Newsweek Article on Marriage

[Jesuslove]

Our Mutual Joy
Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.By Lisa Miller | NEWSWEEK
Published Dec 6, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Dec 15, 2008

Lets try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.
The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade, but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match. Not since 1860, when the country's pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic) institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny. But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched. All the religious rhetoric, it seems, has been on the side of the gay-marriage opponents, who use Scripture as the foundation for their objections.
The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."
To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.
In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call "the traditional family" are scarcely to be found. Marriage was critical to the passing along of tradition and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews' precious and fragile monotheism. But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between "one man and as many women as he could pay for." Social conservatives point to Adam and Eve as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: "Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." But as Segal says, if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world. (The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn't God say, "Be fruitful and multiply"? But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)
Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either. The biblical Jesus was—in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise—emphatically unmarried. He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels. There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).

The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord's lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative. Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced. "To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): a wife must not separate from her husband." It probably goes without saying that the phrase "gay marriage" does not appear in the Bible at all.
If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recently progressive scholars have argued that his condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery. In his book "The Arrogance of Nations," the scholar Neil Elliott argues that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly. "Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all," Elliott says. "He's talking about a certain group of people who have done everything in this list. We're not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage. We're talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God." In any case, one might add, Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.
Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). Common prayers and rituals reflect our common practice: the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the participants in a marriage as "the man and the woman." But common practice changes—and for the better, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.
Marriage, specifically, has evolved so as to be unrecognizable to the wives of Abraham and Jacob. Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century; husbands' frequent enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes became taboo by the beginning of the 20th. (In the NEWSWEEK POLL, 55 percent of respondents said that married heterosexuals who have sex with someone other than their spouses are more morally objectionable than a gay couple in a committed sexual relationship.) By the mid-19th century, U.S. courts were siding with wives who were the victims of domestic violence, and by the 1970s most states had gotten rid of their "head and master" laws, which gave husbands the right to decide where a family would live and whether a wife would be able to take a job. Today's vision of marriage as a union of equal partners, joined in a relationship both romantic and pragmatic, is, by very recent standards, radical, says Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History."
Religious wedding ceremonies have already changed to reflect new conceptions of marriage. Remember when we used to say "man and wife" instead of "husband and wife"? Remember when we stopped using the word "obey"? Even Miss Manners, the voice of tradition and reason, approved in 1997 of that change. "It seems," she wrote, "that dropping 'obey' was a sensible editing of a service that made assumptions about marriage that the society no longer holds."
We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs. Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was "one spirit" and whom he "loved as he loved himself." Conservatives say this is a story about a platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent. David rends his clothes at Jonathan's death and, in grieving, writes a song:
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.
Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men. What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.
In addition to its praise of friendship and its condemnation of divorce, the Bible gives many examples of marriages that defy convention yet benefit the greater community. The Torah discouraged the ancient Hebrews from marrying outside the tribe, yet Moses himself is married to a foreigner, Zipporah. Queen Esther is married to a non-Jew and, according to legend, saves the Jewish people. Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, believes that Judaism thrives through diversity and inclusion. "I don't think Judaism should or ought to want to leave any portion of the human population outside the religious process," he says. "We should not want to leave [homosexuals] outside the sacred tent." The marriage of Joseph and Mary is also unorthodox (to say the least), a case of an unconventional arrangement accepted by society for the common good. The boy needed two human parents, after all.

to be continued......

[Jesuslove]

continued.....

In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well— no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend—as evidence of Christ's all-encompassing love. The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."
The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage. If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow. Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over "holy unions" since 1992. "I'm against promiscuity—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships," he says.
Still, very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal. The practice varies by region, by church or synagogue, even by cleric. More progressive denominations—the United Church of Christ, for example—have agreed to support gay marriage. Other denominations and dioceses will do "holy union" or "blessing" ceremonies, but shy away from the word "marriage" because it is politically explosive. So the frustrating, semantic question remains: should gay people be married in the same, sacramental sense that straight people are? I would argue that they should. If we are all God's children, made in his likeness and image, then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that. People get married "for their mutual joy," explains the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony. That's what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she adds. In marriage, couples grow closer to God: "Being with one another in community is how you love God. That's what marriage is about."
More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them. We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good—and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this. My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God's knowledge of our most secret selves: "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for "Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad." Let the priest's prayer be our own.

[VerbumReale]

Big surprise, Newsweek embraces biblical revisionism.

Gimme a break within the first paragraph that is already seeping with revisionism. And since when is Newsweek a place for biblical scholarship? I find it interesting that Obamaweek, errr I mean Newsweek is probably one of the first media outlets to cry foul when a religious organization endorses a political candidate (unles it's Obama. Then they look the other way.) But we're supposed to take some lame attempt on their part at biblical sholarship seriously.

Here is a quote

The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."
To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

This is either ignorant or patently dishonest. From Genesis 2 marriage is clearly defined as between one man and one woman. From that point on any mention of sexuality is to be looked at through that lens. And in both Matthew and Mark Jesus affirms that very passage from Genesis. As far as Paul's "lukewarm" endorsement of marriage; that was simply because he believed that Christ would be returning in his lifetime.

Newsweek should stick to the news, or at least the weekly tribute to President-elect Obama that they have been giving us the past few months.

[Jesuslove]

This is either ignorant or patently dishonest. From Genesis 2 marriage is clearly defined as between one man and one woman. From that point on any mention of sexuality is to be looked at through that lens. And in both Matthew and Mark Jesus affirms that very passage from Genesis. As far as Paul's "lukewarm" endorsement of marriage; that was simply because he believed that Christ would be returning in his lifetime.

Newsweek should stick to the news, or at least the weekly tribute to President-elect Obama that they have been giving us the past few months.

But in fairness, there were various non-traditional relationships noted in the Bible including plural marriage. Genesis 2 isn't the only quote about marriage.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I couldn't care less about the gay marriage issue, but Newsweeks approach is absurd. If they want Christians to base their concept of marriage off of mistakes made by a bunch of people in the Bible. Then I guess they can also expect Christians to justify sleeping with our neighbors wife, then killing the husband after you find out she's pregnant.

[VerbumReale]

But in fairness, there were various non-traditional relationships noted in the Bible including plural marriage. Genesis 2 isn't the only quote about marriage.


No, but in Genesis 2, we are talking about the standard that God set. It is creation before the fall, so it is the perfect standard. And it's the only standard that we hear directly from God. That is why I said anything else that is written relating to sexuality in the Bible is to be read through that lens.

[Jesuslove]

No, but in Genesis 2, we are talking about the standard that God set. It is creation before the fall, so it is the perfect standard. And it's the only standard that we hear directly from God. That is why I said anything else that is written relating to sexuality in the Bible is to be read through that lens.

Yes, but the Bible is the Word of God, so shouldn't plural marriage, which is alive and well in the Bible be seen as scripturally the word of God?

[VerbumReale]

Yes, but the Bible is the Word of God, so shouldn't plural marriage, which is alive and well in the Bible be seen as scripturally the word of God?

A lot of things happen in the Bible that doesn't make them OK with God. Some say that the Bible does not condemn plural marriage. I say hogwash you need not look any further than "You shall not commit adultery." The idea that because polygamy happened in the Bible then it must somehow be OK with God is ridiculuous. God set the standard in creation. The OT patriarchs were aware of it and they violated it with polygymous marriages. To say that God never said anything to them about it absurd. They all knew the standard that had been set in creation. The OT patriarchs committed all sorts of sin. David was a murderer. But when Joseph was addressing his brothers in Genesis 50 we learned that what humans intend for evil God will sometimes use for good.

There are laws in Deuteronomy that demand the murder of disobedient children and the abuse of women. Are you saying those ore OK?? I am not talking about picking and choosing here. I am talking about having a hermeneutical lens.

Regardless. This is not about polygamy. Even if you are going to make the argument that the polygymous behavior of the OT patriarchs justifes polygamy; an argument which I bleive is wrong and faulty, but nonetheless if you are going to make it, you cannot extend it by the same logic to homosexulity because there is no precedent in the Bible for gay-marriage.

[rossid]

http://outbound.afa.net/track?type=click&mailingid=alert_newsweek_ 120808&messageid=alert_newsweek_ 120808&databaseid=1234&serial=1181235381&emailid=rossidor@yahoo.co m&userid=20396711&extra=&&&100&&&http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2881

[VerbumReale]

http://outbound.afa.net/track?type=click&mailingid=alert_newsweek_ 120808&messageid=alert_newsweek_ 120808&databaseid=1234&serial=1181235381&emailid=rossidor@yahoo.co m&userid=20396711&extra=&&&100&&&http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2881

Wow I thought it was just a column. I didn't realize it was the cover story. Newsweek has gone so far over the deep end it is just pathetic. I felt strongly months ago that I would not be re-newing my subscription to Newsweek but this just seals it.

[calalily]

http://outbound.afa.net/track?type=click&mailingid=alert_newsweek_ 120808&messageid=alert_newsweek_ 120808&databaseid=1234&serial=1181235381&emailid=rossidor@yahoo.co m&userid=20396711&extra=&&&100&&&http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2881

thanks for the link!

[Jesuslove]

If anyone is interested, here's a link to subscribe to Newsweek. I just did.

https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/N4/NWM/NWM_google_5440.jsp?cds_p age_id=56337&cds_mag_code=NWM&id=1228828785389&lsid=83440719450037834&vid=1&cds_response_key=I08GGL00 2

[VerbumReale]

If anyone is interested, here's a link to subscribe to Newsweek. I just did.

https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/N4/NWM/NWM_google_5440.jsp?cds_p age_id=56337&cds_mag_code=NWM&id=1228828785389&lsid=83440719450037834&vid=1&cds_response_key=I08GGL00 2


Well I hear it does serve very well as a fishwrap or the lining of a birdcage. But if you are looking for an objective news source, I would suggest trying somewhere else.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Yes, but the Bible is the Word of God, so shouldn't plural marriage, which is alive and well in the Bible be seen as scripturally the word of God?

Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's right. The stories are those of imperfect people. Obviously they made mistakes. What makes you think Polygamy wasn't one of those mistakes?

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Well I hear it does serve very well as a fishwrap or the lining of a birdcage. But if you are looking for an objective news source, I would suggest trying somewhere else.

Also works for camping trips in case toilet paper is forgotten. Although, I hear a printed out Fox News article provides more softness. :D

[rossid]

Okay this is not objective but an alternative to Snusweek.

http://www.nationalreview.com/

[Jesuslove]

Okay this is not objective but an alternative to Snusweek.

http://www.nationalreview.com/

The National Untrue is less believeable than Faux News.

[calalily]

Reaction to the article:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/readback/archive/2008/12/08/a-religious-reaction-to-gay-marriage.aspx?GT1=43002

[truster]

Here's a link to a rebuttal:

http://takeyourvitaminz.blogspot .com/2008/12/robert-gagnon-responds-to-newsweek-gay.html

This is a link to a blog that gives an outline and short overview of the rebuttal. The article itself is 23 pages in length. It's a good read... it just takes awhile!

[Jesuslove]

Here's a link to a rebuttal:

http://takeyourvitaminz.blogspot .com/2008/12/robert-gagnon-responds-to-newsweek-gay.html

This is a link to a blog that gives an outline and short overview of the rebuttal. The article itself is 23 pages in length. It's a good read... it just takes awhile!

That's alll well and good but gays want civil marriage, not religious marriage. There is a separation of church and state in America. I recommend watching Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart discuss marriage.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCFE0qhi8Fk

[truster]

That's alll well and good but gays want civil marriage, not religious marriage.

That's all well and good, but that's not what the Newsweek article was arguing for. The last two paragraphs really have nothing to do with civil marriages vs. religious marriages. Anyway, I don't think the Bible lends itself to separating marriage into civil vs. religious. To God, marriage is marriage... it doesn't matter what the government says, it matters what He says.

The Newsweek article is not arguing civil vs. religious. It's arguing about what God says, as if by us interpreting Scripture differently, God will suddenly approve of homosexuality.



Now to other things:

I'm not in the business of condemning. I am, however, in the "business" of communicating God's condemnation and the loophole through the sacrifice of the Christ. I don't have to preach God's condemnation to non-Christian homosexuals on account of their homosexuality--even though I do believe that acting on said homosexuality is a sin; there's sufficient evidence against every person, homosexual or not, including myself, for God to condemn each of them/us to hell. But, as I've already mentioned, there's a "loophole" through the sacrifice of the Christ--that's the epitome of what each Christian should try to communicate: "Repent! The kingdom of God is at hand!" But one cannot accept the sacrifice and repent if they don't even realize they have any sins to be atoned for/to repent of. For more on that, see Romans 2 and 3.


Now to apply it to Christian homosexuals: As Christians, we have all been buried with Christ in baptism and raised to walk in the newness of life (ref. Romans 6, v. 4 or 5, I can't remember). For some, the newness of life may include not practicing heterosexual promiscuity. For some, the newness of life may include learning not to condemn others. For most, the newness of life will include learning to be humble. And, yes, for some, the newness of life may include not practicing homosexuality. And whether I have confront my brother about his sin--whatever it may be--privately, with one or two witnesses, or in front of the whole congregation, it is my duty as his brother to help him walk in that newness of life... as it is his duty to help me do so, as well (ref. Matthew 18).



Anyway, that's my view... take it or leave it.

[rossid]

Funny to see this issue at my Christian psychiatrist's office today.

[Jesuslove]

That's all well and good, but that's not what the Newsweek article was arguing for. The last two paragraphs really have nothing to do with civil marriages vs. religious marriages. Anyway, I don't think the Bible lends itself to separating marriage into civil vs. religious. To God, marriage is marriage... it doesn't matter what the government says, it matters what He says.
Then why worry if two men or two women marry? I'm sure there are many heterosexual marriages God doesn't recognize. If we are only worried about God's view of marriage, then why be bothered with man's view, if you believe the only true marriages are the ones God recognizes.

I'm not in the business of condemning. I am, however, in the "business" of communicating God's condemnation and the loophole through the sacrifice of the Christ.
I find it much easier to leave judgement up to God. If God wanted us to judge others, he would have told us to do so.


I don't have to preach God's condemnation to non-Christian homosexuals on account of their homosexuality--even though I do believe that acting on said homosexuality is a sin; there's sufficient evidence against every person, homosexual or not, including myself, for God to condemn each of them/us to hell. But, as I've already mentioned, there's a "loophole" through the sacrifice of the Christ--that's the epitome of what each Christian should try to communicate: "Repent! The kingdom of God is at hand!" But one cannot accept the sacrifice and repent if they don't even realize they have any sins to be atoned for/to repent of. For more on that, see Romans 2 and 3.
Do people point out your sins to you? Do you point out all others' sins? Do you tell divorced people that they are living a sinful lifestyle? Or do you just feel you have to preach to homosexuals?

[VerbumReale]

Then why worry if two men or two women marry? I'm sure there are many heterosexual marriages God doesn't recognize. If we are only worried about God's view of marriage, then why be bothered with man's view, if you believe the only true marriages are the ones God recognizes.

Because one of the reasons why God gives us the law is to restrain ungodly behavior in order to assist in providing and maintaining good order. Of course we can't keep the law perfectly and so yes there may just be situations where marriage between one man and one woman may not be recognized by God. But where we can clearly see that God's law and will are being violated (gay marriage) then God's law should be applied. The reality of our inability to keep the law 100% faithfully is not an excuse to carte-blanche ignore God's law.


I find it much easier to leave judgement up to God. If God wanted us to judge others, he would have told us to do so.


Divine judgement sure. And divine judgment should be left to God. But the idea that we are never to judge each other's behavior is a myth. "Judge not lest ye be juedged yourself" is probably the most abused passage in all of scripture followed closely by "Faith without good works is dead." Scripture clearly call us to hold each other accountable for out sins and misdeeds. To not do so is simply negligent. "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself" is more about the tempering of judgment than the elimination of it.


Do people point out your sins to you? Do you point out all others' sins? Do you tell divorced people that they are living a sinful lifestyle? Or do you just feel you have to preach to homosexuals?

I know you weren't asking me but I'll asnwer anyway.

Actually yeah some people have. In fact a colleague and I covenanted with each other to do just that, hold each other accountable, which of course involves pointing out our sin to each other. While it may not be easy to hear, in the long run it only helps in nurturing of our faith. As far as divorce, while I may not use the language "sinful lifestyle" I have pointed ou to people what the Bible says about divorce and that when one goes through a divorce, confession and absolution should be sought.

[Jesuslove]

Actually yeah some people have. In fact a colleague and I covenanted with each other to do just that, hold each other accountable, which of course involves pointing out our sin to each other. While it may not be easy to hear, in the long run it only helps in nurturing of our faith. As far as divorce, while I may not use the language "sinful lifestyle" I have pointed ou to people what the Bible says about divorce and that when one goes through a divorce, confession and absolution should be sought.

Do you actively counsel against remarriage for those who have divorced, consistent with Biblican teachings? Would you marry a couple that has been previously divorced? I'm just seeing if you are consistent...

And I'm curious... given that you believe one's sexual orientation is a choice, at what point in your life did you decide not to be gay?

[VerbumReale]

Do you actively counsel against remarriage for those who have divorced, consistent with Biblican teachings? Would you marry a couple that has been previously divorced? I'm just seeing if you are consistent...

And I'm curious... given that you believe one's sexual orientation is a choice, at what point in your life did you decide not to be gay?


We have gone down this road. Divorce and re-marriage is a sticky issue to be sure. What I counsel is that God's will is that marriage is for one man and one woman for life. However, being sinful creatures divorce happens and so stipulation in scripture have been put in scripture that acknowledge that reality and allow, although certainly not bless, divorce in certain situations. Now of course not every divorce is going to fit that criteria. The only situations where I have had married people coming from divorce were situations where the divorce was precede by adultery on the part of the previous spouse. And even then, as I have said I told them it needed to be acknowledged through confession and absolution. Would I ever counsel against re-marriage? Sure if it was a situation where someone had a history indicating that they clearly don't take the covenant of marriage seriously. But when someone is divorced because their previous spouse left them, what I am supposed to tell them. "No, I can't marry you because you didn't satisfy your previous spouse."

I'll be the first one to admit that the church has dropped the ball big time on divorce. We need to to be more diligent in addrssing it. But that is no excuse to ignore what the Bible clearly says in regards to homosexuality. The parallel between divorce and homosexuality just doesn't work. There is no circumstance where homosexuality is allowed in scripture. A person in a homosexual relationship is in a state of unrepentant sin so cinfession and absolution doesn't apply.

And I never said that a person chooses their sexual orientation. The logic that if a person is born gay then homosexual beahvior must be ok is completely faulty. My uncle was born pre-disposed to alcoholism, but as a recovering alcoholic, the last thing he would want is for alcoholic behavior to be normalized and accepted. And just so you know, there is a difference between saying that people don't choose to be gay and saying that people choose their sexual orientation. People who oppose the idea of people being born gay are not saying that we choose our sexual orientation, they are saying that homosexual behavior is a rejection of the heterosexual orientation that we are all born with. I am not saying that I agree with that, but you should propbably know the dynamics of a certain belief before you go trying to refute it and certainly before you go falsely accusing someone of holding to that view.

[phil_ur_friend]

And I'm curious... given that you believe one's sexual orientation is a choice, at what point in your life did you decide not to be gay?

You didn't ask me...however, thankfully, that doesn't matter.

I decided to not be gay when playing with wooden blocks as a child.

The round block fits in the round hole...square block in the square hole...it just never seemed natural to try and cram a wooden block into another wooden block.

Simple logic...A place for everything and everything in its place.

Phil, your friend

[phil_ur_friend]

That's all well and good, but that's not what the Newsweek article was arguing for. The last two paragraphs really have nothing to do with civil marriages vs. religious marriages. Anyway, I don't think the Bible lends itself to separating marriage into civil vs. religious. To God, marriage is marriage... it doesn't matter what the government says, it matters what He says.

The Newsweek article is not arguing civil vs. religious. It's arguing about what God says, as if by us interpreting Scripture differently, God will suddenly approve of homosexuality.



Now to other things:

I'm not in the business of condemning. I am, however, in the "business" of communicating God's condemnation and the loophole through the sacrifice of the Christ. I don't have to preach God's condemnation to non-Christian homosexuals on account of their homosexuality--even though I do believe that acting on said homosexuality is a sin; there's sufficient evidence against every person, homosexual or not, including myself, for God to condemn each of them/us to hell. But, as I've already mentioned, there's a "loophole" through the sacrifice of the Christ--that's the epitome of what each Christian should try to communicate: "Repent! The kingdom of God is at hand!" But one cannot accept the sacrifice and repent if they don't even realize they have any sins to be atoned for/to repent of. For more on that, see Romans 2 and 3.


Now to apply it to Christian homosexuals: As Christians, we have all been buried with Christ in baptism and raised to walk in the newness of life (ref. Romans 6, v. 4 or 5, I can't remember). For some, the newness of life may include not practicing heterosexual promiscuity. For some, the newness of life may include learning not to condemn others. For most, the newness of life will include learning to be humble. And, yes, for some, the newness of life may include not practicing homosexuality. And whether I have confront my brother about his sin--whatever it may be--privately, with one or two witnesses, or in front of the whole congregation, it is my duty as his brother to help him walk in that newness of life... as it is his duty to help me do so, as well (ref. Matthew 18).



Anyway, that's my view... take it or leave it.

Nicely put...I'll take it! ;)

Phil, your friend

[phil_ur_friend]

Then why worry if two men or two women marry?

Who's worried?

[Pouye]

You didn't ask me...however, thankfully, that doesn't matter.

I decided to not be gay when playing with wooden blocks as a child.

The round block fits in the round hole...square block in the square hole...it just never seemed natural to try and cram a wooden block into another wooden block.

Simple logic...A place for everything and everything in its place.

Phil, your friend

Are you saying that God has a purpose for how He designed male and female anatomy? You are so Renaissance, dude! We Post-modernists don't buy that stuff anymore... ;)

Rock

[Pouye]

The Bible does define marriage.

Polygyny is not condemned in the Bible, but it is also not encouraged and is discouraged for some people in strong leadership positions. There is no way anyone can say that polygyny is a sin Biblically. Otherwise Moses, David, and many other authors in the Bible were living in sexual sin, something that God never overlooked in the lives of those who authored the Bible. Adultery is not the same thing as polygyny, and nobody -- pastor or anyone else -- can honestly make that case and be true to the Scriptures.

Never once is the practice itself condemned by God, and in some cases (at least for Israelites) the practice was commanded by God (see Deuteronomy 25).

It is a distraction from the truth to compare polygyny to homosexual practices. The article makes this illogical comparison: Since the Bible appears to be fine with polygyny it cannot be trusted regarding anything it says about human sexuality.

The Bible CAN be trusted in what it says about human sexuality. For one, just because the Bible has stories in it that show people doing things like rape, murder, adultery, etc. doesn't mean that God in any way approves of such behavior. To know what sort of behavior God approves or disapproves of there are places in the Bible that do specifically cover such things.

For instance, the Bible explicitly disapproves of homosexual practices:

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." Leviticus 18:22
The punishment is death (Leviticus 20:13).

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-

The Bible also specifically deals with adultery, and what defines adultery. Adultery is certainly not polygyny (a man marrying more than one woman). David committed adultery with Bathsheba. David was a married man (already married to Michal, Ahinoam, Abigail (widow of Nabal), Maacah, Talmai, Haggith, Abital, Eglah) when he committed adultery with Bathsheba. God had no problem with all of David's wives, but He did have a problem with David messing around with a married woman. Once Bathsheba's husband was dead however, Bathsheba became one of David's legal wives:

"Then David comforted Bathsheba, his wife, and slept with her. She became pregnant and gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The LORD loved the child and sent word through Nathan the prophet that his name should be Jedidiah—“beloved of the LORD”—because the LORD loved him."
Samuel 12:24-

There is no way that God would simply allow David to live in adultery, nor in sexual sin. God punished David for committing adultery and for arranging to have her husband killed in battle by taking the life of their firstborn son. Don't you think God would have punished David for taking all of the other wives he had if polygyny was equal to adultery?

No, those who argue that polygyny is a detestable sexual sin like adultery, homosexual acts, fornication, etc. are just plain wrong. In Western culture polygyny is unacceptable. That being the case, our laws reflect this, and our collective mentality reflects this. However, many countries in the world allow polygyny, just like Bible times. In those countries (representing billions of people, by the way -- not just a few backward tribes), many still have laws forbidding adultery and other sexual practices.

People always think their cultural way is the right way. That is human nature. But the Bible is not our cultural way -- it was written in several different cultural contexts and times. That is why it is important to understand the Bible with an open cultural mind. For instance, slavery among Israelites was not inherently wrong, nor sinful. It was volutary, and there were laws that governed it, such as this:

“If an Israelite man or woman voluntarily becomes your servant and serves you for six years, in the seventh year you must set that servant free. When you release a male servant, do not send him away empty-handed. Give him a generous farewell gift from your flock, your threshing floor, and your winepress. Share with him some of the bounty with which the LORD your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you! That is why I am giving you this command. But suppose your servant says, ‘I will not leave you,’ because he loves you and your family, and he is well off with you. In that case, take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door. After that, he will be your servant for life. You must do the same for your female servants. Do not consider it a hardship when you release your servants. Remember that for six years they have given you the services worth double the wages of hired workers, and the LORD your God will bless you in all you do."
Deuteronomy 15:13-

So since slavery of this type was acceptable to God, it was not a sinful practice, and slavery that is governed in this way is not sinful in God's eyes. If an Israelite today volunteered to be a slave and the slave/master relationship with governed in this way (as the Word of the Lord says), it would not be sinful in God's sight.

Today people want to say that the Bible is not reliable in any modern matters because it "condones" such things as slavery, polygyny, and other things that are no longer (at least in Western society) considered acceptable and/or legal. But the fact is, the Bible is still just as true today as ever, and just as trustworthy in matters of conduct and life.

What many "Post-modern Christians" do is simply reinterpret the Bible to say what it doesn't say to fit their viewpoints. Instead of conceding that polygyny was a legitimate behavior culturally and that God did not condemn the practice as sin, but instead wrote rules/laws to regulate and govern the practice to make the practice fair to all parties and their offspring, Western Christians simply come up with ways of making it sinful based on their interpretation of certain passages. Same with slavery, divorce, etc. Christians today ignore Paul when he says if a man has sexual relations with a prostitute that the two become one flesh -- especially when Paul refers to Genesis 2!!!!

Let God be true and every man a liar,

Rock

[VerbumReale]

The Bible does define marriage.

Polygyny is not condemned in the Bible, but it is also not encouraged and is discouraged for some people in strong leadership positions. There is no way anyone can say that polygyny is a sin Biblically. Otherwise Moses, David, and many other authors in the Bible were living in sexual sin, something that God never overlooked in the lives of those who authored the Bible. Adultery is not the same thing as polygyny, and nobody -- pastor or anyone else -- can honestly make that case and be true to the Scriptures.

Never once is the practice itself condemned by God, and in some cases (at least for Israelites) the practice was commanded by God (see Deuteronomy 25).

It is a distraction from the truth to compare polygyny to homosexual practices. The article makes this illogical comparison: Since the Bible appears to be fine with polygyny it cannot be trusted regarding anything it says about human sexuality.

The Bible CAN be trusted in what it says about human sexuality. For one, just because the Bible has stories in it that show people doing things like rape, murder, adultery, etc. doesn't mean that God in any way approves of such behavior. To know what sort of behavior God approves or disapproves of there are places in the Bible that do specifically cover such things.

For instance, the Bible explicitly disapproves of homosexual practices:

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." Leviticus 18:22
The punishment is death (Leviticus 20:13).

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Corinthians 6:9-

The Bible also specifically deals with adultery, and what defines adultery. Adultery is certainly not polygyny (a man marrying more than one woman). David committed adultery with Bathsheba. David was a married man (already married to Michal, Ahinoam, Abigail (widow of Nabal), Maacah, Talmai, Haggith, Abital, Eglah) when he committed adultery with Bathsheba. God had no problem with all of David's wives, but He did have a problem with David messing around with a married woman. Once Bathsheba's husband was dead however, Bathsheba became one of David's legal wives:

"Then David comforted Bathsheba, his wife, and slept with her. She became pregnant and gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The LORD loved the child and sent word through Nathan the prophet that his name should be Jedidiah—“beloved of the LORD”—because the LORD loved him."
Samuel 12:24-

There is no way that God would simply allow David to live in adultery, nor in sexual sin. God punished David for committing adultery and for arranging to have her husband killed in battle by taking the life of their firstborn son. Don't you think God would have punished David for taking all of the other wives he had if polygyny was equal to adultery?

No, those who argue that polygyny is a detestable sexual sin like adultery, homosexual acts, fornication, etc. are just plain wrong. In Western culture polygyny is unacceptable. That being the case, our laws reflect this, and our collective mentality reflects this. However, many countries in the world allow polygyny, just like Bible times. In those countries (representing billions of people, by the way -- not just a few backward tribes), many still have laws forbidding adultery and other sexual practices.

People always think their cultural way is the right way. That is human nature. But the Bible is not our cultural way -- it was written in several different cultural contexts and times. That is why it is important to understand the Bible with an open cultural mind. For instance, slavery among Israelites was not inherently wrong, nor sinful. It was volutary, and there were laws that governed it, such as this:

“If an Israelite man or woman voluntarily becomes your servant and serves you for six years, in the seventh year you must set that servant free. When you release a male servant, do not send him away empty-handed. Give him a generous farewell gift from your flock, your threshing floor, and your winepress. Share with him some of the bounty with which the LORD your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you! That is why I am giving you this command. But suppose your servant says, ‘I will not leave you,’ because he loves you and your family, and he is well off with you. In that case, take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door. After that, he will be your servant for life. You must do the same for your female servants. Do not consider it a hardship when you release your servants. Remember that for six years they have given you the services worth double the wages of hired workers, and the LORD your God will bless you in all you do."
Deuteronomy 15:13-

So since slavery of this type was acceptable to God, it was not a sinful practice, and slavery that is governed in this way is not sinful in God's eyes. If an Israelite today volunteered to be a slave and the slave/master relationship with governed in this way (as the Word of the Lord says), it would not be sinful in God's sight.

Today people want to say that the Bible is not reliable in any modern matters because it "condones" such things as slavery, polygyny, and other things that are no longer (at least in Western society) considered acceptable and/or legal. But the fact is, the Bible is still just as true today as ever, and just as trustworthy in matters of conduct and life.

What many "Post-modern Christians" do is simply reinterpret the Bible to say what it doesn't say to fit their viewpoints. Instead of conceding that polygyny was a legitimate behavior culturally and that God did not condemn the practice as sin, but instead wrote rules/laws to regulate and govern the practice to make the practice fair to all parties and their offspring, Western Christians simply come up with ways of making it sinful based on their interpretation of certain passages. Same with slavery, divorce, etc. Christians today ignore Paul when he says if a man has sexual relations with a prostitute that the two become one flesh -- especially when Paul refers to Genesis 2!!!!

Let God be true and every man a liar,

Rock

Rock, I have made my case and I have to respectfully disagree with you. It is as clear as day. Apparently you disagree and that is fine. But I have to say your continued assertions that the only reason someone would recognize that polygymy qualiifes as adultery is becaue they are stuck in some western-centric world-view to be highly condescending and insulting. I have said to you before that you are not the only person on here who has experienced other cultures that don't have the same customs and values regarding sexuality as America.

I am well aware that there are cultures where polygymy is a part of every day life. But, with alll due respect scripture is clear. You keep referring to Deuteronomy, but Deuteronomy commands the killing of children and abuse of women. I showed you this in another thread. Are you saying that somehow is not a violation of "You shall not kill?" And no I am not suggesting that makes Deuteronomy irrelevant, but there is a historical narrative to take into consideration. You keep referring to Deuteronomy as being written by God and no doubt-it is God-breathed, but you know full well that there is a huge difference between God speaking a law directly to Moses and Moses writing a set of laws for his historical context. Are you seriously suggesting that we are still bound by every law in Deuteronomy?

And you say with full confidence that there is no way that God would simply allow David to live in sexual sin. Really?? So now you know the mind of God?? Well, in Romans Paul writes of God giving people up to their own lusts and desires. And oddly enough, just a few verses before that we read...


Romans 1
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.


Now I am not saying that anything in Romans 1 is a direct reference to David or any OT patriarchs but it could be applied. Why do we not see God directly condemning David or anyone else for their polygamy in the OT?? Who knows? But I think from what Paul writes in Romans this may just be a situation where they are without excuse.

The reality that so many OT patriarchs had polygymous families is puzzling and I don't know why we don't see God saying anything directly to them about it. (Which by the way doesn't mean He didn't) But I do know that there is only one standard of marriage that comes directly from the mouth of God and that is of one man and one woman. To suggest that polygamy qualifies as marriage suggests that God has an ideal standard and a "Well if you can't commit to only one woman" standard. And that is just not the reality. The standard that God set in Genesis 2 is the only standard. It is also the same standard that was affirmed by Jesus in Matthew and Mark.

And in that same incident in Matthew 19 (which yes Jesus was addressing divorce I am aware of that) Jesus de-facto condemns polygamy because He says that if a man divorces his wife and marries another, except for sexual immorality he has committed adultery. Jesus is talking about improperly divorcing someone, and He defines any reason other than sexual immorality as improper divorce. So in other words, what He is saying is a divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality is not a divorce so the man would still be married to the woman he tried to divorce and hence marrying someone else would be adultery. In other words Jesus would not recognize the 2nd marriage, otherwise He simply would have said that the man was still married to the first woman. If Jesus recognized polygamy as marriage he would not have said that a man marrying another woman while still married to another woman ia adultery. But He did, and so we know it is.

Rock, I respect you a lot. Your posts enlighten and challenge me. But with all due respect I think you are wrong on this. I can't help but think if maybe your not recognizing polygamy as adulterous has something to do with friendships you have made with polygymous people in Paupa New Guinea. I don't know maybe I am off base.

But I have made my case. You can repsond if you want, but I would rather not continue to hash this out, and will probably not say any more about this. I would just assume we agree to disagree. I don't think I am going to change your mind, and I know you're not going to change mine. But rest assured my conclusions on this are not simply the result of a western-centric world view. I spent some time in the middle east. And I also have knowledge of "healthy" polygymous families here in the US.

No Rock, this is not some knee-jerk "America's way is the only way" reaction. And it certainly isn't some post-modern attempt to re-interpret the Bible to fit my needs. I have spent much time in the Word studying this, as I am sure you have. So with that, I will just say I respectfully disagree with you and leave my comments on this at that.

[Les_Is_More]

There is a separation of church and state in America.

Just for clarification, the "separation of church and state" is to prevent the state from interfering with the church. Not the other way around. I see this line used inaccurately frequently.

[phil_ur_friend]

Just for clarification, the "separation of church and state" is to prevent the state from interfering with the church. Not the other way around. I see this line used inaccurately frequently.

The Shmonstismooshin of the Indicted Crates of Bo Derricka is more accurate a term for todays standards.

;)


Phil, your friend

[Jesuslove]

Just for clarification, the "separation of church and state" is to prevent the state from interfering with the church. Not the other way around. I see this line used inaccurately frequently.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/500451.aspx

[VerbumReale]

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/500451.aspx

Nothing comes up, at least when I tried to click on it.

[VerbumReale]

Just for clarification, the "separation of church and state" is to prevent the state from interfering with the church. Not the other way around. I see this line used inaccurately frequently.

While it has it's origins from that motivation, it is actually developed with the priciples of a secular government and religious freedom in mind. As you probably know, the phrase does not appear in the constitution. It's most well known use in connection to the founding fathers was in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he cites the first amendment and concurs with the Danbury Baptist's advocacy for religious freedom. Here is a quote from the letter.

"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Although first applied by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison was one of the main proponents of the concept. In acknowledging that Martin Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms marked the beginning of the modern conception of the separation of church and state Madison also recognized that it's origins were in fact drawn from a reaction to a church that had been corrupted by the state. Although Luther himself intended the concept to provide protection in both ways.

But you are right in suggesting that the current application of it has become far too singularly focused.

[Pouye]

Rock, I have made my case and I have to respectfully disagree with you. It is as clear as day. Apparently you disagree and that is fine.


Clear as day?


But I have to say your continued assertions that the only reason someone would recognize that polygymy qualiifes as adultery is becaue they are stuck in some western-centric world-view to be highly condescending and insulting. I have said to you before that you are not the only person on here who has experienced other cultures that don't have the same customs and values regarding sexuality as America.


This has nothing to do with other cultures, but with the Bible and Biblical culture, which you continue to ignore. I don't care if it sounds insulting, because what I say is true about Biblical culture. Your lack of understanding regarding Biblical culture doesn't change my view in the least.


I am well aware that there are cultures where polygymy is a part of every day life. But, with alll due respect scripture is clear. You keep referring to Deuteronomy, but Deuteronomy commands the killing of children and abuse of women.


Actually, there was nothing sinful about any of the laws in Deuteronomy. That is where you and I disagree. Do you actually think that God commanded people to do sinful things -- things that would displease Him? God's commands to the Israelites were right, good and justified. God never commanded one thing that was a sinful thing for an Israelite to do.


I showed you this in another thread. Are you saying that somehow is not a violation of "You shall not kill?"


Not at all. "You shall not kill" does not nullify capital punishment which is commanded by God. God is not schizophrenic -- saying things that contradict his commandments. Obviously God doesn't see capital punishment (public carrying out a death sentence) as a violation of "you shall not kill".


And no I am not suggesting that makes Deuteronomy irrelevant, but there is a historical narrative to take into consideration. You keep referring to Deuteronomy as being written by God and no doubt-it is God-breathed, but you know full well that there is a huge difference between God speaking a law directly to Moses and Moses writing a set of laws for his historical context. Are you seriously suggesting that we are still bound by every law in Deuteronomy?


"WE" were never bound by Hebrew Law. Never were, never will be. But the Hebrews were bound to it, as were those Gentiles who converted to Judaism.


And you say with full confidence that there is no way that God would simply allow David to live in sexual sin. Really?? So now you know the mind of God?? Well, in Romans Paul writes of God giving people up to their own lusts and desires. And oddly enough, just a few verses before that we read...


Again, not just David, but Moses (the Law writer and writer of most of the Old Testament) and many others Biblical authors. God doesn't pick and choose when it comes to His anointed ones:
"“How foolish!” Samuel exclaimed. “You have disobeyed the command of the LORD your God. Had you obeyed, the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your dynasty must end, for the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart. The LORD has already chosen him to be king over his people, for you have not obeyed the LORD's command.”
1 Samuel 13:13-


Why do we not see God directly condemning David or anyone else for their polygamy in the OT?? Who knows?


You are forgetting that God commanded polygamy in some circumstances and that He gave laws to govern it, too. God doesn't give laws to govern the conduct of other sexual sins...


But I think from what Paul writes in Romans this may just be a situation where they are without excuse.


Romans 1 had nothing to do with the authors of the Bible, nor the kings of Israel. Solomon disobeyed God's command to the king -- not to marry foreign women -- and it cost him his throne and possibly his soul.


The reality that so many OT patriarchs had polygymous families is puzzling and I don't know why we don't see God saying anything directly to them about it. (Which by the way doesn't mean He didn't) But I do know that there is only one standard of marriage that comes directly from the mouth of God and that is of one man and one woman.


This is like saying the standard is singleness, so marriage is sinful:

"Now I say to those who aren't married and to widows—it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am. But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with lust."
1 Corinthians 7:8-

Singleness is God's ideal:

"Jesus' disciples then said to him, “Then it is better not to marry!”
“Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said. “Only those whom God helps. Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made that way by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone who can, accept this statement.”
Matthew 19:10-

and...

"An unmarried man can spend his time doing the Lord's work and thinking how to please him. But a married man can't do that so well."
1 Corinthians 7:32-

You see, just because there is an ideal (singleness) doesn't mean that marriage is sinful. In fact, it is inferior in some ways (one reason I think Jesus remained single, as well as Paul), but it has its place. Saying that the "standard" is the ideal and then saying anything apart from the ideal is sinful is simply not logical.


To suggest that polygamy qualifies as marriage suggests that God has an ideal standard and a "Well if you can't commit to only one woman" standard. And that is just not the reality. The standard that God set in Genesis 2 is the only standard. It is also the same standard that was affirmed by Jesus in Matthew and Mark.


I just shot that argument to pieces. Polygyny isn't about not being able to commit to one woman. That's like saying since God set the standard (Jesus was single, remember?), that the other standard of marriage is sinful. Not the case, and not true.


And in that same incident in Matthew 19 (which yes Jesus was addressing divorce I am aware of that) Jesus de-facto condemns polygamy because He says that if a man divorces his wife and marries another, except for sexual immorality he has committed adultery.


Wrong. A man can marry another woman and not divorce the first. Doesn't apply. Do you understand that when a man (take Jacob, for instance) marries one woman (like Leah) and then another (like Rachel) that the two are both his wives, and he didn't have to divorce Leah to marry Rachel? The Bible is already clear that a man can be "one flesh" with more than one woman. If a married man has relations with a prostitute, the two become one flesh. Remember that verse?


Jesus is talking about improperly divorcing someone, and He defines any reason other than sexual immorality as improper divorce. So in other words, what He is saying is a divorce for any reason other than sexual immorality is not a divorce so the man would still be married to the woman he tried to divorce and hence marrying someone else would be adultery. In other words Jesus would not recognize the 2nd marriage, otherwise He simply would have said that the man was still married to the first woman. If Jesus recognized polygamy as marriage he would not have said that a man marrying another woman while still married to another woman ia adultery. But He did, and so we know it is.


Wrong interpretation. Jesus wasn't talking about taking a second wife, but about divorce. Doesn't apply at all.


Rock, I respect you a lot. Your posts enlighten and challenge me. But with all due respect I think you are wrong on this. I can't help but think if maybe your not recognizing polygamy as adulterous has something to do with friendships you have made with polygymous people in Paupa New Guinea. I don't know maybe I am off base.


With all due respect I think you are wrong. And this doesn't have anything to do with my friends, but everything to do with how seeing other cultures has given me insight into Biblical culture, which was very similar to many non-Western cultures. Biblical culture was non-Western and very Eastern.


So with that, I will just say I respectfully disagree with you and leave my comments on this at that.

Ok, I respectfully disagree.

Rock

[VerbumReale]

Clear as day?



This has nothing to do with other cultures, but with the Bible and Biblical culture, which you continue to ignore. I don't care if it sounds insulting, because what I say is true about Biblical culture. Your lack of understanding regarding Biblical culture doesn't change my view in the least.



Actually, there was nothing sinful about any of the laws in Deuteronomy. That is where you and I disagree. Do you actually think that God commanded people to do sinful things -- things that would displease Him? God's commands to the Israelites were right, good and justified. God never commanded one thing that was a sinful thing for an Israelite to do.



Not at all. "You shall not kill" does not nullify capital punishment which is commanded by God. God is not schizophrenic -- saying things that contradict his commandments. Obviously God doesn't see capital punishment (public carrying out a death sentence) as a violation of "you shall not kill".



"WE" were never bound by Hebrew Law. Never were, never will be. But the Hebrews were bound to it, as were those Gentiles who converted to Judaism.



Again, not just David, but Moses (the Law writer and writer of most of the Old Testament) and many others Biblical authors. God doesn't pick and choose when it comes to His anointed ones:
"“How foolish!” Samuel exclaimed. “You have disobeyed the command of the LORD your God. Had you obeyed, the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your dynasty must end, for the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart. The LORD has already chosen him to be king over his people, for you have not obeyed the LORD's command.”
1 Samuel 13:13-



You are forgetting that God commanded polygamy in some circumstances and that He gave laws to govern it, too. God doesn't give laws to govern the conduct of other sexual sins...



Romans 1 had nothing to do with the authors of the Bible, nor the kings of Israel. Solomon disobeyed God's command to the king -- not to marry foreign women -- and it cost him his throne and possibly his soul.



This is like saying the standard is singleness, so marriage is sinful:

"Now I say to those who aren't married and to widows—it's better to stay unmarried, just as I am. But if they can't control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It's better to marry than to burn with lust."
1 Corinthians 7:8-

Singleness is God's ideal:

"Jesus' disciples then said to him, “Then it is better not to marry!”
“Not everyone can accept this statement,” Jesus said. “Only those whom God helps. Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made that way by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone who can, accept this statement.”
Matthew 19:10-

and...

"An unmarried man can spend his time doing the Lord's work and thinking how to please him. But a married man can't do that so well."
1 Corinthians 7:32-

You see, just because there is an ideal (singleness) doesn't mean that marriage is sinful. In fact, it is inferior in some ways (one reason I think Jesus remained single, as well as Paul), but it has its place. Saying that the "standard" is the ideal and then saying anything apart from the ideal is sinful is simply not logical.



I just shot that argument to pieces. Polygyny isn't about not being able to commit to one woman. That's like saying since God set the standard (Jesus was single, remember?), that the other standard of marriage is sinful. Not the case, and not true.



Wrong. A man can marry another woman and not divorce the first. Doesn't apply. Do you understand that when a man (take Jacob, for instance) marries one woman (like Leah) and then another (like Rachel) that the two are both his wives, and he didn't have to divorce Leah to marry Rachel? The Bible is already clear that a man can be "one flesh" with more than one woman. If a married man has relations with a prostitute, the two become one flesh. Remember that verse?



Wrong interpretation. Jesus wasn't talking about taking a second wife, but about divorce. Doesn't apply at all.



With all due respect I think you are wrong. And this doesn't have anything to do with my friends, but everything to do with how seeing other cultures has given me insight into Biblical culture, which was very similar to many non-Western cultures. Biblical culture was non-Western and very Eastern.



Ok, I respectfully disagree.

Rock


You know I would love to continue this but you oibviouldy have no interest in doing so without insulting me and accusing me of being ignorant of biblical culture. You obviously can't respectfully disagree with someone on this issue without resorting to insulting their intelligence so I guess I am going to have to live with the fact that you think I am ignorant of biblical culture. Oh well believe it or not I will somehow manage to trudge forward even though the almighty Rock who apparently knows more than any of us on this issue, thinks that I do not have knowledge of biblical culture. I hate to break it to you but in spite of your insulting insinuations you tore none of my arguments to pieces. Every one of my arguments still stand. Moses, Jacob, David and Solomon did not set the biblical guideline for marriage. God did and He made it abundantly clear and Jesus affirmed that standard in Mattew and Mark. Deny it alll you want. I never denied that Jesus was talking about divorce, in fact I think I said the fact that He does strengthens my argument. There is no wrong interpretation on my part it is as clear as day. Jesus makes it abundanly clear. He tells the person that a divorce for reasons other than sexual immoraity is not a divorce and so an attempt to marry somone else is adultery. And why would it be adultery?? Because the first marriage is still valid. That is no wrong interpretation, as you isultingly suggest. In spite of your suggestions to the contrary, God never suggests that two can become one applies to more than two people. And yes I understand that the culture at the time that the Bible was written thought otherwise, but just as we don't read God's Word through the lens of culture today neither should we read it through the lens of ancient culture. His Word is clear and the standard He set is clear. So even if your insulting accuations of me not knowing biblical culture were true (Which they are not) it doesn't matter becuse the culture at the time that the Bible was written did not define God's Word, God did. And as far as your defense of when Moses commanded what can only be desdcribed as murder. Are you suggesting that God saying the wages of sin is death is somehow commanding the death penalty? I'd like to know where the death penalty is explicutly commanded. We are commanded to respect our governing authorities yes. But I would like to know where God explicitly says that the death penalty must be law. Is it eye for an eye?? Ehhh wrong answer. That's actually about tempering of punishment, a principle which laws that command murder of disobedient children are clearly in violation of. I am not saying that the death penalty is wrong, but are you suggesting that to be against the death penalty is a sin? Are you saying that states that don't have the death penalty are in violation of God's law?? Yes God says the wages of sin is death, but He also says that vegenace is His. The wages of death for sin that God speaks of is not capital punishment. He is talking about the judgment of God. Yes in the law that I referred to there was a biblical command of obedince to parents being addressed, but it doesn't change the fact that Moses was commanding murder. And in the same sense in the laws where Moses commands polygamy, there is another issue being addressed. Moses is rightly making sure that families be taken care of. The fact that he uses polygamy as a means to address that does not mean God is commanding polygamy.

[Pouye]

You know I would love to continue this but you oibviouldy have no interest in doing so without insulting me and accusing me of being ignorant of biblical culture. You obviously can't respectfully disagree with someone on this issue without resorting to insulting their intelligence so I guess I am going to have to live with the fact that you think I am ignorant of biblical culture. Oh well believe it or not I will somehow manage to trudge forward even though the almighty Rock who apparently knows more than any of us on this issue, thinks that I do not have knowledge of biblical culture. I hate to break it to you but in spite of your insulting insinuations you tore none of my arguments to pieces. Every one of my arguments still stand. Moses, Jacob, David and Solomon did not set the biblical guideline for marriage. God did and He made it abundantly clear and Jesus affirmed that standard in Mattew and Mark. Deny it alll you want. I never denied that Jesus was talking about divorce, in fact I think I said the fact that He does strengthens my argument. There is no wrong interpretation on my part it is as clear as day. Jesus makes it abundanly clear. He tells the person that a divorce for reasons other than sexual immoraity is not a divorce and so an attempt to marry somone else is adultery. And why would it be adultery?? Because the first marriage is still valid. That is no wrong interpretation, as you isultingly suggest. In spite of your suggestions to the contrary, God never suggests that two can become one applies to more than two people. And yes I understand that the culture at the time that the Bible was written thought otherwise, but just as we don't read God's Word through the lens of culture today neither should we read it through the lens of ancient culture. His Word is clear and the standard He set is clear. So even if your insulting accuations of me not knowing biblical culture were true (Which they are not) it doesn't matter becuse the culture at the time that the Bible was written did not define God's Word, God did. And as far as your defense of when Moses commanded what can only be desdcribed as murder. Are you suggesting that God saying the wages of sin is death is somehow commanding the death penalty? I'd like to know where the death penalty is explicutly commanded. We are commanded to respect our governing authorities yes. But I would like to know where God explicitly says that the death penalty must be law. Is it eye for an eye?? Ehhh wrong answer. That's actually about tempering of punishment, a principle which laws that command murder of disobedient children are clearly in violation of. I am not saying that the death penalty is wrong, but are you suggesting that to be against the death penalty is a sin? Are you saying that states that don't have the death penalty are in violation of God's law?? Yes God says the wages of sin is death, but He also says that vegenace is His. The wages of death for sin that God speaks of is not capital punishment. He is talking about the judgment of God. Yes in the law that I referred to there was a biblical command of obedince to parents being addressed, but it doesn't change the fact that Moses was commanding murder. And in the same sense in the laws where Moses commands polygamy, there is another issue being addressed. Moses is rightly making sure that families be taken care of. The fact that he uses polygamy as a means to address that does not mean God is commanding polygamy.

Obviously we've insulted each other's intelligence. My apologies for that. I forgive you for insulting mine, as well.

I must address Moses commanding murder. That is a slippery road to walk down. When God gave the capital punishment laws to Moses, it was God giving the commands, and God doesn't command people to sin -- never. That goes against His character. Until you deal with that, you aren't going to understand the reason why God commanded such things of the Israelites. No capital punishment was considered murder in God's sight if done according to the Law of Moses. God WAS enacting His vengeance through the commands. That is the meaning of the phrase, "their blood will be on their own heads."

But anyway, I think we've state our cases and now digressed to insults. I'm sorry for way things have turned out in this thread, and for this long hijack, too. I just feel strongly that the Bible can be trusted regarding human sexuality, even though some of the way things were culturally back then seem strange to our (at least) Western eyes.

My apologies to the OP and to VerbumReale,

Rock

[VerbumReale]

Obviously we've insulted each other's intelligence. My apologies for that. I forgive you for insulting mine, as well.

I must address Moses commanding murder. That is a slippery road to walk down. When God gave the capital punishment laws to Moses, it was God giving the commands, and God doesn't command people to sin -- never. That goes against His character. Until you deal with that, you aren't going to understand the reason why God commanded such things of the Israelites. No capital punishment was considered murder in God's sight if done according to the Law of Moses. God WAS enacting His vengeance through the commands. That is the meaning of the phrase, "their blood will be on their own heads."

But anyway, I think we've state our cases and now digressed to insults. I'm sorry for way things have turned out in this thread, and for this long hijack, too. I just feel strongly that the Bible can be trusted regarding human sexuality, even though some of the way things were culturally back then seem strange to our (at least) Western eyes.

My apologies to the OP and to VerbumReale,

Rock


Apology accepted and I apologize also. However as far as your assertion that I need to deal with the fact that God doesn't command people to sin, I have to respond to that. I never even remotely suggested that God did command sin. And I would suggest that your continued defense of polygamy is a slippery slope also. I have complete trust in God's Word for sexuality. I have made that abundantly clear.

However I also recognize that as great as the OT patriarchs were, they were also incredibly flawed individuals who sometimes abused the law. There is a big difference between Moses writing cultural laws for religious worship etc and the laws that were spoken directly by God to Moses on MT Sinai and what God spoke directly to Adam and Eve. The 10 commandments are the lens through which we read the Mosaic law, and until you come to terms with that then your never going to understand that, as much as you might like to believe otherwise, there are sinful and imperfect elements to the Mosaic law. Until you realize that there is a reason why they are called Mosaic laws and the 10 commandments are considered God's eternal law then you're never going to see that Moses allowed and commanded behavior in those laws that are in violation of the 10 commandments, including laws that mandate murder of children, abuse of women, and yes polygamy. Are they God breathed? Absolutely. And I am not saying God commanded sin. But Moses as well as the people he was writing the laws for were an incredibly flawed people, and it is only inevitable that imperfection is going to be reflected in the temporary Mosaic laws .

But I have made my peace. We obviously have completely different hermenutics. It's time to just let it go. I apologize again for any offense.

[Pouye]

Apology accepted and I apologize also. However as far as your assertion that I need to deal with the fact that God doesn't command people to sin, I have to respond to that. I never even remotely suggested that God did command sin.



You keep referring to Deuteronomy, but Deuteronomy commands the killing of children and abuse of women... ....Are you saying that somehow is not a violation of "You shall not kill?"


I would say this is more than "remotely"...


Until you realize that there is a reason why they are called Mosaic laws and the 10 commandments are considered God's eternal law then you're never going to see that Moses allowed and commanded behavior in those laws that are in violation of the 10 commandments, including laws that mandate murder of children, abuse of women, and yes polygamy. Are they God breathed? Absolutely.


Now I know why we so disagree.


And I am not saying God commanded sin.


It sound to me like you believe God gave flawed laws to flawed people that if followed will violate other laws God gave them. That is incredible...


But Moses as well as the people he was writing the laws for were an incredibly flawed people, and it is only inevitable that imperfection is going to be reflected in the temporary Mosaic laws.


God didn't write flawed laws for a flawed people. He writes good laws. God's laws -- the entire Law set, was good, right and just for the people and culture He was writing to, and none of God's laws violated any of His other laws, either.


We obviously have completely different hermenutics.


Yup. The Mosaic Law contains a total of 613 rules and regulations according to Jewish scholars. Its core is the 10 commandments from Sinai. The remaining 603 are in a sense "variations" on the the Basic Ten.


It's time to just let it go. I apologize again for any offense.

It is time to let it go. I apologize again, as well.

Rock

[VerbumReale]

It sound to me like you believe God gave flawed laws to flawed people that if followed will violate other laws God gave them. That is incredible...



God didn't write flawed laws for a flawed people. He writes good laws. God's laws -- the entire Law set, was good, right and just for the people and culture He was writing to, and none of God's laws violated any of His other laws, either.




See comments like this are why dialoging with you is so frustrating. I never said that God gave flawed laws and you know I never said that. And such comments imply that you are accusing me of biblical revisionism. We just have a different hermeneutic by which we read the Mosaic law. I see imperfections in the Mosaic law, and truthfully the ones I brought up are just the tip of the iceberg. But that is not the same as saying that God commanded these imperfections. God allowed imperfections in the Mosaic law. Are you really saying that Moses, I repeat Moses commading the murder, I repeat murder (by stoning no less) of disobedient children is an example of a perfect just and righteous law???? Forget it, don't answer, you have already indicated that you do. You see the ten commandments as the core of these laws. I see them as the core but also the lens through which the others are to be interpreted. And that is where we differ.

Forget it, it's done. I am letting it go. And this time I mean it.

[truster]

First of all, I apologize for being absent for so long... finals and returning to my hometown have kept me busy. :)

As such, I am rather out of the loop (what else is new?), and I haven't read all the stuff between Rock and Verbum, so I won't be referencing that. If you want to point me to something previously stated in that discussion, feel free!

Anyway, now to the discussion at hand:


Then why worry if two men or two women marry? I'm sure there are many heterosexual marriages God doesn't recognize. If we are only worried about God's view of marriage, then why be bothered with man's view, if you believe the only true marriages are the ones God recognizes.

Beeeeecause that would mean that they're living in sin? Aaaaand, because even though Jesus forgave, He still said "go and sin no more"? Aaaaand, because we are intended to strive toward the love of the Christ?



I find it much easier to leave judgement up to God. If God wanted us to judge others, he would have told us to do so.

God will judge, that's for sure. But the thing is, He's already given us the criteria by which He will judge us, and He's given us and communicated to us a loophole (as I put it in my last post). But before you can take advantage of a loophole, you've got to know you need one... again, see Romans 2-3 for more on this-- Paul put it better than I ever could.



Do people point out your sins to you? Do you point out all others' sins? Do you tell divorced people that they are living a sinful lifestyle? Or do you just feel you have to preach to homosexuals?

!) Yes;
2) No;
3) Not at this point in time; and
4) The quote from my original post to which you are referring in the paragraph quoted above is certainly not limited to homosexuals.
Now to explain:

Yes, people point out my sins to me. Do all people do so? No, which leads me to question/answer/explanation #2.

I don't believe I ever said anything about pointing out everyone's sins; I certainly do not point out every person's specific sins, though I do at times lay out a blanket "hey, guess what? You've sinned" (which I believe could be accurately said about anyone, yes?). This, however, is not communicated with the connotation of "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!", but rather one of "By the power of the Christ, repent!" That being said, if I am around a Christian person whom I know well, yes, I do point out sins... pretty specifically, too. Do I condemn them? No! I call them to repentance! And if I am close enough to said person that I feel I can point out his sins to him, then I certainly expect him to do the same for me.

Be certain that this includes homosexuality. I have a very good friend who struggles with homosexuality, and I confront him about it fairly regularly. Also be certain that this is not limited to homosexuality. I have another very good friend whom I ask regularly about his struggle with sexual self-gratification. Also be certain that the responsibility of asking is not limited to myself. Each of them also confronts me on a fairly regular basis about things I struggle with--including my tendency toward an unloving spirit and my ongoing struggle against sexual self-gratification. Also be sure that this is not limited to reflection. I expect either of these friends to say something to me immediately if I am acting unloving around him; and I try to do the same for them.

After that long explanation, I will go on to question/answer #3. If I were to know a divorced person as closely as the persons to whom I was referring in the last paragraph, then yes, I certainly would. But since I don't, it's a non-issue.

And for the last one:
You believe that acting on homosexuality is not a sin, yes? Regardless, wouldn't it be accurate to say that all homosexuals have sinned in some way that is completely unrelated to their sexuality? If so, don't they still need the Christ? And if so, why do you have a problem with me communicating that to them?

I said this in my last post: "...there's sufficient evidence against every person, homosexual or not, including myself, for God to condemn each of them/us to hell." If what I intended to say in that sentence was ambiguous, let me clarify what I meant: Even if we were all devoid of sexual sin, we would still have transgressed God's Law and be worthy of eternal damnation. And there would still be the "loophole" through the Christ. And I would still be trying to communicate, "Repent! The kingdom of God is at hand!"

And for the record, I do not carry the word of God to homosexuals in any different manner than I do to heterosexuals, with any different intensity than I do to heterosexuals, or specifically to them or not to them rather than heterosexuals. I'm an equal-opportunity messenger. :)



In domini Patri, et Filio, et Espiritui Sancto,
--Matthew

[Pouye]

We just have a different hermeneutic by which we read the Mosaic law. I see imperfections in the Mosaic law, and truthfully the ones I brought up are just the tip of the iceberg.


Who gave the Mosiac Law to Moses? God did.


But that is not the same as saying that God commanded these imperfections. God allowed imperfections in the Mosaic law.


God commanded Moses to write down the Mosaic Law for the people, starting out like this (after the 10 Commandments were given):
"Exodus 21:1 -- Here are some other instructions you must present to Israel:"


Are you really saying that Moses, I repeat Moses commading the murder, I repeat murder (by stoning no less) of disobedient children is an example of a perfect just and righteous law???? Forget it, don't answer, you have already indicated that you do.


Here are a couple of the Laws you refer to:

“Anyone who strikes father or mother must be put to death."
“Anyone who curses father or mother must be put to death."

These were not commands to murder children, if that's what you think. Do you have a mother or father? Get my point? Capital punishment was not something carried out willy-nilly. However, if I were a Hebrew, and I punched my mom in the face right now in Israeli culture during this time, and if she or others pressed charges and there was enough evidence to convict me of this capital offense (with good reason to believe it was not in self-defense), then I would get what is coming to me -- death by stoning. This is not an unjust law, nor does it conflict with "thou shalt not kill".

Think about it. How amazingly convenient that you (a non-Jew) have a special way of interpreting the Law (a law that you are not bound to but the Jews were) as to understand some of them non-applicable and flawed because they are not interpreted correctly through the lens of the 10 commandments?



You see the ten commandments as the core of these laws. I see them as the core but also the lens through which the others are to be interpreted. And that is where we differ.


Then God, being loving and just, would have told the Israelites that the 10 commandments were the lens through which all of the other laws were to be interpreted (ie "thou shalt not kill" would repeal all capital punishment laws). Don't you think if this was such a paramount key point that God would have told the ones to whom He gave his law, especially since the laws meant life or death for some people?


Forget it, it's done. I am letting it go. And this time I mean it.

:cool:

Rock