LGBT, Polygamy, and Slippery Slopes

Comment by Pudentiana on August 10, 2012 at 1:28 pm

Just sayin’, the individual arbiter can change, as did Margaret Sanger or Eugene Robinson. It is therefore like the Lottery by Jackson. Worse than a slippery slope, more like Lord of the Flies.

Comment by NotAScientist on August 10, 2012 at 1:30 pm

“ask if these same activists think bestiality, pedophilia, polyandry, and polygamy are acceptable expressions of sexuality.”

The difference…and I hope you actually see this…is that pedophilia and bestiality cause actual harm.

Homosexuality and polygamy don’t.

Clumping them together says more about you than them.

Comment by Bart Gingerich on August 10, 2012 at 1:51 pm

Actually, according to orthodox Christianity, homosexuality and polygamy are seen as harmful. If nothing else, they hurt the soul. A perfect picture of this can be found in Dante’s Divine Comedy.

Comment by NotAScientist on August 10, 2012 at 2:01 pm

That’s fine, but its nothing you can prove. Only assert. we can actually prove things like pedophilia are harmful. If you place homosexuality next to it, it just makes you look foolish.

Comment by K Dee Ignatin on August 10, 2012 at 7:53 pm

Actually, as an experienced antipolygamy activist, I can point to empirical research studies conducted in more than 170 countries, which show polygamy harms women children and families. While 80% of the women in Afghanistan say they wish polygamy were outlawed, and 20% of the homeless populations of large cities in Iraq are composed of the cast off wives and children of men who took them in polygamous marriages; they now depend on the charity of large mosques, and the Imams who approved of their concubinage to begin with for sustenance. Polygamy is abuse, and we can prove it.

Comment by Keith Pavlischek on August 10, 2012 at 2:44 pm

“The difference…and I hope you actually see this…is that pedophilia and bestiality cause actual harm.”

Let’s grant that pedophilia is harmful and the homosexualist can reject it without inconsistency, primarily because it involves a child who probably cannot fully “consent.” Point taken.

But your claim about bestiality being “harmful” is less obvious. Maybe you can explain why you believe bestiality causes “harm?” Harm to WHO?

Comment by NotAScientist on August 10, 2012 at 3:05 pm

Harm to the animal. And an animal also cannot grant consent. And, especially when the conversation is concerned primarily with same sex marriage, bestiality has nothing to do with it, as animals aren’t citizens.

Comment by thevalueofsparrows on August 10, 2012 at 4:59 pm

It is shockingly apparent how homosexuality harms an individual. Youth who find themselves attracted to same-sex partners often spiral down into depression. Why is that, exactly? And, no, I won’t believe that it’s because of heterosexuals’ bias against homosexuality. These youth express a very real desire to not be gay.

Why is that?

And why does the gay community, which acts more like a machine than a group of individuals, spend so much energy covering up the actual behavior of gays? Like those parties wherein gay men have sex with other men with AIDS so that they can contract the disease and therefore go on and have sex without protection.

Or why do people like Brad Pitt’s mother, who expressed her opinion about traditional marriage, receive death threats?

And where is the voice of gay people who actually disagree with what their activist mouthpieces are saying and doing? Like wishing people who ate at Chick-fil-A the other day to die?

The gay community expresses so much anguish in so many ways, I find that I believe our nation is guilty, not of discriminating against gays, but in neglecting to respond to all the pain that is expressed, day in and day out, by gay people.

There’s harm going on there, clearly. Because what the gay community expresses so loudly is that they want to harm others for not giving them what they want. (Sort of like an average two-year old.)

Comment by NotAScientist on August 11, 2012 at 7:58 am

“These youth express a very real desire to not be gay.

Why is that?”

Because their parents and Christian communities shame them.

Comment by Jared Michaud on August 10, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Homosexuality DOES cause harm according to any measuring stick I can find–emotional harm certainly.

Theoretically you can hold your nose all you want.

Realistically? Every gay person I’ve ever met (and I’ve known a few) was a messed up emotional basket case. I can’t think of a single exception to that rule.

To put it in Science-ese terms–Homosexuality is against the natural order of things. People are not intended to engage in procreative behavior with members of the same sex. Doing so takes them out of their intended place and puts them in opposition to both Christian morality and “Evolutionary” morality. (And doing that to oneself tends to make one personally unstable).

I actually find it really telling that the mainstream homosexual movement hates God so much. It is so much easier to stretch “mystical” religion to cover their foolishness than it is to stretch “natural” religion (Aka belief in evolution).

Interestingly enough, Christianity should be more forgiving of homosexuality than any belief in evolution, because at least Christianity sees a homosexual as a valuable human being. Under the tenets of evolution? All a homosexual is is a waste of resources that introduces disease to the population.

Ironic.

Also, when you look at it objectively, it seems interesting that the homosexual movement DOES oppose religion so much. …Indicative of other powers’ meddling if you ask me.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 10, 2012 at 2:28 pm

Bart, I don’t really expect you to answer my questions – y’all never do – but where you say…

If nothing else, they hurt the soul.

I wonder on what basis you make this statement? Assuming that, as I’ve noted on other posts in this vein, we who support marriage for gay and straight folk as obviously moral (ie, we’re not doing it because we think it’s wrong, but because we think it’s right), is it the case that you think “being mistaken” hurts the human soul?

If so, how? Are you suggesting that those – at least in the Christian camp – who are saved, love God, redeemed by grace, etc… who disagree with the traditional opinion on this matter will somehow LOSE our salvation because we’re mistaken?

Or, are you saying we’ll still be saved (because one doesn’t lose their salvation due to a lack of perfect knowledge), but there will be some sort of soul-ish penalty to pay?

Or are you suggesting just that, one day, when we who have held a mistaken position find out we’ve been mistaken, that our soul will be saddened to have been wrong all those years – we’re still saved, of course, but we’ll be saddened because our desire was to be in accordance with God’s will and now, we’ve found out we’ve been mistaken?

Here’s hoping you might answer.

And, of course, I’d suggest that “notascientist” is right on. You’re welcome to hold whatever opinions you want, but if you can’t prove it beyond saying, “well, it’s what I think…,” then comparing non-harmful behaviors to atrocious ones tends to make the one doing the comparison look like a jerk and/or bigoted.

Comment by Bart Gingerich on August 10, 2012 at 2:37 pm

You say “atrocious.” By what scale and standard? Because the Bible describes homosexuality as such, and the nature of humans as procreative beings says so as well. I am arguing you have thrown away the scale, and you have no means to say something is better or worse except whatever you feel like on a given day. The Enlightenment “as long as there is no one is harmed and it’s based on consenting adults” standard is a bust.

And we don’t answer you because you’re such a troll. Thankfully, some of your questions were illustrative in this instance.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 10, 2012 at 2:57 pm

Thanks for the thoughts, Bart, even though you ruin your comment by stooping to an ad hom attack at the end (“troll”? Really? Since when is asking reasonable questions to perceived holes in your arguments being “trollish…”?)

“Atrocious,” by obvious moral perception. Someone causing harm to an innocent is atrocious behavior. Is there any doubt to that? Are you suggesting something is atrocious only if you can claim that the Bible says it’s atrocious?

Bart…

Because the Bible describes homosexuality as such, and the nature of humans as procreative beings says so as well.

Well, says you. Factually, the Bible never calls “homosexuality” atrocious. It does not call “homosexuality” abominable. The Bible never stakes a position on homosexual orientation. Further, the bible never condemns all gay behavior. That is an extrapolation you all have made based on your cultural biases, not on what the Bible actually says, since it never says what you suggest it does.

We humans can generally agree that causing harm to innocents is self-evidently atrocious. We humans can generally agree that some truths are self-evident (that’s not original to me, by the way). The horrific harm done in abusing an innocent contrary to their consent (which innocents can’t give) is atrocious. Do you disagree?

By what measure would you call it atrocious?

Bart…

I am arguing you have thrown away the scale, and you have no means to say something is better or worse except whatever you feel like on a given day

I have thrown away no scale. I have disagreed with your hunches. Your hunches in no rational way constitute an objective scale. Agreed?

And I will notice that yet again, I have answered your questions while my questions to you have gone unaddressed. Bart, I truly want to know (and it is truly vital to your argument): Are you saying that being mistaken harms the soul because being mistaken means you’ve lost your salvation? Do you require perfect knowledge to be saved?

And you call me a troll.

Comment by why I'm not UMC on August 10, 2012 at 4:10 pm

Dan Trabue
Read 2 Timothy chapter 3 today and thought of you. Particularly the first part.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 10, 2012 at 4:15 pm

Again, an anonymous person (this time) is engaging in an ad hom attack rather than addressing reasonable questions politely asked that arise from comments made here. Rather than attacking the person asking questions, why not answer the questions?

Anonymous “why I’m not UMC”: Do you think one has to have perfect knowledge in order to be saved? Do you think if someone disagrees with you on this point and, in the end, it turns out you were actually right, that the person disagreeing with you was not saved? Based on what? Do you see how this appears to be appealing to a “salvation by our own works” salvation path?

Why not simply answer the questions being raised?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 10, 2012 at 4:20 pm

For those unfamiliar with the 2 Tim 3 passage the anonymous commenter cast my way, he/she was most likely referring to this…

People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

But I ask you, what would make a complete stranger say that about another complete stranger? Have I in any way suggested that I love myself? That I love money or am boastful, proud or abusive? Or any of those negative aspersions? Have I not been as polite as the next fella here? Have I not treated you as my dearly beloved brothers and sisters in Christ and is not my only sin in raising questions and daring to disagree with tradition (note: Tradition, NOT the Bible, which I love and NOT God our Savior – and only disagreeing with one part of tradition, at that).

I ask you, from a reasonable point of view, on what basis would you opt to cast unsupported aspersions rather than simply answering the questions raised?

Comment by Tom on August 10, 2012 at 2:59 pm

‘Deifying the consensus’, perhaps?

Comment by Mark on August 10, 2012 at 3:57 pm

“Cultural biases” did not create the following:

Leviticus 18:22 – You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 – If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Romans 1:26-27 – For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
I Corinthians 6:9(NIV) – 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.
I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB) – “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”
Jude 1:6-7 (NASB) – And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

For those who intone that Jesus did not address marriage definition, please note the following from Matthew 19:

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm

Mark, I am well familiar with the verses you have pointed out and am well familiar with why I think your interpretation of them is a result of poor exegesis and bad reasoning.

Clearly the text says what it says. The question is, what does it mean? Does “A man shall not lie with a man. If he does, kill him…” mean that ALL gay behavior in all contexts is wrong, or was that a specific context? You think one thing, I’m sure in good faith. I think another, also in good faith.

My question to you all is, IF you are correct in your opinion on the matter and IF we are mistaken, does this mean that we are not saved because we were mistaken about a behavior? If so, what other behaviors can’t one be mistaken about (a list would be helpful) and on what basis do you suggest that one must NOT be incorrect on this list of behaviors in order to be saved?

Comment by Mark on August 10, 2012 at 4:18 pm

I did not “interpret” them, I simply listed them.

I have serious problems with disingenuous interpretations of Scripture (I’ve heard them all). If you simply disagree with the Scripture then have the candor and transparency to say so.

We are saved by grace. Whether or not you lose salvation over a behavior I cannot say, but I suspect it has something to do with your attitude about the behavior.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 10, 2012 at 4:28 pm

Mark, the text says, “men shall not lie with men. If they do, kill them.” It says that in the chapter right next to where it says, “Do NOT cut the hair on the side of your head” and “do not engage in menstrual sex.” Would you please answer a few simple questions that arise from what you’ve said?

Do you believe we ought to kill gay people (ie, “men who lie with men,” which YOU Interpret as meaning “all gay behaviors,” right?)?

Do you believe it is wrong to cut the hair on the side of your heads or for married couples to have sex when the wife is menstruating? These are all rules from the very same ancient Holiness Laws which you quote.

The thing is, YOU interpret these passages to mean, “no, it isn’t wrong to cut the hair on the side of your head and yes, all gay behavior in all times and circumstances is wrong…” that is your interpretation of the text, it isn’t what the text says.

Don’t you see that?

If you think any of those texts says, “all gay behavior in all times and contexts are wrong,” then just cite the text. It does not exist in the Bible. You have extrapolated that from the text. It’s an add-on, it’s not there. If you think it’s there, cite it.

You are correct that we are saved by grace, but why do you hedge your bets and say, in effect, “But grace may not be enough…” (ie, what you actually said is, “whether or not you lose your salvation over a behavior, I cannot say…”)

Orthodox Christianity teaches us that we clearly do not lose our salvation over a behavior. We are saved by grace. Period. Not, “we are saved by grace… maybe… IF these other hoops are jumped through…”

Do you see how it seems you’re not really trusting in God’s sweet grace?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 10, 2012 at 3:58 pm

Re: the “troll” charge, let’s just look at the evidence. Bart stated…

If nothing else, they hurt the soul.

And I respectfully questioned…

I wonder on what basis you make this statement?

And I expanded my question to get at my concern (based not only on that comment, but on other unaddressed concerns raised on other posts), asking politely…

Are you suggesting that those – at least in the Christian camp – who are saved, love God, redeemed by grace, etc… who disagree with the traditional opinion on this matter will somehow LOSE our salvation because we’re mistaken?

Or, if it somehow otherwise “harms” the soul? Or if it merely saddens the redeemed when they eventually discover their error?

These are reasonable questions to your comment, are they not? Here and in other posts, you all collectively have made repeated commentary that hints at (or something outright seems to affirm) that you all are believing in a salvation by works heresy – that we have to have perfect knowledge to be saved. This is a troubling point for those confessing Christianity and I’ve respectfully raised this question a few times, and each time, it’s gone ignored.

I can’t possibly see how this would be comparable to being a troll. If, however, you have something you’d like to point out to me specifically where I have behaved inappropriately, all you have to do is say so and, if I have been in error, I will apologize, gladly. My only intent is to raise questions because you all seem to be hinting at your own heresies and I wish you’d take as much time in addressing concerns raised about your own behavior as you do in gossiping or otherwise worrying about other people’s behavior.

In Christ, Dan.

Comment by David M. on August 10, 2012 at 4:11 pm

It’s hard to imagine Jesus encountering a same-sex couple getting it on and not saying anything–or maybe not. But, what might He say? Hard to know, but maybe someone could help me out.

Comment by David M. on August 10, 2012 at 6:22 pm

Has no one anything to say? I’m especially wondering how Dan might respond. Too hard a question?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 10, 2012 at 7:24 pm

You asked a question that seemed a bit frivolous and whose answer I thought would be obvious, but I’m glad to answer it.

1. Jesus never addressed that situation, so any guess any of us would have would be a guess. Just to be clear. None of us should presume to speak for Jesus what Jesus hasn’t said.

2. Given that, my hunch (and I think it’s very sound, biblically and rationally) is that it would depend on the context…

3. Is one guy raping the other guy? Clearly that is wrong and Jesus would intervene to stop the immediately harmful behavior.

4. Is it a situation where two guys are sleeping around, rolling from man to man with no commitment and only engaged in sex for the temporal carnal pleasure? And are the religious zealots threatening to kill them (as the OT commands them to do, literally)?

I reckon Jesus would intervene and save the men from the religious zealots (implying, in the process, to the religious zealots, “Don’t be idiots, don’t try to apply that ancient rule, taken out of context, to these people – you have missed the point of OT teachings in your zeal to take the Bible as a literal rule book rather than a book of truths…”) and encourage the men to go, and sin no more, choosing to make healthier, happier choices.

5. Were the men engaged in a longterm, monogamous, committed, loving, healthy adult marriage relationship? I suspect Jesus would apologize for interrupting such a personal moment and bless their commitment to the good, noble, loving and righteous.

That’s my guess.

Now how about answering some questions of mine, David and everyone else…

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 10, 2012 at 7:24 pm

…down at the bottom of the comments…

Comment by David M. on August 10, 2012 at 7:58 pm

I don’t answer questions. Much to ignorant for that. I thought the answer might be obvious. But your answer did not disappoint. Your consistency is commendable even if your position is not.

Comment by Annelle McDuffee on August 15, 2012 at 12:01 pm

I have had the same thought, and this is what came to me: When speaking to the mob ready to stone the woman caught in adultery, Jesus said to the mob, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, and the mob slowly disbanded. Then, however, which is so often overlooked, Jesus said to the woman, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more.” There’s the rub. When we repent of our sins, intend to lead a new life follownig God’s word, he is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins. I see Jesus saying the same to same-sex couple brought to him by a mob demanding punishment under the Old Testament law. Neither do I condemn you – but – “go, and sin no more.” Repentance has a place in God’s saving grace.

Comment by David M. on August 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm

Annelle,
I think your answer (much earlier in this thread) is exactly right! Forgiveness, not condemnation–and repentance.

The rub is, of course, advocates of same-sex (sexual) relationships don’t see anything wrong with them if they are loving, committed, etc. And since Jesus didn’t explicitly say, “Same-sex, sexual relationships are sinful,” and “Marriage can only be between one man and one woman,” these advocates either ignore or reinterpret the common sense reading of Scripture regarding sex and marriage to their advantage.

I won’t be surprised if someone now argues the meaning of “common sense.” There seems to be no end of all this. People are traveling different roads.

Comment by David M. on August 10, 2012 at 5:11 pm

The silence is deafening.

Comment by Cara Curfew on August 10, 2012 at 5:13 pm

People need to understand that polygamy is NOT “sister wives” and “big love” or the Dargers. UT, AZ, TX and other states “turn a blind eye” to true polygamy where children (girls as young as 12) are married off to much older men and then live off of welfare, food stamps and Medicaid (known as “bleeding the beast”)… as discussed in new book “plygs”, a fact based journalistic view at the REAL world of polygamy … Warren Jeffs, the leader of this group (serving a life sentence for child rape) has recently ordered that only 15 men in the group can procreate with ANY of the women of their choice within the group… it is a SAD, SICK way to live. this group in UT / AZ / TX are nothing but pedophiles and welfare cheats…
BUT the law makers in those states will not let an ADULT, TAX PAYING, gay couple marry …. go figure….

Comment by Keith Pavlischek on August 10, 2012 at 5:33 pm

Let it be known that “not a scientist” is firmly opposed to bestiality because…are you ready for this (drum roll, please): “Harm to the animal. And an animal also cannot grant consent.”

i can’t stop laughing…I can hardly concentrate on the USA basketball game.

YOU OPPOSE BESTIALITY BECAUSE IT CAUSES HARM TO THE ANIMAL. IS THAT THE BEST YOU GOT!!!!!!! Really!

Hmm, the mind reels. Animals don’t give their consent to being killed and eaten either. “Not a scientist” must be a vegetarian. And how do we know animals are harmed, in the first place? I don’t suppose you are Dr. Doolittle and had a conversation with them. And, If we could somehow make it a pleasant experience for the animal, it would seem as though “not a scientist” would have to concede that sex with animals to be perfectly OK. After all, we wouldn’t want to burden the argument with teleology or Biblical exegesis.

On the other hand, we should perhaps be charitable to the views of “not a scientist”, maybe his opposition to bestiality is simply the result of– as Stanley Hauerwas (sarcastically) put it– social location, namely that he is “an urban dweller unfamiliar with the joys of farm life”

Ya, just can’t make this stuff up! But it does explain “not a scientists” desire to be anonymous, I suppose.

Comment by Bart Gingerich on August 10, 2012 at 7:47 pm

To put it in other words, we are seeing the death of the sacred. Whether or not there is any physical harm that an empiricist can put through lab testing is ultimately irrelevant if we are trespassing upon the sacred.

Comment by Keith Pavlischek on August 10, 2012 at 6:26 pm

A parable: And so, Jesus was walking with his disciples and they encountered a man in the field. The man seemed be doing a detestable thing, an “abomination” with a beast of the field.

His disciples asked, “what doest thou sayest concerning this abomination for we know the writings of the Law and the Prophets.” And Jesus said, it is indeed an abomination because the beast of the field has not given its consent and seems to be uncomfortable about the whole thing.” Harming innocent beasts of the field is an abomination, as it was written.

“But lo,” said one of his disciples, for he had drawn closer to the man and the beast of the field. Clearly the beast of the field has been dead and has been for some time (for he was a shepherd and knoweth a dead sheep when he saw one), and yet the man was engaged in the abomination. And Jesus said, “Well, in that case, what is the problem? No harm, no foul.”
And the man named “notascientist” said, “Verily and Amen”

Comment by Mark on August 10, 2012 at 7:17 pm

Dan, you fall into the old trap of not understanding ceremonial law vs moral law. You also disregard the agreement the NT has with the OT regarding homosexual behavior.

Stop playing games. You disagree with Scripture. Have the honestly to say so. I will respect you if you do.

I suspect many apologists for alternative sexual behavior mainly study Scriptures related to homosexuality, and they read them to concoct a way of reinterpreting passages in a way that agrees with their views. Most of the rest of the Bible holds little interest for them. They are one-issue people when it comes to the Bible. They fit the Bible to them, not the other way around.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 10, 2012 at 7:31 pm

So, Keith and others, rather than engaging in some thoughtful discussion, have opted to try to mock and belittle and demonize. How about it brothers and sisters: How about engaging in a little adult, Christian, respectful conversation, even in our disagreement?

Keith, in his attempt to mock another, gave a fake parable, but I think it raises a good point. In Keith’s “parable,” a man is engaging in sex with a dead sheep. The point Keith was mockingly making, I believe, was that the sheep was dead, therefore, it couldn’t be harmed, therefore, those of us who point to harm as a reliable measure of wrong-doing are doing so without good grounds.

But I’d ask, ON WHAT BASIS is sexing up a dead animal “wrong,” in your opinion?

The Bible never once condemns it. So, how do you know it’s wrong?

Is it because, using your God-given reasoning and human conscience, it is obviously wrong? That such abuse of the body is not what sex is about? That it’s not natural (ie, it doesn’t happen in nature) and is just self-evidently wrong?

On what basis would you condemn such behavior, since the Bible is silent on the topic?

I’d be interested in some adult conversation and answers on this point, if anyone is up to it.

Comment by Keith Pavlischek on August 10, 2012 at 8:18 pm

Actually, Dan, the point of the parable was a pithy means (philosophers call them thought experiments) to remove appeal to the concepts of (1) consent and (2) harm, which you and “notascientist” seem to be asserting are the only conditions required for a sexual act to be impermissible (or sinful, if we are allowed to use that politically incorrect term these days). Based on your own moral principles, then, it would seem that you believe that sex with a dead animal is permissible and not “sinful.”

Your last post does not give me any confidence that you wish to deny that claim. You say, “Jesus never addressed that situation, so any guess any of us would have would be a guess. Just to be clear. None of us should presume to speak for Jesus what Jesus hasn’t said.” So, is it OK for us to announce to the world that DAN TRABUE thinks having sex with a dead animal is perfectly compatible with Christian sexual ethics?

Keep digging, Dan. You are going a great job of proving the core claim of the original post.

__________________________________________________________
“An ounce of sarcasm is worth a pound of argument” (at least when a professed Christian seriously entertains the notion that sex with a dead animal is morally permissible and that Jesus would be just fine with it.)

“Nine times out of ten, the coarse word is the word that condemns an evil and the refined word the word that excuses it.” G. K. Chesterton

______________________________________________________________

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 10, 2012 at 7:32 pm

Mark…

Stop playing games. You disagree with Scripture. Have the honestly to say so. I will respect you if you do.

I don’t know how clear I can be, Mark. I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH SCRIPTURE, I DISAGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE.

Is that clear enough? Do you understand my point? Do you understand that disagreeing with Mark is not the same as disagreeing with the Bible or with God?

I’d really like to see you answer my questions, dear brother Mark.

Comment by thevalueofsparrows on August 10, 2012 at 9:50 pm

The scripture that you seem to tune out are words like, I come to fulfill the law (would you like to argue that the Jewish condoned homosexual acts?), and, go and sin no more (would you like to argue that homosexuality was not seen as a sin at that time?).

Comment by Mark on August 10, 2012 at 11:19 pm

No, it’s not ME saying it, it’s the SCRIPTURE saying it. If I say that 2+2 equals 4, and you say 2+2 equals 5, does that mean we just have different interpretations? Is it just MARK who thinks 2+2 equals 4, or is there some independent reasoning process that yields such a conclusion?

Come on, dear brother, recognize what the Scripture clearly says and what it has been understood to mean by the saints that have come before us. We have not suddenly become enlightened. There is nothing new under the sun.

Comment by Dr. James C. Goodloe IV on August 10, 2012 at 9:44 pm

Bart, Dan, et al.:

Perhaps I don’t read blogs often enough to understand the genre, so it is difficult for me to see how this rather tortured exchange can lead to much light or understanding.And I realize very substantial Bible studies on these issues have appeared in other places. Nevertheless, let me offer a couple of observations.

First, it may not be enough to deal only with what the Bible says about and against homosexual acts. It may be necessary also to deal with what it says about and for heterosexual marriage. The two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 culminate in the distinction and the complementarity of the sexes: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This verse is quoted several times in the New Testament. What is being described here positively as the reason for sexual distinctions has to do with a male and a female being part of a larger unity, and this reason rules out other physically possible couplings. I think this rules out polygamy (only the two become one; three or more cannot become one). I think this rules out bestiality (man and beast cannot become one flesh). I think this rules out pedophilia (the man and woman portrayed here are adults). And I think this rules out homosexuality (man and man are not complementary and cannot constitute the one flesh). We may or may not like that, but I do not think that the verse is so malleable that its clear meaning can be interpreted away. And this is not necessarily to say anything about salvation. It is about God’s intention for human life in this world.

Second, to go from the first pages of the Bible to the last, the late Dr. Bruce Metzger, long time professor of Bible at Princeton Theological Seminary and one who may have known more about the Bible than anyone else in at least the English speaking world, once told a group of ministers that he did not understand why people who listed Bible passages about homosexuality routinely omitted Revelation 22:15: “Outside [the gates to the city] are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.” He explained that “dogs” did not refer to four legged animals but was a Greek slang word for male homosexuals. He also said that “outside” did not mean just barely outside but instead meant far, far away. That is very sobering. And it is especially sobering when we realize and admit that this passage very well may have to do with ultimate salvation. Again, interpretation may vary, but surely it cannot legitimately vary so far as to deny the plain meaning of the text.

How can we take seriously both the repeated scriptural affirmations of God’s intention for male and female union in marriage and also the repeated scriptural admonitions against same sex couplings?

Comment by thevalueofsparrows on August 11, 2012 at 4:37 am

Actually, thinking scripture over on this matter, I find that I best like The Beatitudes. Nowhere does Jesus bless the Proud, the Outlandish, the Flamboyant, the Debauched, etc. No, instead he nods his approval at the meek and mild, the humble and poor in spirit.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 6:18 am

Okay, where to start…?

David M…

The silence is deafening.

I’m not quite sure what your point is here, if this is addressed to me (which would be ironic) for not answering more questions faster, I’ll have to apologize. I had to stop for the day yesterday so I could go visit with my elderly parents. I hope you’ll understand.

If it’s addressed to the others here (and yourself) in regards to the continued silence in response to any of my questions, yes, it is deafening.

Mark…

Come on, dear brother, recognize what the Scripture clearly says and what it has been understood to mean by the saints that have come before us.

I am not sure how to respond. I have held your position for the first half of my life. I eventually came to disagree with that position. It is my consideration now that the tradition understanding/interpretation of the Bible is mistaken. I’m not gay. I had no gay friends (that I knew of). My one and only condition that led me away from the traditional position to the position I now hold (in support of marriage for all, seeing how marriage is a noble, good, pure, responsible place for expressing one’s sexuality) was Bible study and prayer. Through Bible study and prayer, alone, I reached a different opinion than the one that you hold to the one I now hold.

I simply don’t agree with your opinion that your opinion is what “Scripture clearly says.” I frankly think you’re mistaken.

Now you can reasonably say, “I disagree with you, Dan.” You can reasonably say, “I think you’re mistaken, Dan.” You can reasonably say, “Well, I think it is clear…” But what you can’t say is, “Dan, you don’t hold that position and you didn’t reach it by Bible study and prayer.”

Do you get that much? That you don’t get to tell me what my motives are or what my opinion is? You’re simply not God enough to make those sort of calls. And do you get that it’s a bit presumptuous for you to even suggest such a thing?

Questions for YOU to take a turn and answer, please.

Here’s another question: Who gets to decide what Scripture “obviously” says? If you and the majority of Christians think God “obviously” is opposed to marriage equity, does that mean that reasonable Christians of good faith can’t disagree with you and hold our own opinions? Who gets to speak for the church? You and those who agree with you only? Or me and those who agree with me only? Or, rather, aren’t we all responsible for striving to find God’s will ourselves?

I must obey God, rather than you, my brother, can we agree on that much?

Comment by David M. on August 11, 2012 at 11:05 am

Dan. we disagree, nothing much more to say….too many words already. You are following the path as you see it

To the extent that your voice has influence, you might tell those on your side of the issue to be a less strident. I point to those who attack and demonize any who oppose same-sex marriage.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 12:43 pm

David…

To the extent that your voice has influence, you might tell those on your side of the issue to be a less strident. I point to those who attack and demonize any who oppose same-sex marriage.

I will always stand opposed to attacking and demonizing those who disagree with you. Will you do the same here? For instance, in the previous post, the author suggested that those who disagreed with his opinion on this one behavior are preaching a false gospel. Well, clearly, not agreeing on a behavior is not preaching a false gospel. The author was engaging in attacks and demonization of those who disagree with them.

Will you stand with me in calling him to act in a less strident, arrogant, slanderous and borderline-heretical position?

Your calls to me to discourage stridency will be more believable if you will do the same. If you choose not to, then it makes you appear to be making these calls for selfish, political reasons, not for reasons of good faith.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 11:42 pm

The silence is telling, if not deafening…

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 6:33 am

Dr Goodloe…

How can we take seriously both the repeated scriptural affirmations of God’s intention for male and female union in marriage and also the repeated scriptural admonitions against same sex couplings?

I fully understand this is your opinion about the meaning of these several texts. It was my understanding too, for the first ~27 years of my life. But over the last 20+ years of prayer, Bible study and seeking God’s will, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible does not say what we have traditionally been taught. I think that our conclusions and extrapolations of what the Bible says are mistaken, and based on poor exegesis and misguided eisegesis.

By way of small example, I’d just point to comments like the ones Mark have offered: He sounds like I did in the past and many others: That he’s so indoctrinated by his cultural teachings that he can’t see that the Bible simply does not literally say what he thinks it says.

The bible in zero places condemns a homosexual orientation.

The bible in zero places condemns all gay behavior.

The Bible in zero places condemns a gay couple committing to each other in a marriage relationship.

And yet, Mark and others seem to think that it does, and when I ask them to provide text that says just that, there is only silence.

Further, the traditional position relies upon a misguided approach to the Bible and Bible study, insofar as it seems to treat the Bible as a magic rule book, rather than God’s Holy Word – a book of TRUTHS, not rules. The Bible tells us that all scripture is good for learning, for education for correction. But it does not tell us to take all the rules found within its pages – rules given to a particular ancient people in a particular time and place – and apply them literally to modern culture. In fact, Jesus has to repeatedly correct the religious of his day for doing just that.

If we look at the Bible as a magic rule book, then that gives us a list of rules (sometimes contradictory) to which we must hold people to our “obvious” conclusions (and we can know which biblical rules are the right ones and which ones aren’t because, well, it’s magic, and we’ll just know). But if we look at it as a book of Truths, we can easily reach differing, yet fairly consistent understandings.

I guess I would just ask you the same question I just asked Mark: I fully understand that you hold to the traditional opinions on biblical interpretations on this matter and you are responsible before God for following God as best you understand God. But, who gets to decide for each of us?

The truth is, brother, there are Christians of good faith who have also studied the Word and sought God’s will and we just don’t accept your opinions as reasonable or moral. We think God is teaching different lessons in the Bible than the ones you have reached. Given that, who should we obey: (our understanding of) God or human tradition? Who gets to decide what the Scriptures are teaching?

I hold to the traditional (at least in protestant, Baptist and anabaptist circles) view that we are each responsible for understanding God as best we can and on at least this one behavior, I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. Is that okay with you?

Comment by Dr. James C. Goodloe IV on August 11, 2012 at 8:08 am

Dan:

Several things come to mind. First, you place a high value on your change of understanding through the years of how to read the Bible. You might be interested to know that I had a similar change but in the opposite direction. As a young man, educated at a liberal seminary, I thought that homosexual activity was permissible. But years of Bible study and ministry have brought me to the realization that those earlier conclusions were wrong, based on bad exegesis and worse eisegesis. I don’t know what the two of us can do with this opposite experience, except to say your change is not the only direction in which change occurs (maybe someday you will change back again), that the mere fact of change does not necessarily indicate greater insight or truth (it could be a change toward error), and that, as you have said, my current reading aligns with what the church has always believed and taught while yours stands against that (which very well may be okay, but which should at least raise the question of whether one current reading is really better and more faithful than all the previous centuries put together).

Second, your arguments about the Bible are flawed by faulty logic. You set up false dichotomies and then knock down straw men. That may be fun, but it is less than helpful in pursuing the truth. I never said that the Bible condemns homosexual orientation. But the fact that it does not condemn it does not mean that it permits, endorses, promotes, or celebrates it, either. I never said that the Bible condemns all homosexual acts. Holding hands may be fine (or, it may be dangerous). But it does repeatedly condemn homosexual intercourse. I never said that the Bible condemns homosexual marriage. But again, the silence of the Bible on that topic does not mean that it permits, endorses, promotes, or celebrates it, either. It may be that such absurdity is simply too horrible to contemplate. The Bible never condemns one nation obliterating another with nuclear weapons, either, but I am pretty sure it does not condone that. Rein in your outlandish arguments, and what remains would be stronger and more persuasive.

Third, your crude dismissal of the historic reading of the Bible as “a magic rule book” is perhaps the most disturbing and least helpful part of your response. I suspect such flourishes intend to distract and so to cover the weakest part of your position. No one but you ever said that the Bible was magic. But the Bible is the life-giving word of the living God, and to suggest that it has nothing to say about how we are to live is wrong, outrageous, cynical, and evil. God does care how we live, and the Bible contains a great deal about that. You deny that at your own peril. The church has long recognized that antinomianism (the belief that there are no laws or rules for Christians) is a terrible and dangerous heresy. Be careful. Do not the “TRUTHS” which you seek have moral implications? Or do you intend to reduce Christianity to a cerebral and contemplative religion?

Fourth and finally, your position suffers from a typical contemporary arrogance that assumes and suggests that somehow we humans privileged to be living now are better, smarter, brighter, and more enlightened than all who have gone before us, so that we know better than they what God’s will is for our lives and therefore what we are to do. This is very dangerous. There is always a temptation to think that our own age is unique and perhaps superior. But studying theology and church history should help alleviate that.

So, yes, at one level at least you are free to believe whatever you wish. And yet, at another level, we are not free to twist the Scriptures to fit the ideology of the day. Yes, that can be done, of course! But we may find that the Scriptures are not nearly so plastic and malleable as we may think or wish. Freedom of interpretation takes place within the boundaries of what the text actually says. And freedom of interpretation does not imply equal validity of all interpretation. Take care.

Comment by PastorJ on August 11, 2012 at 11:06 am

I noticed that Dan didn’t respond to this well thought out post. That’s why I quit the conversation with him. I doubt his intentions of true dialogue.

And Dan, for all of your complaints about nobody answering your questions you never did answer mine. What is the difference between what the Bible calls “desires of the flesh” and modern notions of orientation (which includes desires for homosexual sex)?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 12:53 pm

Pastor J, he posted that just 4 hours ago. I have been working. I don’t stand at my computer 24/7 waiting to answer more of your questions. And your condemnation of me for it sounds a bit hypocritical when so many of my questions lie never answered.

As to your question and my not answering it… I’ve answered way more questions from you all (and corrected misunderstandings of what I actually said) than you all have in response. This complaint does not sound very solid and it sounds a bit hypocritical, too.

But to answer yet another of your all’s questions… I don’t know the answer.

What “desires of the flesh” are you speaking of? The passage found in Galatians 5…?

For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.

That passage?

That whole chapter has to do with the religionists who were insisting on holding to literal commands from the OT (demanding that new Greek Christians get circumcised).

Paul goes on to say…

You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

So, I don’t know for sure what specifics Paul is speaking of, but it sounds like the all-too-human (and religious) tendency to bite and attack and belittle those who disagree with one’s exact understanding of rules and God and religion. But Paul calls us to give that up and to live by the value, “love your neighbor as yourself.” Still, Paul says, don’t use that freedom found in grace as an excuse to sin.

I’m not sure that there is any relation between that passage and modern notions of orientation. Do you see some connection?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm

Not enough time right now, Dr Goodloe, I’ve more work to do. But I will be glad to look into your comments and correct some misunderstandings you have of my positions. Really quickly, though, where you said…

you place a high value on your change of understanding through the years of how to read the Bible.

I’m just trying to give some background so people know I’m not some kid, that I’m not some new Christian, that I’ve been studying and praying over God’s Word for the 40 years of my Christian life, including this topic, and that I’m coming from a conservative orientation (if you’ll excuse the term…). I’m trying to let people know that at least some of us reach our position NOT because of “wanting to make gay people happy,” as oft-suggested, nor for any other reason than seeking God.

Do you get that and the importance of that?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 11:47 pm

Dr Goodloe…

I don’t know what the two of us can do with this opposite experience, except to say your change is not the only direction in which change occurs

Of course, people change their minds in both directions, no doubt about it. We can agree to that real world situation.

I think this is a critical question, though. What do we do with this disagreement? You changed from one direction to another and I did the opposite, now what?

I think the fundamental starting place for what to do with this difference of experience and opinion is Love. Even though I disagree with you, I still fully love and respect you as a brother in Christ. I would expect the same from you.

Disagreeing over behaviors – even serious behaviors – does not separate us from the love of God, it ought not separate us one from another. It’s okay for Christians to hold differences of opinions on non-essential matters and questions about behaviors ARE non-essential matters.

What do you think?

More to come…

Comment by thevalueofsparrows on August 11, 2012 at 10:46 am

I define evil as knowingly and without concern committing harm on someone else. Jesus at no point whatsoever teaches people to go out and find in life that which pleases or pleasures them. Self-gratification, in fact, he teaches, is not the way. Even to the burying of a loved one, or hanging on to your own money.

Give it all up, he teaches, again and again and again.

He even tells his own disciples what they can and cannot take with them on the road.

And it isn’t much.

So, your giving him the grace to want people to be “happy” and get what they want in their lives seems to me to be just confusing Jesus with Santa Claus, and I’m not even sure Santa would put on his list the kind of things gays are demanding.

As to your looking into gay behavior (Jesus may have condemned some of it, but certainly not all of it), I guess my big question is, who do you think that you are kidding? Who, exactly, are you trying to convince that some gay behavior is acceptable to Jesus or those who truly follow him?

Changing Jesus into something of a pimp, or if that is too strong a term for you, an abettor of someone sinning is changing him so much for the worse that I do wonder if such mischaracterizations could be considered evil.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm

sparrows…

I define evil as knowingly and without concern committing harm on someone else.

Well then, you can rest assured that me and my faith community are not doing this. We honestly believe that our position is moral and Godly. Could we be mistaken? Sure, just as you could be, although I don’t think it’s likely in our case, I just don’t see the evidence to support that we’re mistaken.

But we’re human and humans are capable of being mistaken. You and I, both, right?

And so, now that you know that I and my tribe are not doing this, you can know that we’re not evil, right?

As to the rest of your comments, I can largely agree. Self-gratification is not of the kingdom of God. Hanging on to one’s money ain’t the way to salvation. Give it all up and rest in God, amen and amen!

We agree on those points, those truths, do you get that?

No, my position is not to make people “happy,” my position is to follow God, walking in Christ’s steps by God’s grace, humbly and grace-fullly. Do you get that?

Do you understand that just because we disagree with you on one behavior does not mean that we are wanting to do anything other than follow God and, it happens that you and we disagree on this one point?

Because it sounds like you’re presuming that we’re doing this to be evil, and to deliberately ignore God, and nothing could be further from the Truth.

Do you understand that?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 6:39 am

Keith…

when a professed Christian seriously entertains the notion that sex with a dead animal is morally permissible and that Jesus would be just fine with it.

And so I see I ask you a series of reasonable questions that have remained unanswered. You appear, instead, to value sarcasm over reasonable discussion and foolish non-points over actual points.

Don’t be asinine, man, no one here is “seriously entertaining” what you’re suggesting. You apparently read my words and reached the exact opposite conclusion from the right one. You don’t appear to understand my words, written just minutes ago. That does not give me much confidence in your ability to understand God’s holy Word, written thousands of years ago.

If you’re only going to offer smarmy demonization and foolish arrogance rather than respectful adult conversation, I will wipe the dust from my feet in our discussions. IF at any point, you wish to engage in actual conversation and address my questions, I’ll be glad to reconvene.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 6:51 am

Jared…

Homosexuality DOES cause harm according to any measuring stick I can find–emotional harm certainly.

Okay, how about scientific, rational measuring sticks. Provide the studies to support your claims.

Jared…

Every gay person I’ve ever met (and I’ve known a few) was a messed up emotional basket case.

And so, if I claim “every conservative fundamentalist I’ve ever known to make bigoted comments on blogs (and I’ve known a few) was a repressed pedophile who wore his mother’s underpants under his clothes…” would that make it so?

If “every gay person” you’ve “met,” was messed up emotionally, then you’ve only met a small, non-representative sampling. For my part, I know a huge number of gay folk: they are my friends, my teachers, my mentors, the teachers of my children, professors, social workers, helpers, my kids’ babysitters when they were young… they are my loved ones and not a one of them was as messed up as many commenters I’ve seen on these blogs.

Not a one of them would suggest, “You must agree with me or you’re not a Christian,” not a one of them would suggest, “You must have perfect knowledge in order to be saved,” not a one of them would presume to tell you who you couldn’t marry. In short, my gay and lesbian friends are some of the best, most rational, God-fearing, Christ-following citizens and lovers of God that I know and to try to suggest that there is something clinically wrong with gay folk with nothing more than anecdotal evidence is not compelling and, frankly, says a lot more negative about those who’d claim otherwise.

Jared, making yet another unsupported comment, said…

Homosexuality is against the natural order of things. People are not intended to engage in procreative behavior with members of the same sex.

Says who? You do recognize that just because YOU claim that homosexuality is against the natural order of things or that people aren’t “intended” to be gay does not mean that it is so, right? You do recognize, don’t you, that the world does not revolve around your opinions?

If you have no evidence, then say so. “I have no evidence or science to support my crazy opinions, but here they are…” But don’t make authoritative declarations with no support that sound ludicrous on the face of them and expect people to think you’re anything but bigoted.

Respectfully, Dan

Comment by Keith Pavlischek on August 11, 2012 at 8:04 am

Well, there Dan–Let’s see if I can help you out with a little elementary logic.

You say, “Jesus never addressed that situation, so any guess any of us would have would be a guess. Just to be clear. None of us should presume to speak for Jesus what Jesus hasn’t said.”

you are claiming that:

(1) if Jesus never addressed a particular sexual behavior then it would be wrong for someone to declare that behavior to be a sin, or wicked,evil or perverse.

It is also the case that

(2) Jesus never addressed the issue of having sex with a dead animal.

The CONCLUSION then is that

(3) it is wrong to declare sex with a dead animal to be a sin, wicked, evil or perverse.

So, Dan, you now seem to want to deny the conclusion that follows from your argument, and call me “asinine” for pointing out the logic of your position.You seem to be uncomfortable with the logic of your position, which concludes with a belief that having sex with a dead animal is permissible. But what you haven’t done is tell me why, given your stated premise, you believe sex with a dead animal might be a sin, wicked, evil or perverse. According to you “any guess any of us would have [as to whether sex with an animal is a sin] is only a guess–that is called a tautology, but logic is obviously not your strong suit so we’ll be charitable and let that go.

Of course, when you don’t like the conclusion to which you are led in an argument, do you know what you do? (NO, DAN, you don’t call the guy who points it out a name.) You go back and examine the premises that lead to the conclusion. You dispute the truth of one or more of the premises which would in turn render the conclusion false. Absent that, Dan, it is perfectly reasonable for a reasonable person to assume that you believe that it is morally permissible for a person to have sex with a dead animal. Which is extensionally equivalent to saying that “Dan Trabue believes sex with a dead animal is not a sin.”

So, Dan, feel free to tell me why this conclusion does not follow from YOUR premise when coupled with the obvious fact that Jesus never explicitly address the issue of having sex with dead animals.

Hint: reject (1) and see the post of Dr. Goodloe

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 12:24 pm

Okay, once again, I have a real life, so I may not be standing over the computer waiting to jump on answering your questions just so I can not have the favor return. Working on a house raising today, folks. Good work, that.

Quickly, though…

Keith…

you are claiming that: (1) if Jesus never addressed a particular sexual behavior then it would be wrong for someone to declare that behavior to be a sin

You presume too much. I never claimed that. Look at my actual words. Not only have I never claimed it, I have spoken against it. Arguing from silence is poor logic/poor discussion skills and I, for one, strive to avoid it.

Does that clear up part of where you’re getting off in these kind of conversations? It’s the whole strawman thing that some have mistakenly accused me of, except in this case, it’s an actual strawman argument since, as noted, I don’t believe what you say I claim and have argued against it, in fact.

Comment by Keith Pavlischek on August 11, 2012 at 1:22 pm

DAN–you are hopelessly incorrigible:
LET ME AGAIN QUOTE YOU: “Jesus never addressed that situation, so any guess any of us would have would be a guess. Just to be clear. None of us should presume to speak for Jesus what Jesus hasn’t said.” Now, after giving us THAT piece of wisdom, you now tell me that “arguing from silence is poor logic/discussion skills.” No kidding! Heal thyself, brother.

Again, I’m not constructing a strawman, I’m simply asking what THAT moral principle, which you embrace, implies for your view of bestiality, since, as we all know, “Jesus never addressed that situation.”

That’s not a strawman, but it could be called “hoisting you on your own petard.”

Comment by Mark on August 11, 2012 at 9:52 am

Dan, I have read your posts carefully because I want to be fair to you. You make some good points, but you have certainly not proven, indeed have not come close to proving, that Scripture in any way, shape, form or fashion can be used to endorse gay marriage. You simply say that in “your” study of things you have been led to this conclusion.

Perhaps you cannot appreciate it, and I intend this as respectfully as possible, but you are a useful pawn in a larger game, and that game has as its eventual goal the jettisoning of the Bible and Christian tradition altogether. After all, if you can “interpret” Scripture in such a fluid fashion then what’s the point of it? This is a very serious matter and already has had detrimental effects not just on our society but in the church.

Your arguments have a strong anecdotal and emotional component. This is consistent with postmodernism (“your” truth vs “my” truth). Accordingly, you fail to appreciate the reasoning of the prior posts and the logical consequences of your approach. Based on your responses you have neither studied nor are open to much of the commentary, particularly from Dr. Goodloe, and I would strongly urge you to re-read his posts.

You had asked for scientific evidence that gays have a higher incidence of psychopathology, and there are several studies affirming this. Here’s one: Yhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10530625

These studies and statistics are out there despite the higher prevalence of homosexuals in the psychological professions who conduct the research (and who anecdotally, reflexively, say homophobia causes the increased psychological problems in gays). In our current cultural climate activists for alternative sexuality have a highly disproportionate influence.

Nothing in what I have said is intended to suggest that gay folk cannot be nice people, good citizens, etc.

Let me close by reiterating something Dr. Goodloe wrote, which I think is extremely important. We seem to think that we are the first generation to achieve some sort of enlightenment on these issues. That is another postmodern attitude reflective of the narcissism and arrogance of this age.

From Dr. Goodloe: “…your position suffers from a typical contemporary arrogance that assumes and suggests that somehow we humans privileged to be living now are better, smarter, brighter, and more enlightened than all who have gone before us, so that we know better than they what God’s will is for our lives and therefore what we are to do. This is very dangerous. There is always a temptation to think that our own age is unique and perhaps superior. But studying theology and church history should help alleviate that.”

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 12:33 pm

Mark…

You make some good points, but you have certainly not proven, indeed have not come close to proving, that Scripture in any way, shape, form or fashion can be used to endorse gay marriage.

This is true. I have not done so. I have not even tried to do so, except in very general terms. I’m presuming (and noting where people have overtly said) that you all are familiar with the arguments on both sides. I haven’t been trying to make the full-blown case in support of marriage equity. Rather, I’ve been raising some reasonable questions to points you all have made, false/mistaken testimony that has been offered, slanderous statements that have been issued. These questions, rather than being addressed, have mostly been ignored. What does that say about your “side’s” arguments?

To me, it just says that they don’t stand up to scrutiny or rational consideration. Instead, many here seem most interested in demonizing others with strawman arguments and false claims. I’m suggesting holding a rational conversation with give and take, you ask questions/make points, I respond and ask you question/raise points and you respond… so on and so forth. Why don’t we try it that way for a while?

Unlike this…

I intend this as respectfully as possible, but you are a useful pawn in a larger game, and that game has as its eventual goal the jettisoning of the Bible and Christian tradition altogether.

Being a pawn suggests I’m being used. I have made my own decisions, done my own studied, sought God within my community and on my own. I’m an adult and rational and no one’s pawn. Are there some few “sinners” out there who hold their positions for cynical, selfish reasons? I’m sure. On all sides. But most folk I know of in these discussions are rational, well-meaning, sincere Christians, saved by God’s grace. If they/we are mistaken, it is just that: an honest mistake.

It is going to continue to sound awfully presumptuous/arrogant for any complete stranger to have the gall to suggest they know our minds/motives better than we do.

Do you see how that sounds arrogantly presumptuous?

Mark, no one in my Christian community has a goal of jettisoning the Bible and Christian tradition. That is slander if you’re suggesting it. It is an outright false witness and you are sinfully wrong if this is what you’re suggesting. I’ll allow that you may be making this false statement in ignorance, but now I have clarified at least OUR position and so you can correct your error, if it’s addressed to me and my community of faith.

The ball’s in your court.

Comment by Mark on August 11, 2012 at 2:10 pm

Dan, I don’t know about your specific Christian community, but what I do know is that your actions are useful in the larger effort, mainly by angry secular liberals, to push Judeo-Christian traditions to the fringe of our society. Same-sex marriage, and the inevitable consequences which will follow, including further alterations in marriage definition, are incompatible with Christian orthodoxy. If we cannot at least agree on that then our discussions have little chance of being fruitful

It’s clear that you feel insulted by some of the commentary here, and maybe that is justified to some degree, but I would implore you to get beyond your gut reactions and try to understand the points being made. Accordingly, and in contrast to what you assert, I think your questions are largely answered in these comments. I can only ask that you be as open minded to the traditional, orthodox understandings as you are to the supposedly new ones.

I do wish you well.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 11:27 pm

Mark…

After all, if you can “interpret” Scripture in such a fluid fashion then what’s the point of it?

What exactly is “fluid” about my interpretation? I find my interpretation to be pretty precise, not fluid, but then, I’m just not sure what you even mean by that. Care to explain?

Mark…

Your arguments have a strong anecdotal and emotional component. This is consistent with postmodernism (“your” truth vs “my” truth).

What is emotional or anecdotal about my arguments? As to the “your truth” vs “my truth,” let me be clear: I think there is a right and wrong answer. I’m not saying I think we’re both right on any given topic. Obviously, I think I’m correct and you’re mistaken.

What I DO say about “your” and “my” is that we each have our own interpretations. This is just self-evident. God has never told you that all gay behavior is wrong or sinful. That is your extrapolation of some passages in the Bible. Similarly, God has never told me that marriage is good for gay folk as well as straight folk. That is MY extrapolation of what is in the Bible.

These opinions about interpretations ARE our own. Whose else’s would they be?

Now, I happen to believe that one of us is likely right in our opinion (and I happen to think it’s me), but if it turns out that I have been correct, that won’t change that my interpretation of these biblical passages will still have been MY INTERPRETATION, it will just mean that I rightly understood the passages and you didn’t. They remain our interpretations, though.

Right?

Comment by thevalueofsparrows on August 11, 2012 at 10:53 am

I would just like to point out to those pro-gay folk who like to point their fingers at Christians and say how bad we are for making gay folk feel bad, make gay youth feel ashamed, that the general populace, most especially the youth of today, COULD CARE LESS about what other people them. It would not take more than 10 seconds looking at and listening to images and sounds of our culture to see that morality of any kind is something the imposition of which is felt.

People who hate Christianity and make open jokes about Christians are far more popular with youth than are quiet, God-abiding simple folk.

Were I to counsel a group of young ladies to remain chaste until marriage, think how most would react. Derision? Impatience? Impertinence? And people really believe gay youth would react any differently when chided to remain chaste?

Get real.

And to do that, all you have to do is spend some time in a schoolroom.

Comment by kirkion on August 11, 2012 at 4:45 pm

I think that it would be helpful for the traditionalists to realize that the debate which plays out on this blog over gay marriage is not really about gay marriage. Instead, its about the source and definition of Good and Evil.

Those who defend the traditional stance on marriage, are in fact voicing the belief that the highest good, can be known and understood from the revelatory word of God. From this knowable specific Good, mankind receives a moral Law absolute and applicable to all persons at all places and in all times. Violations of this law are evil.

Those who oppose this view do so for a variety of reasons, but in our culture they tend to revolve around the idea (self-evident in this view) that the free will of the individual is the highest good. Thus violations of that free will are evil, in fact ALL EVIL in some way is derived from the violation of some individual’s free will.

Thus instead of moral laws you moral principles which become guidelines for living a good and healthy live, but violations of any or all codified moral laws might cause pain to participants but are not in themselves evil. Evil, once again, is the violation of the free will of others. So long as no one involved is coerced, there there is no wrong, no SIN.

Even if it is in some distant, theoretical sense wrong, or evil to violate the moral law in itself, enforcing such laws on others who disagree with you, would be violating their free will and thus would be committing a direct and specific evil.

For those of religious inclination, this a priori philosophical definition of Good and Evil is applied to God. A good and loving God therefore, would not violate the free will of others. Those who attempt to enforce moral laws on God’s behalf are thus guilty of a blasphemous arrogation of power for their own reasons.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 5:50 pm

Just a few minutes, let me try this…

Kirk…

Those who defend the traditional stance on marriage, are in fact voicing the belief that the highest good, can be known and understood from the revelatory word of God.

May I ask a question or two, good sir (open to anyone, as it relates to the on-going discussion, but I’m addressing it to Kirk specifically, hoping he might weigh in)?

First, instead of dealing with “those” generic, vague “liberal Christians” out there, what if you dealt with me and my specific, actual positions? What if we speak of what I – as someone who may be representative of “those liberal Christians” out there – actually am saying and am not saying, could we try that? Here we go…

I and my specific church believe essentially what you’re saying, with some caveats.

We believe that the Bible is God’s revealed Word, that it is as Scripture to us.

We believe just as the Bible specifically says about Scripture, that it is good for teaching, correction and edifying the body of Christ.

With me so far? We’re all in agreement on that much, right?

We do not believe, however, that the Bible somehow takes away our human fallibility (what I referred to sarcastically as the Bible-as-magic-rule-book). We do not believe that just because we are saved by God’s grace and that we study the Word, meditating upon it and praying over it, reading it regularly seeking God’s ways/seeking the Spirit’s guidance… that somehow we can read the Bible and walk away with a perfect knowledge and understanding of the Bible and its teachings.

Thus, I would place a caveat on your “can be known and understood from the revelatory word of God…” that while the Bible is just what it says it is – good for teaching and correction – it does not in any way guarantee perfect knowledge or perfect understanding.

There is nothing unorthodox or irrational about this point and I’m sure you agree, but just to make sure… are we on the same page there?

If so, then I hope you can see that…

Those of us who defend the obvious innate goodness and beauty of marriage for gay or straight, are in fact voicing the belief that the highest good, can be known well enough and understood well enoughfrom the revelatory word of God.

At any point, are we disagreeing thus far? If I, as a so-called liberal Christian am in error at any point thus far, where is it and on what basis would you make that suggestion?

Thanks.

Comment by kirkion on August 11, 2012 at 7:32 pm

Dear Dan,

In a word, yes, I do disagree with you at this foundational level, and I suspect so do many of the people that you have been fighting with on the blog. You aren’t getting anywhere with them nor they with you because the difference in your definitions goes way deeper than the classification of one sin. It goes, I suspect, all the way to the definition of Good and Evil. That is the point that I’m trying to make.

I believe that there is an accurate view of the scriptures and I’m not scared away by the use of the word perfect. I think its hyperbole but for the sake of argument, yes I believe that we can know of perfect things. We can’t practice perfectly, but we can have accurate or correct intellectual knowledge which is “perfect” in a that sense.

My grounding for that belief is the existence of a revelatory word. God gave us the Word because there are specific things which are NOT self-evident which he requires of us. If he gave us the Word, then our minds are capable of understanding it.

In a practical example of this:
“Those of us who defend the obvious innate goodness and beauty of marriage for gay or straight, are in fact voicing the belief that the highest good, can be known well enough and understood well enough from the revelatory word of God.”

Dan, for those of us who hold to this view, marriage in itself is not obviously or innately good and beautiful. Marriage is good and beautiful because the relationship between a man and a woman images Christ and the Church according to the Scriptures. Growing up in today’s culture, I had to learn that marriage could be beautiful and before I knew Christ it certainly didn’t seem good. When you remove the image of Christ and the Church by removing the man or the woman, or by any other means, marriage loses any goodness or beauty it might have.

I don’t want to offend you by saying any of this, but before we can have a profitable conversation I think everyone should understand just how profoundly we disagree.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 11, 2012 at 11:18 pm

Brother Kirk, let me assure you I am not offended by your answer. I am profoundly thankful that you would give a direct answer to my direct question. May I ask a few follow up questions? You say…

We can’t practice perfectly, but we can have accurate or correct intellectual knowledge which is “perfect” in a that sense.

Does this mean that you think you are incapable of being mistaken on any point?

Does it mean you think you hold perfect knowledge of sinful behavior? That is, there is no issue/behavior that you don’t know God’s opinion on?

If you are capable of being mistaken on some issues, but not others, what is the list of behaviors which you can’t be mistaken on and on what basis do you hold to this list?

Do you think that if one is genuinely mistaken on a sinful behavior, that they can’t be saved? That is, if someone honestly thinks that smoking* is okay and, when they die, they discover that smoking was wrong, that they lost their salvation by a lack of perfect knowledge on smoking? (*or substitute smoking pot, drinking alcohol, owning a car, being gay and married or whatever behavior you wish to use for an example).

These (and others) are very reasonable questions to the rather extraordinary claim that we can hold perfect knowledge of (all?) sinful behavior, I hope you’ll be willing to continue this conversation. Thanks.

Comment by kirkion on August 11, 2012 at 4:46 pm

On another note, the slippery slope accusation is an inevitable and divisive accusation. From the traditional side, if you abandon revelation and its specific standard, then there is no way to define truth and all things are acceptable. The other side is offended by this because it often implies that they have no standards, which in their view is not true at all. In fact, being able to correctly recognize and parse the self-evident Good into beneficial and practical standards is often a mark of maturity in communities based on this philosophy. Thus the accusation is not only an intellectual challenge but a personal attack on their worth and standing within their own community.

But the traditionalists cannot back down, because again in their view, the source of Good and the assurance of their salvation is under attack. If the revelatory standard is not True, then Good is not Good, and they are still in their sins and as Paul said “above all men, most to be pitied.”

I understand the desire that people have to engage on this issue. But you should recognize that you are grounding your claims in two different places.

Comment by Keith Pavlischek on August 11, 2012 at 6:01 pm

Below is a link to a video and the following is an introductory comment by Professor Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminar. Note in particular that the infamous Gene Robinson admits that nothing in the Bible supports homosexual practice. In fact, anyone familiar with the best Biblical scholarship will be aware that even pro-homosexualist scholars are admitting that Scripture prohibits homosexual practice. The difference between them and those who hold to the traditional Christian view of sexual ethics is that the former just thinks that Scripture is wrong. Simple as that. Someone might be excused for buying the Boswell thesis 25 or 30 years ago, but that just won’t wash anymore as pro-homosexual Biblical scholars and theologians now concede. Here’s Gagnon:

“The full “conversation” (a rose by any other name…) that Jennifer Roback Morse Phd and I had at Skyline Church in La Mesa, Calif. on Sunday night July 29, 2012 with two homosexual proponents of “gay marriage,” philosophy professor John Corvino and Bishop Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Church. It was nice to get Robinson to admit not only that nothing in the Bible supports homosexual practice but also that committed homosexual relationships are not a piece of “new knowledge” that would have made any difference to Jesus or any NT writer, including Paul. I was also glad to show problems in Corvino’s dismissal of analogies to adult-committed incest and polyamory. Kudos to Rev. Jim Garlow of Skyline Church for making this happen and taking on the difficult task of moderating the discussion, and to his church for footing the bill. Now when are we going to see a church that supports homosexual marriage sponsoring a similar conversation? Who is being more pluralistic here?”

http://vimeo.com/47223269

Comment by Dr. James C. Goodloe IV on August 12, 2012 at 12:47 am

Dan, this is really all very sad. Surely even you know that they can just smell the desperation in your every word. You do not exude the confidence of maturity or the comfort of assurance. Instead, your haughtiness exposes not only the sometimes rashness of a convert but also and even more so the nervousness of uncertainty and the disquiet of doubt. Why are you so frantic that everyone else approve of what you believe? Why do you care? Such anxiety is not becoming of you, and I don’t even know you. You speak to me of love and respect, but for you to be so rude and dismissive to me as to mis-characterize repeatedly the church’s historic understanding of the Scriptures as “a magic rule book” shows neither love nor respect for me, so I cannot believe there is any genuineness at all to your supposed invitation. What your desperation shows instead is that you have no serious interest in, or capacity for, significant conversation about these matters. If you were confident in and of yourself, you could be kind, gentle, and generous. Since you are none of these, I am left wondering whom you are trying to convince, others or yourself. And do you really believe that behavior is non-essential? Hogwash! Believing in God and in his Christ is a behavior. Worshiping God is behavior. Serving God is behavior. Loving neighbor is behavior How bizarre that you want to start with the premise that nothing we do matters! But then, of course, you can justify anything, anything at all, and perhaps that’s the point. Here’s an idea: instead of trying to start with love, try to start with the truth, without which there is no love.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 12, 2012 at 5:44 pm

Dr Goodloe…

Surely even you know that they can just smell the desperation in your every word. You do not exude the confidence of maturity or the comfort of assurance.

I have no idea to what you are responding here, sir. It sounds a bit like you’re trying to guess my emotional state and are responding with attacks on my character rather than addressing any points I have made.

Since you offer nothing but vague personal attacks there, I shall ignore this.

Instead, your haughtiness exposes not only the sometimes rashness of a convert but also and even more so the nervousness of uncertainty and the disquiet of doubt. Why are you so frantic that everyone else approve of what you believe?

? What would make you think I care whether anyone approves of what I believe? Have I said that this is my goal? No, I haven’t. Again, this would fall into the realm of a simple ad hom attack.

Moving on. Addressing something I actually said, you stated…

You speak to me of love and respect, but for you to be so rude and dismissive to me as to mis-characterize repeatedly the church’s historic understanding of the Scriptures as “a magic rule book” shows neither love nor respect for me, so I cannot believe there is any genuineness at all to your supposed invitation.

1. I explained what I meant by that term: It was a shorthanded way to refer to the eisegetical approach to Bible study that suggests that the Bible is a rule book and those rules can be perfectly understood… somehow.

2. I don’t believe the church has historically treated the Bible in this manner. Do you have any support for such a bold assertion?

If the term “magic rule book” is offensive to you (when referring to this approach to Bible study, just to be clear), I apologize. That was not my intent, it was just a colorful way of summing up what I was describing. How about if I refer to it as a “mystical rule book,” with the mysticism being in that eisegetical and unsupported belief that we will somehow intuitively know which lines in the Bible are universal rules for all people and which are not?

3. That I used a term you found offensive (with no intent to be offensive) is not an indication that I’m not interested in sincere conversation. I remain open to listening to any answers to my actual questions raised, rather than ad hom attacks.

Come, let us reason together.

Comment by Dr. James C. Goodloe IV on August 12, 2012 at 5:57 pm

This was not an attack. It was a gentle observation. You wouldn’t want to see me in attack mode. Again, you set up false dichotomies. For you to assert that the Bible is either a book of rules perfectly apprehended or a book of universal truths (apparently floating so far above us as to be inapplicable in ruling out any behavior) is not to offer all the choices.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 13, 2012 at 12:07 pm

By “attack” I am referring to the ad hom logical error, where one “side” of a discussion engages in irrelevant, frivolous attacks on the other person’s character, rather than engaging with what the person actually has said. I’m suggesting you’d be better off dealing with my actual positions rather than making guesses about my character.

You said…

you set up false dichotomies. For you to assert that the Bible is either a book of rules perfectly apprehended or a book of universal truths (apparently floating so far above us as to be inapplicable in ruling out any behavior) is not to offer all the choices.

I have not offered that as the only choices, have I? I never said what you just said, did I?

Again, rather than attacks on my person or changing what I’ve said, could we just address what I actually said?

I have said it sounds like you all are saying that we can know perfectly every sin and we can know this because the Bible teaches us in such a way as we can’t be mistaken. I’m saying that is what it sounds like you’re hinting at. Is that your position?

A simple clarification, addressing my actual question, would seem to go a long way towards better communication.

And note: I fully understand that not all questions are easily answered, yes or no. That’s fine. Then say that.

“Dan, I can’t say ‘Yes, we can know perfectly every sin, because the Bible can’t be misunderstood,’ nor can I say that, ‘No, the Bible CAN be misunderstood…’ Rather, this is my position…”

Like that. I’m genuinely trying to understand your position. Enlighten me and I will learn.

Attack my character and it seems as if you are just ignoring the questions.

You said…

…is not to offer all the choices.

Then what are the choices? That is what I’m wanting to know.

Thank you, brother.

Comment by Dr. James C. Goodloe IV on August 13, 2012 at 1:09 pm

Yes, Dan, thank you, I am well aware of the nature and practice of an ad hominem attack. And again, that was not one. It was an attempt to offer you some help. But if you do not wish to avail yourself of it, that is fine.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 13, 2012 at 9:01 pm

Dr Goodloe…

I am well aware of the nature and practice of an ad hominem attack.

I’m glad you know an ad hom attack and I apologize if you took offense at my comment. I raised some questions and made some points and, instead of addressing them, you chose to “help” by pointing out my supposed flaws, rather than addressing my actual questions and points.

Perhaps you can see how that sounds a bit condescending and, well, sort of fits the definition of an ad hom attack?

So, with that cleared up, do you have any points to make about what I’ve actually said?

Comment by kirkion on August 12, 2012 at 1:58 am

Dear Dan

I have moved here in response to your last reply to me.

Unfortunately your line of questioning about lists and error shows that there is still a basic disconnect. I apologize and hope that I can make my starting point more evident.

Perhaps the best way to respond to your questions is with another piece hyperbole, I hope that like the hyperbole of “perfect knowledge” that this will be useful in illustrating the difference in our approaches.

You asked Does this mean that you think you are incapable of being mistaken on any point?

Essentially while most traditionalists would be far to polite to say this the answer is
“I could be wrong but I’m not.”

You see, you appear to be presenting two options. Option one is a comprehensive (Godlike) omniscience of all truth. Option two is a comprehensive doubt of all premises. This leaves no room for the traditionalist meaning of belief, in which a limited human recognizes something to be true in an absolute sense and steps out in word and deed because of that recognition.

This gets into the meaning and implications of believing. To say I believe something, is to say that I believe it to be true in a practical, spiritual and absolute sense. While I understand that belief means something different in the post-modern culture, that is what belief means to someone like me. Giving me those two options is like telling a committed pacifist that they have a choice between doing watching while their family dies or killing the attacker in cold blood. Obviously, the pacifist will reject both of those options, with some degree of emotion.

Now most traditionalists will be happy to explain to you how they arrived at their beliefs based on their axioms. They will discuss proof-texts, historical examples, scientific reports, but at the end of it a someone with traditionalist worldview will not be happy until they have settled on a firm and quantifiable position which they hold to be the the real and exclusive truth. Indeed, coming to such a point of belief is in many ways seen as a moral duty.

I suspect that is why people get frustrated with you when you challenge their views. What you present as an alternative to their viewpoint, and this is key, does not count as a belief by their definitions. They are culturally primed to weigh two opposing beliefs according to their axioms. But your definition of belief is so fundamentally different from theirs that they don’t know how to evaluate what you are asking of them. You are asking them not to trade one firmly held belief for another, but to abandon their notion of firmly held beliefs altogether.

I hope you can see how, within the traditionalist worldview this is an unthinkable and thus potentially offensive request.

Do you feel the same level of disconnect? Does what we define as belief comes across as inappropriately ‘heavy’ in the same way that your definition of belief comes across as inappropriately ‘light’ to us?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 12, 2012 at 8:54 am

Kirk, thank you for the thoughts and attempt at explaining your position. It truly is greatly appreciated and I think this sort of give and take dialog is a great model for us. One point of clarification before continuing… You refer to the “traditionalist” thinking. I would just point out that in many, perhaps most ways, I am a traditionalist. I believe in the sinful nature of humanity, the loving, just nature of God, in salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus, the literally risen son of a literal God, in the virgin birth, in the inspired Word of God, etc. Coming from an anabaptist background, I am quite traditional in most ways except that I disagree with the traditional opinion about marriage for gay folk.

Having said that, I will say that I’m trying to wrap my mind around what you’re saying and understand it. I’m hearing you say that you all have a hard time choosing between either, “I have perfect knowledge of all sinful behavior…” and “I gladly admit that I’m a fallen human being, lacking in perfect knowledge…”

I will clarify that I’m not saying that the choice is between perfect knowledge and doubting everything we believe. I think we can reasonably conclude there is a God, that Jesus is the son of God, that Jesus existed, taught what he taught, was killed by the authorities and rose from the dead, that it is wrong to kill an innocent person and that marriage is something that is good for both gay folk and straight.

I’m not talking about a choice between supreme God-like confidence that I can’t be mistaken on any point and mousy doubt about everything.

But even though I think I can reasonably conclude what opinions I hold, I can also reasonably admit that I’m imperfect and obviously lacking in perfect knowledge. For me, there is absolutely no problem making that admission.

Given my clarification above, are you saying that you all actually do have a problem admitting that you could be mistaken on some points? (That is not written with a judgmental tone, by the way, I’m just asking for clarification).

Kirk…

What you present as an alternative to their viewpoint, and this is key, does not count as a belief by their definitions.

Can you say for me what it is you think I’m presenting as an alternative to their viewpoint?

Kirk…

They are culturally primed to weigh two opposing beliefs according to their axioms.

I’m not sure what you mean here. I mean, we all are primed to weigh opposing beliefs according to our axioms/our understandings of what is and isn’t true. But what does that mean in this context? How is how you/they are “culturally primed” to weigh opposing beliefs by their axions different than how I/we are?

Kirk…

But your definition of belief is so fundamentally different from theirs that they don’t know how to evaluate what you are asking of them.

What are you hearing me to say my “definition of belief” is?

Are you saying that once we decide something is axiomatic, we can no longer examine that point? If so, I guess I would wonder how long a list of axiomatic propositions you are suggesting you all hold?

From where I stand, that seems to be one disconnect: I hold to a fairly short list of absolutes: God is good. God is love. We are sinful. We are in need of salvation. We can receive salvation by grace through faith in Jesus. We are called to repent of our sins and follow God…. like that.

I guess I don’t hold that each and every opinion I hold about each and every behavior’s “sin status” rises to the level of being axiomatic. Are you suggesting your each and every opinion about each and every possible sin IS axiomatic and beyond doubt?

If so, I would ask you on what rational and biblical basis would you make such a claim?

I would also ask if you recognize that this a rather astounding claim, difficult to reconcile with real-world observations?

Thanks again for the attempts to explain. I remain willing to learn.

Peace.

Comment by kirkion on August 13, 2012 at 1:19 pm

Dear Dan

First off, I think that I should clarify that when I say traditionalist, I am describing a cultural viewpoint or worldview. As no specific individual is merely the product of his culture we can safely say that this is a hypothetical man. Nevertheless, I think that it is a useful foil for the conversation and is a good safeguard against offense in either direction.

I want to acknowledge that you do indeed hold to many of the same doctrines as my hypothetical traditionalist. I chose the word traditionalist because I wanted to avoid the word orthodox, as what I am trying to articulate is not the doctrinal difference (i.e. this is sin, this is not sin) but a worldview or even cultural difference in approaching the question. This is not to say that the doctrinal difference is merely semantic, I think that it is clearly real, rather I think that the real difference is deeper and hidden by semantics.

For example, an orthodox doctrine of the scriptures is that they are the “inspired word of God.” You hold that view and so does my hypothetical traditionalist. But the traditionalist understands that doctrine to mean that he does NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to alter his views unless certain circumstances have been met.

To use a legal metaphor we are talking about the burden of proof. For the traditionalist, having studied the inspired scriptures and recognized a command, that recognition takes on the status of a conviction. As a conviction the burden of proof is on someone else to prove a counter-claim from the scriptures. This is why churches split, because its so hard to prove a conviction false.

Thus when you try to prove that they could be wrong that is a meaningless point to them. The operative belief is that they are NOT wrong in this instance, based on what they consider a plain reading of the scriptures. That plain reading is buttressed by an underlying cultural belief that the past cultures were better in regards to moral issues.

Thus
thevalueofsparrows said:

(would you like to argue that homosexuality was not seen as a sin at that time?).

and
Mark said:

No, it’s not ME saying it, it’s the SCRIPTURE saying it.

In order to overturn this level of conviction you need compelling scriptural evidence, which they do not hear you providing.

They hear you saying “Recognizing that your interpretation of the Scriptures could be wrong, what do you reasonably conclude a good and loving God would do?”
This appeal to reason is meaningless to some, impious and infuriating to others. They are waiting for you to say “Your interpretation of the Scriptures is incorrent and here is the right one for these reasons. Based on that you should do and say these things instead of your former acts.”

You are asking them to change their minds on a point of error, they are waiting to for proof of their sin and a call to repentance.

Absent that proof of sin, asking them to just change their minds is like asking a someone to repent of sexual behavior that they don’t believe to be wrong. You may be right, but in order for them to listen to you, you first have to show that their belief, their conviction, their worldview is wrong. Not may be wrong, not could be wrong. Wrong, inaccurate, untrue, false.

Also, as I said in an earlier post, the way that they arrived at this conviction is the same way that they arrived at their convictions regarding the Gospel and their own salvation. What they hear to be an attack on that process is not something they can compromise on because it would invalidate or at least call into question their conclusions on the matter of their own salvation. Their conclusions on a specific sin issue are open to question. The process by which they arrive at their conclusions is not.

I hope that I have explained how the way that you are challenging their conclusions brings into challenge the axiom that the scripture is the only basis for their moral conclusions.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 13, 2012 at 7:23 pm

Again, I would very much like to thank you for taking the effort to try to explain your (?) opinions to me. If I may follow it up with a few questions?

First of all, would it be possible for you to offer what you specifically think, rather than the vague “these people” when speaking of “the traditionalists…”? I’m interested in your opinions and finding some specific answers, as much as possible. First off, then, where you say…

But the traditionalist understands that doctrine to mean that he does NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM to alter his views unless certain circumstances have been met.

Is this what you personally think?

You think you don’t have the authority/have the freedom to change your mind from a long-accepted traditional interpretation (with some as-yet undefined “circumstances”), is that what you’re saying?

I guess one question that would arise immediately is WHOSE long-accepted traditional interpretation?

But setting that aside for the minute, it sounds like you’re saying that we Christians ought not change our position from fairly traditional positions that are fairly universally held in Christian circles unless we have a good solid set of reasons.

Is that a fair restatement of what you’re saying?

Beyond that, what “certain circumstances” need be met?

From my point of view, I would tend to uphold traditionally held positions (or at least the traditionally held positions of the anabaptists, whom I believe to hold amongst the closest views of Jesus’ and the early church’s teachings) unless I believe there are solid reasons to disagree with these positions.

Solid reasons would include biblical reasons as well as rational reasons. Good biblical reasons would be based upon solid exegetical criteria: Interpreting the individual passage through the whole of the Bible; interpreting the obscure through the clear; interpreting everything through the specific teachings of Jesus, our savior and the one in whose steps we follow; striving to understand cultural and linguistic context; etc… as well as just good use of our God-given reasoning.

Those would be amongst my “certain circumstances.”

What “certain circumstances” are you speaking of?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 13, 2012 at 8:06 pm

I guess one more question. Where you say…

To use a legal metaphor we are talking about the burden of proof. For the traditionalist, having studied the inspired scriptures and recognized a command, that recognition takes on the status of a conviction. As a conviction the burden of proof is on someone else to prove a counter-claim from the scriptures.

We, in my church, have mostly all held the traditional position. We have collectively and individually studied the topic and found the burden of proof necessary to insist upon us to change. For some of us, it was almost against our will. We REALLY didn’t want to change from the traditional position, it’s what we knew, it made sense to us for most of our lives, it coincided with hundreds of years of church tradition. AND YET, we found the evidence compelling enough that we could no longer believe the traditional position to be biblically, morally or logically sound.

Do you agree with me that IF this is the position we came to, that we are obliged to change our position to the one that we feel is most in line with God’s ways, as we understand it?

You’re not suggesting we have to “prove it” to everyone else in the church, are you?

If so, where in church history has there ever been a precedent for that? Where is the support for that in the Bible or just with reason?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 15, 2012 at 7:21 am

While waiting for Kirk to respond, I guess let me sum up a bit more of what I’m hearing you say and point out my problem with it. Where you conclude, Kirk…

as I said in an earlier post, the way that they arrived at this conviction is the same way that they arrived at their convictions regarding the Gospel and their own salvation. What they hear to be an attack on that process is not something they can compromise on because it would invalidate or at least call into question their conclusions on the matter of their own salvation. Their conclusions on a specific sin issue are open to question. The process by which they arrive at their conclusions is not.

It sounds like you’re saying that questions that I think rationally arise from some of their positions are so offensive, so unthinkable, that they can’t/won’t answer them. While I’m just asking what seems like natural questions in a conversation, not meaning offense, but just because they seem like big holes in what they’re saying, they’re hearing an attack on their faith and are not able (not willing?) to even consider answering them because to answer the questions would be… what? Admit that they could be mistaken about something? And that this possibility is so unnerving that they just can’t/won’t answer it?

If that is what you’re saying, I will just point out that while people are always free to ignore questions that arise from positions they stake, they can’t reasonably expect their non-answers to in any way support their position, right?

It’s not like their saying, “I can’t/won’t answer that question because its core concept unnerves me…” will cause me (or anyone else) to say, “Oh, okay, well then, you must be right. I’ll abandon my reasonable questions and follow in your steps because you can’t/won’t answer these questions that arise from what you’re saying…”

Right? If they are not able to give a defense for their position, they (you?) can’t reasonably expect people to take them very seriously, at least on the points in question, can you?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 13, 2012 at 7:43 pm

A few other points. Where you say…

You are asking them to change their minds on a point of error, they are waiting to for proof of their sin and a call to repentance.

1. I’m not asking/haven’t asked anyone to change their mind about their opinion about marriage equity.

2. Rather, I’ve been calling people specifically to repent of (or at least explain) their positions which seem to be or border on heresy, or behavior that is not becoming Christ’s body.

3. On this post, the author stated…

according to orthodox Christianity, homosexuality and polygamy are seen as harmful. If nothing else, they hurt the soul.

To which, I responded with a direct and simple question (or at least it seems simple to me)…

I wonder on what basis you make this statement?

4. I went on to explain that it sounds like (in this post as well as others) that the authors are suggesting that IF one is mistaken about a behavior’s sin status, they can lose their salvation or can’t be saved. I’ve been trying to get someone to step up and clarify this.

5. Why have I been doing this? Because IF they are teaching that our salvation is dependent on perfect knowledge (or perfect knowledge on at least this topic), THEN they are preaching a heresy – the notion of salvation by works.

6. So, can you see how my concern has not really even been the whole “gay marriage” topic, but the concern of heretical teachings of “being mistaken is equal to preaching a false gospel” or, put another way, salvation by works, which is a traditionally-accepted heresy.

Do you see how, at least from my position, I am waiting for clarification or proof that their heretical-sounding suggestions are not what they sound like? That is, that I’m doing exactly what you’re suggesting I should be doing – I’m waiting for proof of their position, which sounds heretical? And, if they’re expressing heresy, to talk with them about a change of position.

Where am I mistaken?

Comment by kirkion on August 15, 2012 at 1:59 pm

Dear Dan

I’m sorry its taken me so long to get back to you on this, and I don’t know if I’ll have the time to really sit down and give the level of quality answers that this subject deserves for the next week or so. However, I’m sure that the topic will come up again on another post, and perhaps then we can continue this.

First off the reason that I went with the use of a third-party term traditionalist was to try to take a step back from the situation. I had originally not even wanted to directly engage your persona views, but you seemed to wish the focus so I obliged. I was examining a difference in fundamental definitions

Second, in my last post, when I mentioned the specific circumstances, the whole rest of the post was an attempt to illustrate those specific circumstances. I was trying to bridge what I see as a fundamental worldview distinction using metaphor. I’m sorry that I failed, but perhaps someone else will be able to make clear to you what I was trying to express.

In your last comment, you mention that the heart of your objection is that people are making homosexuality a salvation issue. That being mistaken about “behavior’s sin status” is a damning issue.

Remember that from their point of view someone who claims that homosexuality is not sin is both drastically misreading the scriptures, and ignoring all the real world evidence of harm. Based on that position some might very well claim that such a man’s judgment of reality and his ability to discern the Truth of the Scriptures is so impaired that we cannot place any confidence in his salvation. Such men are not mistaken but deceived, and it is a very serious issue to be deceived about what is and is not sin.

I personally don’t hold that view because I think that God made men with the ability to believe inconsistent or even mutually exclusive premises. Such deception would surely hamper their walk and their ability to obey the clear commands of God, but it does not in and of itself indicate a damnable lack of belief. But I think that such an argument can be made particularly in exacerbated cases of deception.

However, for most of the people on this blog, I don’t think that salvation is the primary issue. The issue is clarity of the witness of the church and the honor of Christ’s name. They are forcefully rejecting the view that homosexuality is acceptable because of their study of the Scriptures and their understanding of God’s will. As in Corinthians 5, the reputation and honor of Christ is being put in question and one of their own is being led away into deception because sin is being tolerated and affirmed.

Far from questioning the salvation of such a case, Paul’s desire was that the man in question be saved “So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” But it was clear that the duty of the Christians was to make the holiness of those Christian’s God apparent to those within and without the church.

Sin is common to man, and sin happens within the church. Aside from taking basic precautions, to much of a focus on preventing sin leads to legalism and it is more important to be able to respond correctly to it. The correct response to sin is to reject it (as publicly as the sin was made) and affirm the truth. This drives us closer to Christ, reaffirming our dependence on his grace and giving us even more reason to praise him for his sacrifice.

When a Christian commits sin, it does not overcome the work of Christ, but sin is still a very serious matter. I could go one for pages, and I’m sure some of the learned commentators on this blog could go on much longer about the seriousness of sin, but the seriousness which you take what you see to be apparent heresy of those on this blog makes it clear that you agree.

In conclusion, I believe that these Christians who oppose you are not arrogating to themselves the right to judge the salvation of those who affirm homosexuality. Rather they are burdened with the heavy responsibility to publicly make clear that the God, which they worship, hates sin, and hates what it does to the people that He loves. Those who believe in other gods may claim what they want, but they are under obligation because of the seriousness of sin, to make clear what their God affirms and what he does not. In your own way, you are demonstrating a similar burden and attacking them for trying to fulfill their responsibilities is not helpful to the conversation.

I hope that you understand, that in the view of many of the people here, there are things, which are not related to salvation, which are nonetheless incredibly important, and which carry incredibly serious consequences if they are messed up. While some of these things may eventually lead to questions of salvation, they are not worth fighting for merely because of the eventually salvific consequences, though those may be serious as well. Rather they are worth fighting for because the truth itself is of utmost important. In this specific case, the meaning of sexual purity is worth fighting for and if our God has made his opinion known on the subject then his honor and reputation are also worth defending.

I don’t know if the concept of honor means the same thing to you that it does to me, so to use a legal metaphor: to say that God affirms something that is sinful, is to implicate Him in the eventual horrific consequences of that sin. The reason He gives us commands is because He loves us, and because sin has horrific consequences.

In conclusion, the follower of a God will not stand by while their God’s words are perverted. To expect them to do so is unrealistic; it is against all human nature both theoretically and historically. Rather you must show, from their points of legitimacy, their axioms, how such a position is not a perversion, but rather an affirmation of their God. If you do not do so, then they MUST continue to reject your position. If you cannot do so, then perhaps you do not share the same points of legitimacy, perhaps your axioms are not their axioms, and if that is true, then perhaps their God is not your God.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 16, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Once again, thanks Kirk, for the many thoughts. And you HAVE written a whole lot of explanation and I do appreciate it.

At the same time, I am wondering if you might find the time to more directly answer the questions I have asked of you? I find that direct answers do the best job of giving the most insight. Or, if for some reason a direct answer isn’t possible, an explanation of why you can’t answer directly (which perhaps is what you’ve been trying to do).

But perhaps you’ll understand that if you (collectively or individually) aren’t able to address directly questions that arise from your positions, that you will continue to lose those who you might wish to win over to your views. No offense intended at all, but we just find your positions on this issue to be irrational and immoral and not supportable by good biblical exegesis or reasoning.

It SOUNDS like, to me, that you’re suggesting that my questions are, for you all, so offensive as to be unanswerable. For my part, I’m not sure how questions in and of themselves can be offensive. In asking a question, I’m saying, “I’m not understanding how your position makes sense, could you explain it…?” What is offensive about that?

Beyond that, where you say…

for most of the people on this blog, I don’t think that salvation is the primary issue. The issue is clarity of the witness of the church and the honor of Christ’s name. They are forcefully rejecting the view that homosexuality is acceptable because of their study of the Scriptures and their understanding of God’s will.

I am fine with “forcefully” standing by what you believe to be Right and Good. It is, after all, the exact same thing that I’m doing.

But “forcefully” standing by what you believe is one thing. Going so far as to calling those who disagree with you “heretics” and “false teachers” and preachers of a “false gospel” is going way beyond merely supporting your opinions strongly – it drops down into slander, false witness and gossip. Possibly even actual heresy (if the suggestion is that being mistaken about a behavior is the same as preaching a false gospel…).

Kirk, a direct question:

Can you agree with me that IF you think behavior A is a sin (whatever Behavior A is) and if another Christian – one affirming essential Christianity (salvation by grace, sinful humanity in need of salvation, a loving God, Jesus, the son of God, etc) – disagrees with your opinion about behavior A, can you agree with me that this disagreement in no way rises to anything like the level of a “false gospel,” and that indeed, making that suggestion is a false witness, it is slanderous and it may even be heresy?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 16, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Kirk…

Rather they are worth fighting for because the truth itself is of utmost important. In this specific case, the meaning of sexual purity is worth fighting for and if our God has made his opinion known on the subject then his honor and reputation are also worth defending.

Again, standing by your position and “fighting for it,” is one thing. Engaging in slander, false witness or actual heresy in your attempt to do so, however, only serves to undermine your witness/position. Do you agree?

I’m sure you do. The question, then, would be: Are they actually engaging in slander when they suggest that we who disagree with their opinions on this behavior are “false teachers” “heretics” or preaching a “false gospel.” But I don’t see any reasonable way to make that claim. Do you?

Also, I have this concern that you who hold to the traditional opinion on this issue go too far in conflating your opinions and interpretations with God’s Word, and this is a serious problem. God has never stated an opinion directly about “gay marriage.” God has nowhere condemned all gay behavior. These are interpretations, not direct Words from God.

The same is true for my position. My interpretations are MY INTERPRETATIONS. The difference is, while I strongly defend my positions and believe them to be right in the sight of God, I’m NOT saying that I’m speaking for God. I won’t say, “And to disagree with me is to disagree with God…” whereas you all seem more willing to make that leap.

It is a very dangerous leap to make, I’m suggesting.

Kirk…

to say that God affirms something that is sinful, is to implicate Him in the eventual horrific consequences of that sin. The reason He gives us commands is because He loves us, and because sin has horrific consequences. In conclusion, the follower of a God will not stand by while their God’s words are perverted.

And of course, I think this is exactly what is happening with those who stand so strongly opposed to marriage equity and who so strongly condemn our gay brothers and sisters. I fear that these folk are perverting God’s actual Word and supplanting God’s Word with THEIR opinions. And so, I disagree with my brothers and sisters who, I think, are mistaken on this point.

BUT, in my disagreement, I never lose sight that these are my family in Christ with whom I disagree. I never lose sight that this is an in-house debate. I may disagree with you – strongly – and fear that you are doing incredible damage to the body of Christ with what I believe is a sinful position, but I won’t say, “Therefore, they are preaching a false gospel…” or to claim that your disagreement with me is disagreement with God.

I fear there is a bit too much conflatation of opinion with God’s Word and I don’t go there and don’t think you all should, either.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 16, 2012 at 2:09 pm

“Conflation,” not “conflatation.”

The other questions that I have asked and am waiting for an answer (not to apply pressure, but just to help, so you don’t have to look back for them) include…

Do you agree with me that IF this [support of marriage equity] is the position we came to [in our seeking of God’s will], that we are obliged to change our position to the one that we feel is most in line with God’s ways, as we understand it?

Beyond that, what “certain circumstances” need be met, in YOUR opinion?

Comment by Charlottheelian on August 14, 2012 at 2:17 pm

In his scholarly Moral Vision of the NT, Duke Div. prof. R. Hays writes: The NT remains unambiguous…in its condemnation of homosexual conduct.

Comment by Pudentiana on August 16, 2012 at 4:16 pm

After reading most of these posts, I have not noted much reference to the other witness of God, the Holy Spirit. He is the one who teaches Truth and convicts of sin. Perhaps we all should look to Him more.

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 16, 2012 at 4:21 pm

I would note that, for my part at least, when I reference “seeking God’s will” or meditation or prayer upon God’s Word, seeking the leadership of the Holy Spirit is implied. I’m sure that’s true for everyone else, as well.

Comment by Bart Gingerich on August 16, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Yes, it seems Dan has the spiritual gift of excessive comment posting.

Comment by David M. on August 16, 2012 at 8:07 pm

I’ve often wonder why the Holy Spirit seems to give guidance that supports and justifies the opposing positions of advocates of both sides of an issue. How can this be? Surely the Holy Spirit is not duplicitous!

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 16, 2012 at 8:19 pm

Well, obviously, sometimes, all of us are mistaken. We all seek God’s Will. We don’t all perfectly find it. At least that’s the case for me. Are you suggesting you always perfectly “get” God’s Will and are perfectly understanding the Holy Spirit.

Comment by David M. on August 16, 2012 at 11:08 pm

Dan, I thought my comment was neutral…just an observation and question. You have read something into it that is not there.

I was hoping that someone more experienced than I am in revelations of the Holy Spirit would comment on my question about duplicity. Maybe someone could share first-hand experience in connection with the issue(s) of this long discussion. How is one to know when the Holy Spirit is guiding them rather than their own will?

Comment by Dan Trabue on August 16, 2012 at 8:23 pm

Bart…

it seems Dan has the spiritual gift of excessive comment posting.

Guilty as charged. And yet, consider this: IF we only want to snipe and put others down, then we can easily keep our comments short and snippy.

IF, on the other hand, we are trying to hold complicated conversations over diverse topics with no easy answers, we might have to, you know, actually converse back and forth and have many comments.

And so, what you probably meant as a little dig, I take as a compliment. If I comment a good bit, then that is a good thing, it seems to me, because it tells you that I am interested in what you have to say and am interested and willing to engage in conversation with you.

Come, let us reason, does not assume a ten word reply, does it?

Shall we reason my dear brothers and sisters, or simply snipe?

Comment by Pudentiana on August 16, 2012 at 10:25 pm

victimization is such an easy pose. Perhaps we need to just consider that there are things in the Bible which each of us has problems with. However, the standard of creation and the logic of the male+female configuration in order to reproduce is really just plain science. There is no reason for people of the same sex to have a sexual relationship unless they have a problem relating to the opposite sex. This is not the norm, like it or not. Plugs go in sockets to make an electric connection. The same sex activity produces nothing of any permanent value. God’s character and works are evident in the creation as Paul has stated.
.

Comment by Isaiah Webb on July 24, 2014 at 11:06 am

What do you honestly believe that Jesus would have said if a Gay person caught in the act was brought to him by a mob in the same fashion that the woman caught in adultery was brought to him?

Pingback by Methodist Church of Great Britain Promotes ‘Queer Theology’ - Juicy Ecumenism on February 22, 2022 at 10:23 am

[…] have utterly capitulated to what sociologist Christian Smith has termed “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism,” as the Methodist Church of Great Britain did last year when it approved a plan calling for the […]

Pingback by Methodist Church of Great Britain Promotes ‘Queer Theology’ - Christianity News on February 22, 2022 at 10:59 am

[…] have utterly capitulated to what sociologist Christian Smith has termed “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism,” as the Methodist Church of Great Britain did last year when it approved a plan calling for the […]