wouldn’t err on the side of sin.
“If so, aren’t the folks advocating that homosexuals can be good Christians, as long as they don’t act on their impulses, doing the same general thing I’m doing, which is making an extrabiblical extrapolation, that’s not in the bible? “
That’s the problem. I’m saying that the extrabiblical extrapolation is bad because it ignores the scripture that states the opposite. Moreover, saying “can’t homosexuals be good Christians” assumes that homosexuality is compatible with the Christian framework (begging the question).
“Jesus, never minced words, never shrink from telling people of their sins. Therefore, if homosexuality was so terrible, it’s reasonable to believe that He would have mentioned it”
First of all, while I believe homosexuality is a sin, I believe many Christians in our culture have equated it to blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which is wrong, insofar as the latter sin is the worst sin one can commit. However, as you say yourself, this is an argument from ignorance, and is hardly worth considering. If Christ said nothing about homosexuality, one wouldn’t assume that it is permissible, especially given the other Biblical context surrounding Christ. Even if Christ Himself said nothing specifically about homosexuality, His apostles, men who were directly taught by Him, certainly did, and they did not cast it in a permissible light.
“That is, just as stoning someone is no longer acceptable, perhaps condemnation of homosexuals, is no longer acceptable?”
I see what you are trying to do here, however, the two are disanalogous. Stoning someone for sin is a punishment; homosexuality is a sin. Christ did not “fulfill” sin; He fulfilled the punishment for our sin. Stoning someone for sin is wrong because Christ absorbed the violence of many punishments on the cross. However, He did not change the normative nature of certain sins on the cross. For instance, if this were true, that Christ absorbed the sinfulness of homosexuality on the cross, then any Old Testament sin would have been equally absorbed by Christ, which would open the gateway to a lot of bad stuff.
December 9th, 2010 | 4:29 am | #28
Nikolai Volk: Thanks, for your response.
You seem to be arguing that some claims Paul made, can be safely ignored (long hair, dancing), I’m assuming even though you didn’t specifically address these examples, that Paul’s statements, regarding women, can be ignored too?
From a common sense standpoint, you’re certainly right, that condemning long hair, etc., can be ignored. But, if it’s stated in the bible, that long hair, dancing, are not permissible, and you cannot find another passage that overrides that passage, and you believe that the Bible’s word, is completely authorative, I don’t see how you can coherently ignore the condemnation of long hair, dancing, etc.
That is, you’re using a nonbiblical source, to supercede the biblical claim. how’s this consistent? True, long hair, and dancing are not considered as serious as homosexual activity, by Paul, and other biblical authors, but that’s irrelevant. What’s relevant, is that they (long hair, dancing)are condemned, and I just don’t see, how you can, coherently, ignore them, if you accept the biblical word as completely authorative.
I wasn’t claiming that Jesus’s silence, concerning homosexuality, was conclusive evidence in favor of the view that homosexual behavior is not a sin. but it could be a piece of evidence, that, if combined with other sources of evidence, would be sufficient to accept that Jesus accepted the legitimacy of homosexual relations. but, by itself, you’re right, of course, it’s not enough.
Consider an analogy: a murder was committed in a house. They find person “x”’s fingerprint in the house. This is suggestive, that person “x”, is the killer. But, of course, it could be entirely innocently explained, such as, person “x” is afriend, who recently visited the person, before he was murdered, and has nothing to do with the murder. Now, the finger print, (on a door knob, say,) could be used, in conjunction, with other forms of evidence (such as witnesses seeing person “x”) enter the house, but no piece of evidnce, in isolation, would be enough for conviction. Similarly, with Jesus not saying anything about homosexuality.
December 9th, 2010 | 4:40 am | #29
Nikolai: you seem also to be implying, that Jesus’s apostles were infallible in their statements. I’m unsure of that. They were human, like you and me (and as I’m sure you know, as recorded, in the New Testament, flawed, although, very holy men), and could have made mistakes, as you seem to concede, with your not accepting the statements against long hair, and the like.
another issue: you, correctly, state that Paul asserted, that, any homosexual, who did not repent, would not make it to heaven. This seems to imply that we “earn” our way to heaven. It seems normative, at least in evangelical circles, that, Christ’s sacrifice, and our acceptance of it, are suffiecient to save us, not what we do, or fail to do. One could have a homosexual, who engages in homosexual activity, and accepts Christ as his savior, but doesn’t repent of his homosexual activity. Are you saying that he is still unsaved, and if so, how is this congruent, with the notion, that one is saved purely by accepting Christ as one’s savior?
December 9th, 2010 | 9:44 am | #30
The notion that one is a Christian “purely by accepting Christ” is true, provided that one understands what it means to accept Christ. To receive and believe in him (John 1:12) is to recognize who he is and why we need him: that he is God and we are not, in short; and that apart from Christ’s redemptive sacrifice for us, we will surely suffer the consequences of thinking we are in charge of our own selves. Many, many things flow from this. Some of them are logical implications. If he is God and we are not, then he is in charge and we are not. God understands our best way of living, for he designed us, and we did not; and of course he loves us so to live according to his design is good. So to accept Christ is to assent to follow his ways. Otherwise it is like saying, “I accept Christ, I believe that he is God and he is good, but I won’t follow his ways since I don’t think he is the good God over my life. I accept him, but not that aspect of him.” That would be self-contradictory nonsense.
But it is not just this. When we accept and receive Christ, it is Christ whom we receive, actually indwelling us to direct our ways and to give us power to live in holiness. It is a deep and personal relationship, so there is also that relational incentive to live in congruence with God’s ways.
For these reasons, repentance is always involved in coming to Christ. No one ever repents perfectly, since we’re still humans living in a still-fallen world. But there is always a mental, volitional, and behavioral move toward following Christ’s ways when one is in Christ (“in Christ” is an alternate NT term for being a Christian).
So the person who says he or she has accepted Christ but evidences no changed life as a result has very likely not really accepted Christ.
December 9th, 2010 | 10:06 am | #31
Nikolai, I just noticed your 12:19 pm comment yesterday had been stuck in a moderation queue. It’s in its place here now as it should be.
I hope it was clear that the passage you quoted at the first part of that comment was spoken according to the way the non-Christian would likely view things. I agree it is not biblical.
December 9th, 2010 | 12:24 pm | #32
Tom Gilson: “The hope we can offer the GLBT man or woman instead is the satisfactions of God himself.”
Yes. The satisfactions of God is greater than indulging in the counterfeit pleasures of same-sex sin.
Here are encouraging excerpts of hope:
“Essentially, the idea of the Day of Truth is to follow the “Day of Silence” (a day when students in US schools go around saying nothing as a protest against homophobia – quite valid a thing to do in some places I think) with a day where “the truth” is shared. The truth of course in this case being the “real” truth behind homosexuality, that it’s not a fixed thing, that people can change their orientation and move from gay to straight.
I’m broadly in agreement with that viewpoint. I do think that sexual orientation isn’t a fixed thing, that one’s sexual and emotional life isn’t dictated by genes, chromosomes or biology or even one’s current affections.
So this is my problem with “ex-gay”. It seems to suggest a bi-polar, ontological model of sexual attraction – gay to straight. In doing so it unfortunately sets itself up for a fall with those for whose experience that bi-polar model doesn’t seem to fit. So what is the alternative model for those of us who want to affirm the redemption of same-sex attraction and broken sexuality?
The alternative is “post-gay”. Post-gay isn’t an ontological statement, it’s a vectorial statement. For those uninitiated in the deeper arcane magicks of mathematics, a vector is simply a description of a direction and magnitude. It describes a movement, not a position (which is ontology). Post-gay then is less about being straight or gay and rather about a choice of a journey.
Perhaps a personal example to clarify. I’m post-gay because I chose to leave “gay” behind. I chose to no longer accept “gay” as an explanation of who I was and instead to begin a journey away from it. I chose to do so because I was convinced from the Scriptures that “gay” wasn’t a suitable way to describe myself, that it wasn’t a valid way for a Christian to establish identity. I was compelled not just by reading the normal passages on the subject but also from the story in John 8:1-11 of the woman caught in adultery. In particular Jesus’ last words to her are “Go now and leave your life of sin”.
He doesn’t magically transform the women from a harlot to a saint (and contrary to common belief, there’s nothing to associate this woman with Mary Magdalene) but rather simply gives her an instruction of direction – leave this place you’re at (adultery) and move on from it. His command is vectorial, not ontological. It is the call of discipleship – it says “follow me to wherever I take you – I don’t promise you riches or immediate perfection, but I do promise you hope”.
This is why post-gay is a far better description for those who have left homosexuality behind. It describes a journey away from a false identity constructed around one’s emotions and a true one constructed in following Jesus. For some of us that journey involves changes in our sexual orientation, perhaps marriage and kids. For others they see no change in their sexual attractions, but they have left behind the place of false-identity, of seeing themselves as “gay” and that as a defining a unchangeable aspect of their being.
Some aspects of that journey have been clearly marked for us. A dispassionate reading of the Scriptures shows very clearly that God didn’t intend for us to have sex outside of the marriage of male and female. So I could see very clearly that that life option (same-sex activity) and those things that celebrated it (“gay”) were not the direction God wanted me to take.”
December 9th, 2010 | 3:43 pm | #33
“You seem to be arguing that some claims Paul made, can be safely ignored (long hair, dancing), I’m assuming even though you didn’t specifically address these examples, that Paul’s statements, regarding women, can be ignored too?
From a common sense standpoint, you’re certainly right, that condemning long hair, etc., can be ignored. But, if it’s stated in the bible, that long hair, dancing, are not permissible, and you cannot find another passage that overrides that passage, and you believe that the Bible’s word, is completely authorative, I don’t see how you can coherently ignore the condemnation of long hair, dancing, etc.”
The nature of the two injunctions is what makes the difference. The reason we don’t wear our hair the same way that was done in the Bible is because that was the civil law of the time; the origins of hair laws, Leviticus, talked a lot about the customary civil law (meaning not normative). Those laws don’t have to be “overridden” because nowhere in the Bible does it mandate that all cultures have to follow the civil law of a certain culture. However, whenever homosexuality in the Bible is mentioned, it is condemned as part of normative ethics. It isn’t a culturally relative thing. Nor is it suggested that homosexuality would eventually become permissible. Any time homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, it is condemned on normative grounds, as it is a privation of the natural order of romance.
But let’s grant for the sake of argument that we should be wearing our hair a certain way. Just because we ignore those laws does not justify us in ignoring other ones, especially ones that the Bible has strong language against.
This murder analogy you use is interesting, and it was one that I used to justify my former position of just war (specifically, Jesus’ lack of warning to the Centurion). However, even if it is a piece of evidence, it’s a minor piece of evidence at best. However, who I felt addresses this best are Glen Stassen and David Gushee, whose book Kingdom Ethics I highly recommend. They note that:
“Of course, context matters, both in Jesus’ time and in our own. Jesus was a Jew speaking primarily to Jews, and both the Old Testament and the Jewish tradition offered no legitimation for homosexual behavior.”
The fact that homosexuality was widely regarded as normatively wrong is a better explanation of why Jesus Himself said nothing about homosexuality than the idea that he was okay with it.
“[Y]ou seem also to be implying, that Jesus’s apostles were infallible in their statements. I’m unsure of that.”
I didn’t mean to insinuate this; if I did, I apologize. However, while true that the Apostles were fallible and capable of making errors, this argument is infinitely aggressive. If we take this argument at face, then we have reason to disregard anything the Apostles said on the basis that they are fallible people. However, I would say that the Apostle’s fallibility does not mitigate their commands against homosexuality. Homosexuality is consistently condemned throughout both Testaments; thus, it was unlikely that a very strong command like “homosexuals will not receive the kingdom of heaven” was made in error.
“[T]his seems to imply that we “earn” our way to heaven. It seems normative, at least in evangelical circles, that, Christ’s sacrifice, and our acceptance of it, are sufficient to save us, not what we do, or fail to do. One could have a homosexual, who engages in homosexual activity, and accepts Christ as his savior, but doesn’t repent of his homosexual activity. Are you saying that he is still unsaved, and if so, how is this congruent, with the notion, that one is saved purely by accepting Christ as one’s savior?”
While I am no expert on soteriology, I will say this: while Christ does redeem us of our sin, consider how homosexuals today identify themselves. To them, being a homosexual is not just this thing they do every now and then; it is how they identify themselves: “I am a homosexual.” However, given the sinfulness of homosexuality according to Scripture, if one is claiming to both be a Christian and a homosexual there is something going wrong. One is choosing to live a lifestyle (homosexuality) that the Bible forbids while trying to be a Christian at the same time. The Bible tells us to “abhor what is evil” (Romans 12). Thus, a Christian should not choose to live a sinful lifestyle and be a Christian at the same time; the two are incompatible. Although Christ’s blood does redeem all, that doesn’t mean that one can voluntarily commit a sin knowing that it is wrong on the basis that Christ will forgive. That is a cheapening of Christ’s sacrifice. I do agree that works are not what get us into heaven; however, a Christian who believes that being a homosexual and being a Christian are compatible is sorely mistaken.
Finally, I’d like to thank you for this debate. This debate too often ends in impassioned, heated bigotry and name-calling and no real arguments being presented. I appreciate you for calmly and rationally presenting your argument instead of resorting to straw man arguments against the Christian position, and I hope I am doing the same. This is such a refreshing intellectual experience.
December 9th, 2010 | 5:01 pm | #34
*It’s supposed to say “infinitely regressive” in my last post, not sure how that got mixed up.
December 9th, 2010 | 6:41 pm | #35
Nikolai Volk: Hah, Stassen and Gushee. Kingdom Ethics is a good book. On issues of war and peace, I’d rather recommend Hauerwas and Willimon’s Resident Aliens, but to each his own.
I had already made a similar argument earlier: if the Judaism immediately before Jesus gives homosexuality a “no” vote all across the board, and so does the Christianity immediately following Jesus, then, all other things equal, we should assume that Jesus fits in line with that trajectory. The burden of proof is on the one who claims that all else is not equal.
December 9th, 2010 | 6:49 pm | #36
TUAD,
I noticed you gave large excerpts from Peter Ould’s blog (http://www.peter-ould.net) – is there a reason you didn’t cite the source? (I happen to read it regularly, and the post you quote is a classic.)
December 9th, 2010 | 7:54 pm | #37
It is indeed the right and proper thing to cite one’s source. The actual page quoted was http://www.peter-ould.net/2007/04/19/you-and-me-together/
December 9th, 2010 | 7:58 pm | #38
My oversight. My bad.
I’m usually pretty good at remembering to link to the source.
Anyways, isn’t that just a great argument by Peter Ould?
December 9th, 2010 | 11:23 pm | #39
Well, yes, Peter Ould is great. His “Sexuality and Slavery” series also provides some good overviews of some of the debates about the Bible’s stance.
December 10th, 2010 | 2:40 am | #40
Nikolai Volk: Thank you, so much, for your insight, and intelligence. this has been great for me too. I think you make good arguments for your case.
The murder analogy I came up with, off the top of my head, I hope it wasn’t the same as the one you gave, that would be a strange and amusing coincidence! Perhaps we think more alike, than we realize ;-)
Does the Bible explicitly state, that future generations are free to ignore the passages that are not a part of “normative law”? If not, it seems that perhaps you, and others, have concluded that these passages are not for us, that is, you’re using nonbiblical reasoning to come to this. That’s reasonable, but if the Bible overrides every other source, including our own reasoning, unless you can find, in the Bible, a passage that explicitly states, or at least strongly implies, that, long hair, dancing, Paul’s conclusions that women should not ask questions in Church (they should ask their husbands, instead) women should submit to their husbands, women should not teach men, can be ignored, by future generations, it seems difficult for me to see how one can still conclude that, the Bible supercedes everything else, but these things can be ignored.
So, unless the Bible says these other things merely constitute the equivalent, of “positive law”, that are only applicable to that specific culture, one still seems committed to having to accept it.
Nikolai, as I said, you’re an intelligent insightful person, and it’s a pleasure interacting with you, as well!
December 10th, 2010 | 2:54 am | #41
Tom, thank you, your explanation does make sense. It has bothered me, that, perhaps some people, may conclude that, by merely accepting Christ, they don’t have to worry about their moral behavior. It would be very odd, for someone to accept Christ, and then conclude that they don;t have to try, as best they can,to follow His example. I don’t want to get far off topic, and I hope it’s ok to bring this up, and please feel free to ignore it, if you think it’s too far off topic, but it has always bothered me, that a murderer, say, who subsequently accepts Christ, will go to heaven, but a highly moral Jew, or athiest, say, who cannot, because of intellectual honesty, say accept Christ, will go to Hell, according to, at least some evangelical sources. This has always struck me as something Christ would never do, (send this person to Hell), if you have any thoughts, on that, great, if you choose not to get into it, that’s great too.
Finally, Paul’s assertion, that the homosexual, who doesn’t repent of his homosexual activity,will go to Hell, could be interpreted differently, by a homosexual, who fully accepts Christ. that is, the Christian homosexual, could accept Christ, and conclude that he must therefore follow Christ’s example, but conclude that, the absence of Christ condemning homosexuality, means he doesn’t have to follow what Paul says. He could conclude that he’s already accepted Christ, is following His example, as manifested in the Gospels, so what Paul says, is irrelevant. True, he would be at variance with mainstream Christianity, but he could argue that he’s filfilled all the criteria, to be “saved”, i.e., accepting Christ, and following His example.
December 11th, 2010 | 8:39 pm | #42
“[T]he Christian homosexual, could accept Christ, and conclude that he must therefore follow Christ’s example, but conclude that, the absence of Christ condemning homosexuality, means he doesn’t have to follow what Paul says.”
But that’s not how Biblical interpretation works. Again, that whole argument is based on an ignorance appeal, i.e. evidence that isn’t there. When analyzing the disciples, one doesn’t say, “Well, Christ didn’t say that, so the disciple must be just making that up.” Given the fact that (a) Christ speaks only of marriage between a man and woman and (b) Christ probably didn’t address homosexuality because his audience knew by and large the condemnation of homosexuality, Paul is clearly addressing homosexuality based on the teaching of Christ.
“He could conclude that he’s already accepted Christ, is following His example, as manifested in the Gospels, so what Paul says, is irrelevant.”
First of all, this ignores the whole point being made; Christians who are opposed to homosexuality argue that homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian walk. The question is not, “Can one be a homosexual and live for Christ?” but rather, “Is homosexuality compatible with Christ’s teaching?” Second, this argument is, again, infinitely regressive. If we take this to be true, then we have reason to ignore everything the disciples said. Unfortunately, that’s certainly not what Christ taught; the teachings of Paul and other disciples was spawned from the Great Commission, Christ’s call for his apostles to minister the love of God. Paul wasn’t “going rogue” in declaring the things he did; he was following the example given to him directly by Christ.
December 11th, 2010 | 9:55 pm | #43
Good points, Nikolai. I would also add this to what Bret said here:
Anyone can argue anything. I could argue that nothing you have written on this blog, Bret, expresses your beliefs, except for (say) comment #1 here. What do you think of that? I think it’s boring. It’s obviously wrong, you see, and besides, I didn’t actually argue anything. I only said that I could argue something. Hardly even worth yawning about.
So a person could also argue that he could accept Christ without accepting the rest of the New Testament. Yawn. Not even interesting. Anyone can argue anything. So what else is new? It’s wrong enough, to be sure. But its obvious wrongness isn’t its only boring feature. It’s also this business of “someone could argue.” Zzz (snore).
Rather than telling us what someone could argue, Bret, why don’t you actually mount the argument yourself? I think it would be wrong, but hey, it might at least be interesting.
December 11th, 2010 | 10:09 pm | #44
Bret, let me ask this with respect to what I just wrote. The way you’ve phrased this, all that’s necessary is to suppose that someone could choose a position, and having done so they could justify standing in that position simply by virtue of having chosen it. Is that your view of the matter, when it comes to religious things?
December 11th, 2010 | 10:38 pm | #45
Tom, interesting. My view is, that, the Bible is a guide, but not infallible. Do you consider the Bible infallible?
I have argued plenty of positions, Tom. I think that you have placed yourself in a striaghtjacket, with all due respect, by only believing something, withrespect to gay issues, if you can “find it in the bible”.
Do you believe that the Bible should supercede everything, reason, empirical evidence? I don’t.
December 11th, 2010 | 10:52 pm | #46
Nikolai: if. as you say, Christ didn’t address homosexuality because, he didn’t have to, why did Paul have to? After all their environments were pretty darn similar.
Do you, and Tom believe Paul was correct, when he said women should submit to their husbands? Do you, and Tom believe Paul was right, when he said women shouldn’t teach, in Church, or, if they have questions, ask their husbands?
I don’t. I think Paul was wrong. He was human, like you and I, and guess what? He therefore made mistakes, like you and I.
December 11th, 2010 | 11:17 pm | #47
Tom, with respect to last question, I believe that one must have good reasons, to believe anything, religious beliefs, are no exception. If religion cannot withstand the rigours of reason, and empirical evidence, it should not be believed. I think that Christianity passes these rigours very well. But, the notion that, the Bible is infallible, does not pass the rigours of reason, and empirical evidence.
December 11th, 2010 | 11:40 pm | #48
“My view is, that, the Bible is a guide, but not infallible.”
I think this is incredibly important when it comes to your view. I disagree with it; to me, if you say the Bible is infallible, then one is allowed to choose which principles to use or not use as a “guide.” If one truly wants to use the Bible as a guide, one must wholly accept the book because the book is the totality of God’s message and Christ’s subsequent fulfilling of that message. It’s like the South holding “secession celebrations” while trying to ignore the strong ties to slavery secession had; one can’t ignore parts of history just because it displeases them. That certainly isn’t the case. One can’t just ignore part of Christ’s demands just because it seems uncouth to accept them.
“Christ didn’t address homosexuality because, he didn’t have to, why did Paul have to? After all their environments were pretty darn similar.”
Not true. Paul ministered to Gentiles much more than Christ did; he did minister to Jews, no doubt, but their environments were not totally symmetrical. Moreover, even if they were in the same environment and Paul said that, that doesn’t somehow make Paul’s statement false. It would just mean he was making clear the truth those people already knew.
Do you, and Tom believe Paul was correct, when he said women should submit to their husbands? Do you, and Tom believe Paul was right, when he said women shouldn’t teach, in Church, or, if they have questions, ask their husbands?
I don’t. I think Paul was wrong. He was human, like you and I, and guess what? He therefore made mistakes, like you and I.”
First of all, as I keep stressing, if we take this “Paul is fallible” argument to be true, then we have reason to doubt anything Paul says. That means justification for polygamy and incest must be true because Paul must have just been misleading people like he was for homosexuality. In light of all of the teachings of the Bible, Paul’s teachings are absolutely congruent. Second, even if this argument is true, that wives should be solely submissive to their husbands and I’m being inconsistent in my views in not saying so, that doesn’t mean that homosexuality is justified. That just means I’m inconsistent. Keep in mind that people often overlook the reciprocal rhetoric of the Epistles. Ephesians 5:21 tells both husband and wife to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Paul’s statements about women speaking up in Church were only said to a specific Church, not to all churches; the church Paul expressed this writing to had struggled with people speaking out of turn in church and disrupting the order of worship. This is a specific cultural requirement. Again, any time homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible it is universally condemned. There is no leniency for those who are “monogamous” or who don’t have premarital sex; homosexuality has no exception clauses. Even if you don’t buy my cultural interpretation of 1 Corinthians and believe that Paul’s statement was a normative ethic, that definitely does have an exception, stated just a few chapters prior (1 Corinthians 11:5). Not the same for homosexuality.
December 12th, 2010 | 12:01 am | #49
I think that one of the big mistakes, that Christianity has made, is concluding that the Bible is completely inerrent. For one thing, it cannot be consistently maintained. The assertion, “The Bible is inerrent”, is nowhere found in the Bible. So, this statement is derived from non sources.
I believe that it may have its roots in human psychology. In an uncertain world, we need to anchor ourselves on to something unchangeable, that can guide us, in the decisions, that we must make. It’s comforting to believe that, this one holy book, the Bible, is directly from God, and there are no mistakes in it. Unfortunately, this would entail God, literally controlling the brains of each biblical writer. This notion, makes mincemeat out of free will. Scientific and historical studies have shown, to my satisfaction at least, that the bible was written in response to contingent historical circumstances. It’s an amalgam of history, sermons, and poems. I do believe that God inspired the writers, at least in many cases, propbably not in all. So it can provide insight, comfort, and history lessons, for the rest of us, but to consider it an infallible guide, in all circumstances, is untenable.
I think that the gospels are very good history. I believe in the resurrection, not because of any spiritual experience, I’ve had, but because it’s believable. Of course, if one’s a positivist, one cannot accept supernatural events. I’m not a positivist, I accept what the empirical data suggest, regardless of whether it’s so-called natural, or so called supernatural.
Interestingly, I think the positivist, is making similar mistakes to the biblical inerrentist. They both adhere to a standard, rigidly, despite what the evidence says. The positivist, excludes supernatural phenomena, on an a priori basis, and ignores any empirical data, that suggests God, or other supernatural events took place. The biblical inerrentist, dismisses evidence, regardless of its persuasiveness, if it contradicts a passage of the bible.
this last point, I believe, is very distructive to gays/lesbians. Despite all the evidence that gays/lesbians, are just as good, moral as heterosexuals; despite the evidence that gays/lesbians are not harmed by homosexual relations, and indeed are harmed, by not being permitted to have the right to marry, biblical inerrentists insist on following Paul, and other biblical writers as if they’re Gods.
How’s THAT for stating my opinion, Tom? :)
December 12th, 2010 | 12:26 am | #50
Nikolai: Thanks for your comments.
your view is, we must accept everything Paul has written, otherwise we will be reduced to picking and choosing which to follow, on a purely arbitrary basis. This is admirably consistent, but even it cannot be done. I doubt you believe Paul’s claim that women should submit to their husbands, and shouldn’t teach.
A better approach, in my mind, is to rationally approach the Bible. That is, using our reason as a guide, we decide, which Biblical passages are for us, and which aren’t. I know this is unthinkable, to “pick and choose” God’s word, but it’s done, in my view, on the basis of another God given, and therefore expected to be used, faculty, our reason. That emphatically, does NOT mean one picks and chooses, based on what we like, or what’s comforting, but based on reason. I suspect, ironically that some (not you Nikolai,but some do) who argue that we must acept all of the Bible, are doing it, out of convienience, because it’s too hard of a responsibility to decide the Bible’s legitimacy based on reason, it’s easier, to just accept it all. (call it the mirror image, of the person who goes through the Bible and decides what’s right, not based on reason, but on what’s comforting).
Christ was resurrected not, in my view because we decide to “have faith” that everything in the Bible is true. i don’t believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, or that two of every animal was put on a boat, the size mentioned in the Bible, or people get turned into salt, because my God given reason tells me this is false. I do believ in the resurrection, because the historical record is trustworthy.
So this shows that the “problem” of denying one portion of the Bible, will inexorably lead one to deny anything not to his liking, or that there will no longer be a basis for igoring any passage, is a false choice. the answer, is one uses one’s reason, scrupulously. God expects us to use our reason, and senses to decipher His natural world, and Hew expects no different regarding the Bible.
December 12th, 2010 | 3:10 am | #51
Bret, you have made some very intelligent arguments. But there are some claims that you have made that I disagree with.
The assertion, “The Bible is inerrent”, is nowhere found in the Bible. So, this statement is derived from non sources.
I find two problems with this claim. First, you claim that the Bible does not assert it’s own authority, yet you also claim that the Bible is not inerrant. The problem here is that even if the Bible asserted it’s own authority, it wouldn’t mean anything from your own framework because you presuppose that the Bible is not inerrant in the first place. So in other words, if the Bible were to assert it’s own authority you would be able to conveniently dodge the obligation of said verse because of you don’t believe that the Bible is inerrant.
Secondly, I would argue that the Bible does claim it’s own authority. 2 Timothy 3:16 states “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”. The statement that all scripture is God breathed is the assertion that the scripture is inspirational (from God) and must therefore require inerrancy. Obviously, you claimed that Paul was likely wrong on some of the things that he wrote about, so this verse may not mean anything to you, but at least it refutes the idea that the Bible does not assert it’s own authority.
Further, I believe that Jesus gave the scripture authority on several occasions. Jesus, on several accounts while teaching the people, quotes old testament scripture in a way that would suggest that the scriptures are true. In my view, this is Jesus affirming the validity the scripture. In addition, Jesus on several accounts explicitly affirms the validity of the scripture. Matthew 5:17-20 cites Jesus talking about how he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The reason Jesus cannot abolish the law of the scripture is because he (In God the Father) was the one who established the law through the scriptures, and God cannot contradict his own universal morality that was set for us. Again in John 25-39, we see that Jesus is asked about his validity of being the son of God, states that the law cannot be set aside. This is Jesus showing that the scripture is absolutely authoritative, and the law can only be absolutely authoritative if it were inerrant.
“I don’t. I think Paul was wrong. He was human, like you and I, and guess what? He therefore made mistakes, like you and I.”
I agree that Paul was human and humans make mistakes, but being human doesn’t necessitate the claim that he MUST have made a mistake regarding the scriptures. As I’ve already pointed out, Jesus gives the Scripture it’s merit and authority, which must mean that it is without a doubt the words and will of God. All of the scripture that Jesus cites was also written by a man. However, these scriptures are God breathed and inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore they are infallible words even though they use a human vessel for communication. Therefore we can see that inspiration from the holy spirit means that the words are infallible, regardless of the vessel of communication used.
I would also point to Deuteronomy 18:20-22. Here we have God telling the people how to distinguish the genuine word of God from the false prophets. The criteria for God’s will is absolute inerrancy. Reverse the logic and we find the claim that word inspired by God is infallible and absolutely true. This verse is regarding prophets, but we can apply this to scripture because in both cases, the communication of God’s will is through humans. Therefore we can see that if a human was inspired by God, their words of God’s will would be infallible and true. Paul claims that his words are inspired by the Spirit, so the question is whether you truly believe that Paul was inspired by the Spirit or not.
In either case you have the result of accepting all of Paul’s teachings or none of them. Either
1. Believing everything Paul says was inspired the Spirit and is therefore infallible and the will of God.
or 2: none of it was inspired by the Spirit, he was simply a guy who thought he was inspired by the Spirit and said some wise things, but ultimately they weren’t God’s will.
Unfortunately, this would entail God, literally controlling the brains of each biblical writer. This notion, makes mincemeat out of free will.
I don’t feel that this is at all logically sound. Being divinely inspired is different from being divinely determined. Doing something that is within God’s will does not make that a violation of the person’s will. A person’s will and God’s will can be consistent without having to be one or the other. I believe that here you are making a false dichotomy between God’s will and the writer’s will. If your claim is true, than every action that is done according to God’s will strips the actor of free will. I find huge issue with this because then every good action ever done by anyone that pleased God was not done out of their own free will, but because God stripped them of their will and forced them to do it, which is something I would assume that you do not agree with.
December 12th, 2010 | 3:31 am | #52
Bret, what we’ve come to now, as it is so often with Scriptural arguments, is something much larger than we were initially debating. As much as I would love to further continue discussion on the errancy/inerrancy of Scriptures, I don’t feel this is the proper forum for it, as this particular forum was about the Bible and homosexuality, not the fallability/infallability of God’s word. I’ve enjoyed our argument quite a bit, especially since we’ve both been presenting our arguments calmly and logically and I appreciate more than I can say. This has been a breath of fresh air for me.
But my final word would be this:
“A better approach, in my mind, is to rationally approach the Bible. That is, using our reason as a guide, we decide, which Biblical passages are for us, and which aren’t. I know this is unthinkable, to “pick and choose” God’s word, but it’s done, in my view, on the basis of another God given, and therefore expected to be used, faculty, our reason.
I do rationally approach the Bible. I believe Christianity is the most rational religion on Earth. However, rationality doesn’t mean that miracles can’t happen. In fact, you yourself believe Christ’s resurrection to be true; that was a miracle. You say you believe Christ’s resurrection because “the historical record is trustworthy,” yet you don’t believe in Jonah being swallowed by the whale. This means you don’t have a problem with miracles; you have a problem with the historical record. Believing as a Christian that the Bible isn’t good history, as Livingston pointed out, is severely problematic.
But now back to homosexuality. “Rationality” isn’t the supreme virtue; we don’t go to the Bible with presuppositions and then determine the errancy or inerrancy of the scriptures. It is precisely the other way around. We are to look to the Bible to determine rationally what is right or wrong; the Bible is itself a logical document. Assuming that we know better than Paul, a man who directly encountered Christ and learned directly from him and his disciples, who also functioned within the most important time of church growth is a very dangerous claim to make. My arguments for the moral impermissibility of homosexuality are rationally founded, as I hope I’ve demonstrated throughout this debate.
But more importantly and more problematically, there are multiple systems of logic and rationality. Multiple different systems of logic could come to hundreds of different conclusions about what is “logical or not logical” in the Bible. How do we know which one is right? We don’t know unless there is some overarching standard. This is why the Bible is what is is for Christians: it is the standard for right and wrong. Yes, God did give us logic, but when one pits the morals of God with the logic given to us by God one will see that they are highly compatible.
That is my last word. Thanks for the discussion, Bret. It’s been a great spiritual discourse, one that I hope has enriched both of us.
December 12th, 2010 | 5:43 am | #53
Bret, re: your 10:38 pm comment, do I believe the Bible should “supercede everything, reason, empirical evidence?”
The question is too sloppy to answer with a quick yes or no. I can’t believe the Bible supersedes everything, because it is a major piece of the evidence base, of the “everything” it would presumably supersede. Logically it cannot supersede itself. That may seem overly picky and tendentious, but stay with me a while and you’ll see how it fits.
What about empirical evidence? First, there is empirical evidence supporting the accuracy and authority of the Bible: historical and textual sciences, for example, as well as the current experience of those who follow it. This evidence leads me to take the Bible’s teaching to be wise and true. So again, the Bible cannot be set up against empirical evidence.
Of course that empirical evidence, like all evidence, cannot lead to any conclusions apart from reasoning, so I find no reason to accept the Bible’s being set up against reasoning. Reason from the evidences of nature also leads in the same direction: though it does not point specifically to the Bible, it supports and in some cases very strongly leads toward the conclusion that there is a personal, loving, law-giving, providential God. (Don’t let “law-giving” throw you. It’s a good thing. Think of life without reliablly consistent gravity or electromagnetism, if you can. Think of social relationships without standards of any kind, if you can.)
These things, reason and evidence, strongly support the conclusion that your 11:17 pm statement is false. The Bible does stand up to the rigors of investigation.
I have not placed myself in the strait-jacket of which you speak. Re-read my posts in this series, and you’ll find plenty of things I believe about gay issues that didn’t come from the Bible. It wasn’t from the Bible that I discovered what gay men experience in terms of sexual attraction. It was from conversations.
Yet I do believe the Bible is true, authoritative, and infallible. And that this is not a strait-jacket position to be in. Jesus said in John 8:31-32 that there is freedom in the truth, and that the truth is in his teaching, which quite clearly he took to include all of Scripture (see for example John 1:1 and the passage from John 14-16 wherein he assured the apostles there would be more truth revealed to them). Why is it confining to believe that which is true? What freedom is there in floundering in falsehood?
December 12th, 2010 | 5:49 am | #54
Bret, you wrote,
With all due respect, you need to look in a mirror. When you insist on drawing the conclusions you do from Jesus’ silence concerning homosexual “marriage,” you are picking and choosing your beliefs based on what you like and not on reason. Reason could never lead you to conclude that he supported or condoned it.
December 12th, 2010 | 7:08 pm | #55
Tom, thanks for your response, and insight.
I’ll take your last, comments, 54, first. You assert: “With all due respect, you need to look in the mirror. when you insist on drawing the conclusions you do from Jesus’ silence concerning homosexual “marriage” you are picking and choosing your beliefs based on what you like and and not on reason. Reason could never lead you to conclude that he supported or condoned it”.
The “conclusion”, that I’ve drawn, is that, Jesus’s not mentioning homosexuality, can be a piece of evidence, in favor of the notion that he would support homosexual marriage, within the confines of a monogomous relationship, but would never be sufficient to prove that he supported it. What’s unreasonable about this? This is probably one of the most restrained of conclusions. It’s tenative, and entirely contingent on other forms of evidence to support it, or refute it. If I was basing it on my wishes, or what I like, as you amusingly assert, I would conclude, definitively, that Jesus supported homosexuality. Which brings me to your general claim, as stated in what I quoted from you, above. What evidence do you have, for your assertion, that I base my reading of the Bible, on what I like? I don’t see an argument. You assert that reason could never cause me to conclude that. Hmm. What reason would that be? Could you be so generous to supply that argument? Since Jesus is silent, we, based purely on this silence can conclude nothing, concerning what he would support, or not, about gay marriage. Absolutely nothing. One would need support from other sources.
December 12th, 2010 | 8:26 pm | #56
Tom in your third paragraph, on 53, you assert that hstory and text support the Bible. I said in my comments, 49, that the Bible is an amalgam of history, sermons and poems. So I agree that the Bible possess much that is accurate historically, but that should not cause one to make the unjustifiable claim,that therefore all its metaphysical claims are true, as you seem to inply, in your third paragraph. After all, there’s much that’s in Homer’s Odessey and Iliad. Leaving aside whether there really was a “Homer” who wrote them, they contain much that has beed corroborated by archeological findings, particularly in the late nineteenth century. Should one, then, Tom, be inclined to believe in the metaphysical claims, also contained, in these texts, about the greek gods?
Obviously, if you accept the complete accuracy of the bible, you’re presupposing the validity of empirical evidence and reason, to come to that conclusion. So, biblical inerrents, much bow to the alter of reason, and empirical evidence, ultimately. To get very basic, here, one relies on one’s senses, to read, hear the bible. So one trusts in the veracity of one’s senses. One trusts one’s logic/reason, to accept the arguments made in the bible, and one accepts the legitimacy of arguments (which rely on reason’s legitimacy) to accept the claim that the bible is “inerrent”.
So, you, and all biblical inerrents accept, as any normal person must, that reason, and empirical evidence are the standards, that any claim must conform to. ( Whether reason or emprical evidence is first, is for another day. But I’m inclined to accept some form of foundationalism, that we start from self evident axioms, and then derive conclusions, from that, including empirical verification. that is, the trustworthiness of the senses. One still has to have faith in the reliabliity of one’s ability to detect logic’s claims, and senses claims, but that’s for another day). The bible, of course, must conform to reason, and empirical evidence. But what if the bible makes assertions, that conflict, with reason, and empirical evidence? The inerrent, then, makes a “shift” in the standard, and concludes that reason and evidence, for these particular passages, that don’t conform to reason and evidence,doesn’t apply. How can this be done, rationally? For example, if someone is turned into salt, this defies empiricism. It also difies logic, internally and externally. The inerrentist, says, well, God can do whatever He wants. Fine, but now the standard is no longer, reason and empirical evidence. this is obviously, incoherent.
You assert: “Of course, that empirical evidence, like all evidence, cannot lead to any conclusions apart from reasoning. so i find no reason to accept the Bible’s being set up against reasoning”. Huh?
Obviously, reason, or empirical evidence cannot “prove” itself, that would be circular, if that’s what your , with all due respect, poorly worded “argument” is stating, but it doesn’t follow at all, from that, that the bible should not submit to the rules of reason and evidence, like any other book, or dicument. I doubt you would take this same approach, to, say, the Koran, or Book of mormon, or any other historical work. Speaking of which, how does that assertion, you made, that I just quoted,coincide with your claim that, one of the reasons you support the bible is because of the “historical and text sciences” support it? (by the way, history and text analysis, USE sciences, they aren’t sciences, themselves, but that’s beyond the scope of our discussion here, and gets into epistemology, and philosophy of science, again, for another day).
I’m certainly not claiming that we shouldn’t have rules, or we should accept falsehood, where you would get such an outlandish idea, from y writings, is beyond me. You and I disagree, concerning the full truth of the bible, but we don’t disagree, that there’s truth, and that we should find it.
You claim that, you’ve provided many nonbiblical arguments against gay issues. Perhaps you could provide me with the links? Frankly, I haven’t heard anyone, provide me with an argument, showing that gay marriage, would be harmful, or bad, or untenable, that did not rely on either the bible, or religious premises, generally.
There are, however, good arguments for the reverse. 1) it could lead to relationship stability, among gay men, like marriage does for straight men.2) it would more easily allow for gay couples to share rights, that currently are only available to married striaghts.3) equality,in the US demands that all adults be given equal oppurtunity to acheive, or acquire what they wish, unless a very compelling reason (s) can be provided why not (e.g., they’re a felon).
December 12th, 2010 | 8:27 pm | #57
In response to your 7:08 pm comment, I’ll admit I overstated it, Bret.
Your comment #52 here seems, for all its tentativeness, still to be more confident a conclusion than is warranted. I said as much in comment #54 there. But my memory misled me into thinking you had stated it more strongly than you had, and I acknowledge the error with apologies.
December 12th, 2010 | 8:39 pm | #58
Bret, you say,
How so? I don’t see any contradiction here.
Where you got the idea I said that about you is beyond me, Bret. You’re misreading me.
I didn’t claim that, Bret. You’ve misread me there, too. I said that if you read my posts you would find things that I believe about gay issues. But I didn’t present arguments. I presented (for the most part) things I had discovered by way of conversations with gays. Arguments against gay issues were not the point of any of these posts, other than the gay hatred toward Christians I objected to in the first one in this series. Not that arguments couldn’t be raised, but in this context I haven’t done so and I haven’t claimed to have done so.
In an earlier thread, Bret, you criticized me repeatedly for misrepresenting something you had written. Here you are inaccurately criticizing me for the same again, (the second quote above), and you have misconstrued my own position twice in this comment. You’re reading things into what I’ve written, rather than reading what I wrote.
December 12th, 2010 | 9:00 pm | #59
Regarding the authority of the Bible, this is going far afield from the original topic. Suffice it to say that there is an extreme difference between the historical and textual authority supporting the Bible and other ancient literature, there is a massive difference in their theological and philosophical support, and there is a huge distinction in terms of their effects on immediate and long term history. They’re just not comparable. This too is something for which an argument could be presented, but I do not intend to do so here.
N.T. Wright quotes another theologian (I forget whom) who says the danger in preaching is that every time you say one thing, you have to say everything you believe, otherwise you’ll be accused of not believing it. The analogue in this kind of discussion is that it seems every time we say one thing, we have to prove it and everything else we believe from first principles. Maybe this is another corollary to Payne’s Law (comment 25 here).
December 12th, 2010 | 9:07 pm | #60
No problem, Tom, thank you. I did, speculate that perhaps the silence of Jesus, means we should be too, and that it was suggestive. But i’ve always believed, even if I haven’t always been as clear as I should, that His silence, in and of itself, cannot mean anything, apart from additional evidence, of Jesus’s views, vis a vis homosexuality.
I woild like to quote you here, from 53, paragraphs three and four: “What about empirical evidence? First there is empirical evidence supporting the accuracy and authority of the bible, historical and textual sciences, for example,as well as the current experience of thse who follow it. the evidence leads me to take the bible’s teachings to be wise and true. So again, the bible cannot be set up against empirical evidence. Of course that empirical evidence, like all evidence, cannot lead to any conclusions apart from reasonong. So I find no reason to accept the bible’s being set up against reasoning”.
I apologize for saying that the fourth paragraph was “poorly worded”, but I’m having some trouble with both paragraphs.
On the one hand, in the first paragraph cited, you implt that empirical evidence is the basis, for the bible, or at least some of the bible’s claims, and the latter conforms to the empirical evidence. then, your last sentence, in this paragrapgh, states, that, empirical evidence cannot be the standard. This last sentence, does not follow at all, from the preceding sentences, in fact, just the opposite would follow, that empirical evidence, would be the standard. The last paragraph, that I quoted, I think you’re claiming, as I said earlier, that empiricism cannt prove itself? Agreed, but now we get into what is the ultimate standard, that cannot, and does not, need reliance on anything else to be true, and we derive our other truth claims from it. That is, a self evident axiom, that is the inpenetrable rock, where all knowledge receives its justification. I lean toward, this foundational approach. I disagree with Plantanga, on his rejection of foundationalism.
I’m confused on what you rely on, for your claim that the bible is completely inerrent. On the one hand, you use empirical evidence, to support some of the bible, but then you seem to reject the empirical evidence, as general standard.
December 12th, 2010 | 9:11 pm | #61
Paragraph four, and seven, of 53, seem to imply that I need to be remided of rules, and truth, respectively, Tom, but if I’ve misread you, I apologize.
December 12th, 2010 | 9:21 pm | #62
In paragraph six, Tom, of comment 53 you Say:”I have not placed myself in the straightjacket of which you speak. Re-read my posts in this series and you’ll find plenty of things I believe about gay issues that didn’t come from the bible”. I said you claimed to have many arguments, noit derived from the bible about gay issues. How is this such a “misreading” of your comments, Tom? It’s only a misreading, if you don’t have any arguments for what you believe, about gay issues.
December 12th, 2010 | 9:29 pm | #63
I apologize for misreading your assertion that you derived your views on gay issues from arguments that are nonbiblical. But it’s a reasonable mistake, since in your 53 comments, you didn’t have a link to these comments, and you said what you believe. Usually, people form beliefs on the basis of arguments, so I assumed that. It was an honest mistake.
December 12th, 2010 | 9:36 pm | #64
I appreciate your willingness to straighten out miscommunications, Bret, and I hope I am doing the same. I think this may be a good time, though, to say this discussion is running into too many difficulties to continue.
December 12th, 2010 | 9:38 pm | #65
Tom, the turing people into salt, has never, as far as I know been seen in nature. So it’s contrary to empirical evidence. It’s internally inconsistent, logically, because it defies God’s compassion, mercy, justice, you get the idea. It’s illogical externally, because no argument has been provided that all reasonable people would be required to accept. Perhaps you could provide one? Which reminds me, the standard of evidence is on the person, making a claim. So if you have good empirical evidence, and good arguments, that God turned someone into salt, for looking the wrong way, by all means, bring them forward, I’m excited to see them.
December 12th, 2010 | 9:39 pm | #66
Ok, thanks Tom, I’ve enjoyed the disscussion.
December 14th, 2010 | 8:35 pm | #67
“Tom, the turing people into salt, has never, as far as I know been seen in nature. ”
Proving what? The whole point of recording it is that it is unusual. You could use the same argument to disprove the wreck of the Titanic. After all a White Star Liner called Titanic, was only wrecked once.
And “has never, as far as I know been seen in nature” is meaningless, as this is a recording of one time when it has been seen in nature. The question is whether you accept it or not.
Miracle stories do not depend on whether or not they are compatible with the laws of nature. They are about miracles. That is what the term implies.
December 14th, 2010 | 8:54 pm | #68
jason taylor: thanks for your comments. True, miracles, by definition, are singular events. But this story is incoherent, to me. Why? Because there’s no rhyme or reason, in my humble assessment for God to do this. Christ’s resurrection makes perfect sense, even though it’s a miracle, and therefore cannot be corroborated scientifically. It’s to give all hope, that they, too, will live again, because of God’s infinite mercy.
But turning someone into salt, for looking back, seems cruel, to me, and since God is obviously not cruel, He would never do such a thing. Perhaps the story can be interpreted metaphorically, about not looking back to our sinful past, or something to that effect, but it cannot be taken literally, without the problems I cited,in my view.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact