Outrage @ Outrage

[Guest]

In the time of the apostles, Nero castrated a young boy and married him as his wife. Many of the other rulers of that period would hold orgies in the senate to raise money. These were the leaders of the free world at the time. Talk about a slippery slope! I'd consider that a more scandalous condition than we are now facing.

Now I'm sure the Christians of that day looked upon what was happening and blushed, but they were busy trying to clean up the household of God and not waiving a political banner. Yes, they had no political banner (or power) but that's kind of the point... having no banner except the slaughtered lamb and no political power allowed them to rally behind the concept of making the church holy.

I understand the argument that if Christians have a voice, they should use it. I agree with that, but disagree with how that voice should be used. When asked for my opinion on gay-marriage I usually just say it has nothing to do with me. It's sad to watch society crumble but it's even more sad to see Christians pick and choose what they'll be "outraged" over. Jesus was against fornication but how did he approach the subject with the woman at the well? Is heterosexual fornication less sinful than homosexual fornication? I know dozens of people in the church right now who are having unmarried sex and many more who are addicted to porn. I honestly think our silence on the subject of homosexual unions would speak volumes.

Yes, sinning out of weakness and sinning willfully are different things. I concede that. But like some others have said, if you're going to raise your voice in the public square, make sure you first have credibility. If we lose our saltiness we're only good to be trampled under foot.

[_Steve]

I think there is a distinction between what Christians allow people to do because it is their civil/legal right under law, and what Christians must protest as a prophetic voice in society. John the Baptist did not try to persuade the courts to annul Herod's marriage, but he did declare to Herod publicly that his marriage was "not lawful" in the sight of God. I realize that Israel was supposed to be a theocracy, making Herod's marriage the more outrageous, but there is a place for Christians to educate the society concerning good and evil.

It is true that an atheist couple don't give a rip about the Christian standards of marriage—but they ought to. They will be judged by God for their violation of His standards, and it would be unloving for Christians, who know this, not to say so. Unfortunately, Christians have not learned how to communicate about such things in love, and have not maintained, in their own marriages, a credible platform from which to speak. This does mean that we need to get the beam out of our own eyes, but having done so, it is definitely our place to inform the world that they have a Creator, and that He has not kept His opinions to Himself.

[Guest]

Mort wrote:

I think Steve Gimbel, a philosophy professor at Gettysburg College, put it well when he said:

Quote:
"This has nothing to do with churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples. If a religion wants or doesn't want to perform a ceremony binding any given couple together in they eyes of their god(s), they may choose to or not to at their own discretion. It's your club, run it how you will. But this is a question of whether we deny rights, privileges, and protections under the law to honest, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens."

As Paidion pointed out, where does it stop? We have already heard of the agitation for "man-boy" relationships, and polygamy has been much in the news, with men "marrying" multiple teen age girls. And why stop it if they are consenting? You perhaps noticed I omitted "adult"; teenagers have rights today to do as they please; why not in this?

I have long thought that until the cancer of the sixties generation somehow passes, there is no hope for America. And it appears to have infected succeeding generations, and children whose parents are trying to raise them right. Down and down we sink, without revival is there any hope?

As Steve has noted, there is no biblical reason at all why an interracial couple should not marry. Where the church so often fails is in teaching what is forbidden: believer/unbeliever marriage. And as Matt pointed out, the church in general has failed in its role regarding marriage. Divorce among Christians should be almost unheard of. It is hypocrisy for the church to get so worked up about this issue while doing little or nothing about the plague of divorce.

As far as gay marriage goes, both natural law and divine positive law inform us that it is wrong. I'm sorry, (figure of speech, I'm not really sorry) it is very disgusting to me.

Our government has long provided benefits for married couples because it is in the interest of society to do so. Stable families are of great benefit to society, as well as are children. They are our future. But we are now involved in an experiment with children, with homosexual couples raising kids, the consequences of the experiment unknown.

How I long for the good old days. We knew , or suspected, some were gay. They stayed "in the closet", and we ignored them; left them alone. Now they are continually in your face.

As mentioned, what the homosexuals really want is approval.

OK, done with my rant.

(Our 49th coming up soon!)

[Guest]

Steve, it's worth noting that John the baptist scholded Harod but didn't make a fuss about Tiberius and his antics. In my opinion, John was doing exactly what I'm proposing and that's cleaning house. Harod was a Jew and was reprimanded by a fellow Jew. Christians should likewise encourage one another to be holy and live in such a way that makes us salty again. I'd be too embarrassed to confront someone on the issue of gay marriage given the state of the western church.

Sure, we can remove a speck from someone's eye once we remove our log, but Christians have failed the conditions set forth by Jesus. Tell me what's more scadalous in the eyes of God, an unbeliever who commits sexual sin or a professing Christian who commits sexual sin? Given the obvious answer, I'd say we have a log that remains. When it's removed, it will be obvious to the world.

Even a mature Christian who walks in holiness can't, at this time, point to the church at large and proclaim, "That's the way, people!" because he is in the minority. But he can win over a sinner by the fact that he, at least, is walking in holiness. That's the point I want to make. The public church and the political church will always look stupid on moral issues when rampant sin (most notably a lack of love for one another) is present to such a large degree. If I wasn't utterly convinced that the gospel was true I'd be a very bitter skeptic. But since I know it's true, I'm left a little baffled. God forgive me.

[Guest]

Homer, congrats on 49 years of marriage. I could learn a lot from a man like yourself.

[Guest]

Well said, Steve. A lot of Christians lose sight of that distinction and act as if they want non-believers to conform to a supposed theocratic form of government. Historically, theocracies have not done very well with the whole human rights thing. Perhaps that's why Jesus said in Luke 17:20-21, "The kingdom of God does not come with careful observation, nor will people say 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

Our role as Christians is to speak the truth in love and proclaim the hope that is in us--Christ Jesus.

Homer,

As Paidion pointed out, where does it stop?

"It" stops at whatever point a people, as a whole, decide it should stop. That's what making and enforcing laws is all about.

We have already heard of the agitation for "man-boy" relationships, and polygamy has been much in the news, with men "marrying" multiple teen age girls. And why stop it if they are consenting? You perhaps noticed I omitted "adult"; teenagers have rights today to do as they please; why not in this?

Each of those would have to stand or fall on their own merit. The examples you've given all have serious exploitative implications. As a result, I doubt if they would stand the test; legally, socially or morally.

As Steve has noted, there is no biblical reason at all why an interracial couple should not marry. Where the church so often fails is in teaching what is forbidden: believer/unbeliever marriage. And as Matt pointed out, the church in general has failed in its role regarding marriage. Divorce among Christians should be almost unheard of. It is hypocrisy for the church to get so worked up about this issue while doing little or nothing about the plague of divorce.

Amen to that!

As far as gay marriage goes, both natural law and divine positive law inform us that it is wrong.

Obviously, that's a highly debatable assertion. On the natural law side of things, homosexual behavior (and apparently orientation) has long been observed in the animal kingdom. On the divine law side of things, there are compelling arguments that much of what the Bible says about homosexuality is being interpreted today in a way that is grossly out of context from it's original intent. Walter Wink has written some thought provoking articles about this. Here's a link to one of them:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... title=1265

Our government has long provided benefits for married couples because it is in the interest of society to do so. Stable families are of great benefit to society, as well as are children.

I agree. So if gay people could be legally married, wouldn't that result in even more married couples? Wouldn't that, in turn, provide more stability?

But we are now involved in an experiment with children, with homosexual couples raising kids, the consequences of the experiment unknown.

It has actually been pretty extensively studied and so far the results have been positive. Perhaps a child being raised by a same-sex couple is not the optimum arrangement, but it still beats being raised in an orphanage or foster home or abusive home or probably even a single parent home.

How I long for the good old days. We knew , or suspected, some were gay. They stayed "in the closet", and we ignored them; left them alone. Now they are continually in your face.

Good for you, not so good for the people who had to live "in the closet". Their lives were pretty miserable. Why not just live and let live?

As mentioned, what the homosexuals really want is approval.

I don't think it's approval but perhaps acceptance for who they are and freedom to live openly and honestly. Isn't that the same thing you, as a Christian, want from society for yourself?

[Guest]

Obviously, that's a highly debatable assertion. On the natural law side of things, homosexual behavior (and apparently orientation) has long been observed in the animal kingdom. On the divine law side of things, there are compelling arguments that much of what the Bible says about homosexuality is being interpreted today in a way that is grossly out of context from it's original intent. Walter Wink has written some thought provoking articles about this. Here's a link to one of them:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... title=1265

You've got to be kidding me, right? (That's the nicest thing I could say about the article)

From the article:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior. He apparently assumes that those whom he condemns are heterosexual, and are acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up,” or “exchanging” their regular sexual orientation for that which is foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, persons for whom having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up” or “exchanging” their usual sexual orientation.

Likewise the relationships Paul describes are heavy with lust; they are not relationships of genuine same-sex love. Paul assumes that venereal disease is the divine punishment for homosexual behavior; we know it as a risk involved in promiscuity of every stripe, but would hesitate to label it a divine punishment, since not everyone who is promiscuous contracts it. And Paul believes that homosexuality is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species.

Yep, today we should be very proud of how smart we have become. We can now move on from the foolish and idiotic statements of Paul. Well let me get out my incense and bow down to Walter Wink for freeing me from the bondage of the bible.

“You [masculine] shall not lie-with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”

Such an act was regarded as an “abomination” for several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the spilling of semen for any nonprocreative purpose -- in coitus interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts or male masturbation -- was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts and masturbation were consequently not so seriously regarded.) One can appreciate how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable in a world facing total annihilation through overpopulation.

Wow, so the act isn't an abomination because God said it was, the real hidden truth is that the law was "made up" by prescientific Hebrews who lacked our modern superior understanding of all things moral.

[Guest]

Other than your strong initial reaction, I'd be curious to know which specific points you disagreed with. You may not like certain facts, but that does not make them any less existent. I don't believe Dr. Wink, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary, would characterize Paul's statements as "foolish and idiotic". Perhaps he might use those terms for the way Paul's statements have sometimes been misused.

[_Steve]

The real difference between Professor Wink and myself would be our respective views of the divine origins of the Mosaic law and of the apostolic teachings.

The assumption that the Hebrews made up their laws because procreation was of high value to them is rather difficult to buy, regardless of one's view of inspiration. There will never be any shortage of heterosexual coitus, even in a society that permits homosexual behavior—especially in a society that permits polygamy. Even if 90% of the male population preferred male partners, there would still be plenty of straight guys to impregnate every female in the country.

Additionally, it was not much "in character" for the Hebrews to make up rules limiting sexual expression, since they broke every one of the rule about such things that God gave them.

[Guest]

cutting in.

Quote: Homer wrote
As far as gay marriage goes, both natural law and divine positive law inform us that it is wrong.

Danny replied
Obviously, that's a highly debatable assertion. On the natural law side of things, homosexual behavior (and apparently orientation) has long been observed in the animal kingdom.

It wouldn't surprise me to find the animal kingdom behaviour is not widespread & is a result of the fall. Regardless, we are not animals. God created man & woman in His own image.
On the natural law:
excerpts from articles at this site - Exodus Global Alliance

"Society has two views of homosexuality. The traditional view holds that homosexuality is an aberration, the orientation is a disorder, and the behavior is pathological. The opposing view is that homosexuality is a normal variant in the human condition, that it is determined before birth, and homosexual behavior is natural for those so oriented. The gay community has been tremendously successful in gaining acceptance for the second view...
the burden of proof should be with those who say it is normal and natural. I say this because the only hard evidence that we have--the biological evidence--clearly indicates that it is a disorder, in that homosexuality represents a tendency to want to use body parts for some purpose other than that for which they were designed. The penis and vagina are certainly constructed for male-female intercourse. Their complimentary shapes, the location of highly sensitive nerve endings show, without a doubt, the Divine (or evolutionary, if you will) intent."

Quote: Homer wrote
But we are now involved in an experiment with children, with homosexual couples raising kids, the consequences of the experiment unknown.

Danny replied
It has actually been pretty extensively studied and so far the results have been positive. Perhaps a child being raised by a same-sex couple is not the optimum arrangement, but it still beats being raised in an orphanage or foster home or abusive home or probably even a single parent home.

“A disproportionate percentage — 29 percent — of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent. … Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.” P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772

So if gay people could be legally married, wouldn't that result in even more married couples? Wouldn't that, in turn, provide more stability?

I think that's highly doubtful.

A major study by Bell and Weinberg revealed that 78% of male homo- sexual "affairs" (relationships entered into with an intent of commitment) lasted less than three years. Only 12% lasted five years or longer. Study by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, “Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women”, (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314
...Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men...

David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison conducted a non-random study of 156 stable committed male homosexual couples. They found that none of the over 100 couple that had been together for more than 5 years had been sexually monogamous or exclusive. The authors, themselves a gay couple, argued that for male couples, sexual monogamy is a passing stage of homophobia and that many homosexuals separate emotional fidelity and sexual exclusivity. What matters for male couples is emotional not physical faithfulness.D McWhirter and A Mattison, “The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop”, (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall).