Monday, May 31, 2010

More Common Sense Regarding DADT

This article in Human Events by William Buchanan (didn't he die in last season's "24"?), highlights the only sensible arguments that should be considered as Congress once again discusses a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which would allow openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military (in direct violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

A military spending bill that repeals DADT has already passed the House. This is a devious and dishonest ploy by enablers within our government. They tie this unconscionable repeal to spending meant to enhance the ability of troops now engaged in warfare to succeed. What results is that those who vote against this bill because of the part that repeals DADT, as whether it fails to pass or not, can be said to have been against supporting the troops. At the same time, the military has requested that Congress do nothing on this issue until it can be reviewed by the military, but apparently members of Congress think they know better what's best for the military than military people.

And this is where the article comes in. Even if the military leaders are wrong if they vote against a repeal (which they would not be), it is still something only they can righteously judge because the responsibility of the quality of our military falls on them.

But it seems there are too many political animals in the military as we see by an article in today's paper heralding the first batch of women now assigned to submarines in the Navy. There have already been higher incidents of rapes and pregnancies since women were allowed to serve on other ships, and now somehow, closer quarters won't make a difference. Don't these boneheads understand that our ability to protect the nation is at stake?

The article begins with a perfect example of boneheadedness:

"Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen recently fired another salvo to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the 1993 law that prohibits openly gay people from serving in the Armed Forces, when he declared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, "No matter how I look at the issue I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." "

"Lie about who they are"? Not at all. What common sense people are hoping for is that such people resist who they are, just as we hope pedophiles resist who they are, adulterers resist who they are, thieves resist who they are, etc., etc., etc. Why should this behavior be considered immutable, yet all other behaviors forbidden under the UCMJ not? Where's the social justice for rapists and thieves? The lie is that there is no difference between homos and heteros and that there won't be serious negative ramifications should this stupidity be made into law. The article to which I've linked lists a number of considerations that are more than just potential, but are worth a wager for their extreme likelihood.

UPDATE: More common sense on the issue of DADT is found here. It is even better than the one above for the fact that it focusses more directly on the real point of the opposition to the repeal of DADT. As much as some want to see it as some kind of racial like discrimination against those poor homosexuals, it is and always has been an issue of military effectiveness and how that would be impacted by the repeal.

263 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 263 of 263
Mark said...

I am not putting restrictions on anybody. God is.

If you want to argue, argue with God.

When my time comes to give an account for myself to God, I will have to deal with it. And so will all of you.

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

As I have said before, I would be glad to lay out my position on gay marriage if you would kindly respond to my questions of you and the lengthy explanations i've given you.

I believe I have answered every question you have asked of me. What am I missing?

I don't believe you've answered very many of my questions to you. What am I missing?

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy...

You are equivocating because the only Biblical support for the establishment and blessing of marriage is between a man and a woman.

Yes, the only biblical mentions of sex and marriage are between a man and a woman, or a man and a girl, or a man and many women, or men and the virgin girls they have kidnapped from their dead parents' homes.

AND, there is no mention of gay marriage.

AND, you have agreed that sometimes we need to form opinions on topics not found in the Bible.

AND, I have formed an opinion on gay marriage.

How is that equivocating?

Marty said...

"If you want to argue, argue with God."

God and I have already been down that road. We've pretty much settled things....for the time being anyway.


"When my time comes to give an account for myself to God, I will have to deal with it. And so will all of you."

Finally!!!! We agree on something.

Mark said...

Matthew 5:28 ~ But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Jesus' words.

I have done that.

Likewise, in Matthew 19:9, Jesus says, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

I have done that, also.

I feel guilty for that. I have asked God for forgiveness, and He has forgiven me. Now, according to God's Word, He has forgotten my sin and has "cast it as far as the east is from the west". Therefore, I am now sin free.

But, what now? Do I divorce my current wife so I can "go and sin no more?"

Of course not. My obligation, now that it's too late to take a mulligan, is to be faithful to the wife I have now.

So, let's apply that same Biblically applied logic to unrepentant homosexuals. If they don't acknowledge they have sinned, and do not repent, and refuse to ask God's forgiveness, and continue in their sin, and then boast that God blesses their sin, they are just as condemned as they were the first time they committed the sin of homosexual relations.

Not condemned by me or even God, mind you. Condemned by their sin.

Just as all of us are condemned by our own sins. As I said, the difference is in the repentance of said sins. For who can go back and undo a sin?

God only can remove sin from our lives. But He won't if we don't repent and ask forgiveness, and understand that He is just and faithful to forgive us.

Unrepentant homosexuals (and their enablers, such as Dan and Geoffrey) will face God's judgment.

Although I still regret the poor choices I have made, I know I am forgiven and I will not have to face the wrath of God.

Mark said...

"Well what if the gay couple acknowledges the "sin" and "repent"? Is it ok then?

However, didn't Jesus tell the woman caught in adultery her sins were forgiven...BUT...to "go and sin no more"?


Well, if the gay couple continues in their sin and boasts that God blesses their sin, it's likely their repentance isn't sincere, so no, it's not OK.

Remember, Homosexuals would also be admonished to "go and sin no more".

Yes, Jesus said that, and if she did as Jesus commanded, she is no longer condemned. But if she said, "Thanks for your help, Jesus, But I prefer to continue to date married men" she would not have remained forgiven.

This ain't rocket surgery, folks.

But thanks, Marty, for reminding me that I am a sinful man, just as much in need of forgiveness on a daily basis, as I ever was.

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy, I've been looking back trying to find any of your questions/points that I have not addressed and I can't find any. But let me take a try at re-answering this...

You say: "I see no reason to condemn what I don't see God condemning. Why would I?"

I'm not asking you to condemn it. I'm asking you to show where it is established. Positive establishment is what i'm pressing here.


I believe that you and I have already established that one need not find a place in the Bible to support something that isn't addressed in the Bible! That is, if something isn't IN the Bible, then there can be NO establishing a position of it as biblically positive or negative. But just because something is not in the Bible, does not mean that we should not have an opinion.

Gay marriage is not in the Bible.

You (I think) have decided that - nonetheless - you are opposed to it, and that's fine for you to have that opinion, as long as we're all clear it's YOUR opinion and God has not revealed something special to you or that you're not speaking for God.

I have decided that - nonetheless - I think marriage is a good thing, for gay or straight. I HAVE been quite clear that this is MY opinion on a topic that is not found in the Bible.

I can't show where opposition to nuclear war is established in the Bible because it's not there.

I can't show you where support for building orphanages is established in the Bible because it's not there.

You can't show where opposition to gay marriage is established in the Bible because it's not there.

I can't show where support for marriage (gay or straight) is established in the Bible because it's not there.

But that's not to say that we can't have an opinion on the topic, we have agreed upon this already, haven't we?

Dan Trabue said...

Mark, a question for you: IF someone sins (a sinner such as you have freely admitted) and DOES NOT KNOW IT, and since they do not know it, they do not repent of it, are they doomed because of their lack of knowledge?

If they are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus and are seeking God's will in their lives and they have simply made a mistake in trying to find God's will, are they doomed to hell?

Are you, if you are less than perfect in your knowledge of all sin, doomed?

Marshal Art said...

Mark,

I encourage you to ignore that question. It is a ploy. We're not dealing with a situation whereby anyone "doesn't know" they are sinning. We're clearly dealing with a situation where someone, the typical homosexual, assumes he is NOT sinning despite all solid evidence to the contrary. I think it's a fine topic for another post, but a total distraction and dishonest tactic here.

Dan Trabue said...

Yes, a sincere idiot asking a sincere question is a ploy, Marshall. It's always wisest to ignore questions and presume you know better than being tricked into answering reasonable questions. It might undermine your position, after all.

How about it, Marshall? What's YOUR answer to the question?

Why do you all seem so fearful of answering questions or embracing those who differ from you?

Afraid you'll catch some gayness? Afraid you'll undermine your own position?

It's just a reasonable question, Marshall. I am a brother in Christ. I have been saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. I've been a Christian for 37 years now, striving to read the Bible and understand God's will.

I have come to the conclusion that gay marriage is not condemned in the Bible. Could I be wrong? Sure, we all could be wrong, we're human. But I SINCERELY don't think I am wrong. I believe YOU are mistaken and engaging in sin for your behaviors because of your position on gay marriage and spiteful behavior towards those who disagree with you on this point.

So, I sincerely believe that gay marriage is no sin. My gay and lesbian friends sincerely believe gay marriage is no sin.

If we are mistaken on this point, are we condemned to hell? I believe you've answered this question before, affirming the orthodox Christian answer that YES, Christians CAN be sincerely mistaken on a point and still be saved. In fact, given our fallible human condition, it's just about a certainty that you and I WILL be mistaken about some sins.

Will you be condemned for being sincerely mistaken? Will I?

It's a reasonable question.

Marshal Art said...

"Wow. Do you not see how utterly ridiculous that sounds? What about uni-sex pants - is that OK? What is god's ruling on that one?"

What I see is a ridiculous person named Joe looking to any crumb by which he can mock Christian teaching. But I'll play. Unisex clothes? Obviously, by virtue of the intent of its design, it is meant for both sexes. If a group of people were kidnapped, stripped entirely of all their clothes and made to find their way home, but all they available to them to cover up were cardboard boxes, there'd hardly be a concern regarding which boxes were meant for men and which for women. There'd be no concern, in fact, at all since the point here is not simply wearing the clothes of the opposite sex, but the intention behind it. If one is wearing women's clothes by choice, to present himself publicly, it is as if to say that he rejects God's design and knows better. That's the idea behind the point. A transgendered person is one who decides he is a woman when he is clearly biologically a man, also rejecting God's design rather than accepting it and moving forward. So, if my wife, for example, wanted to wear my shirt, because its my shirt and she loves me, as opposed to wearing it because she really wants to be a man, a thinking man of the 21st century should readily see the distinction and not ask stupid questions, trying to trap someone who believes what the thinking man is stupidly rejecting.

"This is quite a scary comment. Whenever the topic strays into 'thought crimes' I get nervous..."

More stupidity from the thinking man of the 21st century. Bubba is in no way suggesting thought crimes. That's a stupid liberal idea. He's speaking of how God judges us, by what is in our hearts. Our actions are a response to our hearts and thoughts. If we fantasize about a sinful action, it is as if we physically committed it.

"It's the certainty with which you make these statements that makes you dangerous. You claim to "KNOW" what god would or would not do..."

There's nothing mysterious or dangerous about knowing what the Bible teaches. The fact that some, like Dan, disagree with what the Bible says does not mean the disagreement between us is honest. What it means here is that one of us is wrong. The initials of that person is "D.T." I can say that with full confidence because I don't use crappy exegesis to justify support of sinful behavior. Dan likes to pretend that what the Bible teaches against homosex is not comprehensive, that it doesn't prohibit ALL forms and manifestations of homosex. He is not only wrong, he is vastly, and blatantly wrong. And he has not come to his conclusions by Biblical study, but by influence of other supporters of this lie. The Bible won't get anyone to those conclusions without outside influences. BUT, you obviously are attempting to play the same BS game Dan and other libs like to play that states that we are reading God's mind. No. We're reading His teachings as clearly and plainly presented in the Bible. When God says, "Thou shalt not..." there's not much mind reading necessary. So once again, different interpretations don't mean that the Bible is that difficult to understand. More often than not, particularly in discussions here, it means the lefties are twisting and distorting and taking things out of context in order to support their positions. Dan is famous for this.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall may have answered my question by addressing Joe, by saying...

He's speaking of how God judges us, by what is in our hearts.

Yes, I can agree with this. We are judged by what's in our hearts. Those who "sin" but are only trying to do the right thing, that sin will not be held against them. We are not condemned for failing to understand with perfection everything that is right and wrong.

So I AM saved by God's grace. My gay and lesbian and transgendered brothers and sisters are saved by God's grace. Marshall IS saved by God's grace.

And if Dan, or Marshall, manage to mistakenly think something wrong is a good, then we are covered by God's grace.

God DOES judge us by what's in our hearts.

It's only our own brothers and sisters who like to stab at us when we're mistaken, unfortunately.

Marshal Art said...

I'm not playing that game Dan. Like I said, I like the question for a blog post of its own, but I'm not buying the proposition that anyone is mistaken about this. The activists have gone through too much work to find a way to make the Bible work to what they think is their legitimate advantage regarding this issue. There's no mistake because as I just got through saying to Joe, the Bible alone won't bring anyone to such a twisted conclusion. As to my behavior toward you and others who perpetrate this blatant fraud, the spite, if any exists, I consider it mere frustration, is provoked by the very unChristian insistance that lame arguments deserve respectful consideration. Well, I've more than considered likely every argument the homo community has put forth as regards Biblical perspectives on human sexuality and you should feel fortunate the worst you get is spitefulness. Take the following for example:

"Yes, the only biblical mentions of sex and marriage are between a man and a woman, or a man and a girl, or a man and many women, or men and the virgin girls they have kidnapped from their dead parents' homes."

Despite the fact that all of these are indeed examples of men with females where no similar pairings of men-men or women-women exist, you purposely frame these as all having the same level of acceptance and sanctioning by God (whether you say so outright or not) when each of these that are not simply simple marriages have been discussed and explained over and over in the past. The point being that you will typically bring up settled issues as if they've never been settled because of, like in this case a new visitor, or because despite the strength of our positions, you remain unconvinced. Yet you never provide the problems with our positions that leave you unconvinced. You simpy reject it in favor of supporting the sin.

Now, you want to again bring up the nonsense that you might be mistaken. You know you are because you have so horribly failed to respond to our concerns with the many holes in your arguments, nor have you shown where there are any holes in ours. Every argument you've offered we've met with a counter and you never reciprocate (don't weep, no one on your side of the issue ever does). At some point, there must either be concession or at least a time for honest review of the points you've been unable to counter. You do neither, but cling to the lie.

More---

Marshal Art said...

Your other ploys include bringing up stupid analogies or like recently, your example of abortion not being discussed in the Bible. But there are quite enough admonitions against murder and you constantly rail against the possibility that anyone would kill innocents. Science has proven the humanity of the fetus and the embryo and the zygote and every other stage of human development, so this is easily addressed despite "abortion" never being mentioned.

The same can be said of toxic dumping as you yourself whine about stewardship and it's an easy extrapolation, not to mention the direct harm to other people.

Orphanages? There are no verses regarding caring for the poor and needy? Is it a leap to assume that a good orphanage might satisfy the lesson of charity?

But nothing, not one single verse can honestly be used to support homo marriage. Not one. I once again present Neil's list of Biblical facts:

"• 100% of the Bible verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
• 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
• 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
• 0% of 31,173 Bible verses, none refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions."


You all are NOT mistaken in your beliefs, you are willfully ignoring the truth.

Marshal Art said...

Sooo, if in my heart I truly believe I'm doing God's will by shooting black people, I'm cool? You know damn well that racists think they have Biblical justification for their racism. Are they cool with the Lord? How about Mafia people who go to church and take the sacraments and believe when they kill their opponents their still in good with God because they go to confession?

Marshal Art said...

How about all the people killed in the Great Flood? Their sinfulness brought about their demise, but I don't recall that they were congnizant of their sinning. What of them? Why were they wiped out to begin with if they didn't know they were sinning, if indeed they didn't know? (maybe the Bible DOES say they knew, I just don't recall and ain't up for lookin' it up just now)

Dan Trabue said...

You are free to form any opinions you wish, but you don't know me. In fact, I can tell you that MY opinion is that I HONESTLY believe marriage (gay or straight) is a good and blessed thing. I am not ignoring anything. Rather, I have studied the matter for years, I have prayed about it, I have sought God's will and this is my sincere opinion.

You really have to understand that just because YOU don't think an argument has validity does not mean that OTHERS might not agree with you. We are seeking God's will, not Marshall's and sometimes, we may disagree with the great and wise Marshall. We may even think that Marshall is mistaken.

That's just the way it is. And when those of us who are seeking God's will, seeking to do the right thing, seeking Justice and Mercy and Love for God and neighbor are sometimes, desire to follow God notwithstanding, when you or I are mistaken, God's grace covers us.

Thanks be to God and God's grace.

Would that our brothers and sisters could extend us the same grace.

Dan Trabue said...

When we choose to engage in violent, deadly, hateful behavior, THIS is obviously against what is good and righteous. No one would confuse this.

I am not engaging in violent, deadly, hateful behavior. I happen to think two people sharing their lives in faithfulness, love and respect is a good and blessed thing.

WHY WOULDN'T I? What possible reason would I have for opposing something that is Good, Pure, Loving and Faithful?

I would hope that you could understand the great chasm of difference between engaging in obviously Bad behavior (killing folk for racist reasons, for instance) and obviously good behavior. I would hope you would not try to compare the Good with the Evil.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

This is to what I am referring when I speak of an unanswered question and failure to address a statement:

I said, in part:

"My specific question to you is, what Biblical support would you lend to your position that any marriage between two people (if they are loving, faithful, committed, etc.) is established and blessed by God in the same way that we are agreed marriage is established and blessed by God for a man and woman?

So, the follow up statement is since you are equivocating on the marriage blessing position you cannot be logically consistent in taking the positive position that God blesses marriage between two people who are loving, faithful, committed, etc.

What say you specifically to that question and the follow-up statement?"

You asked me what I meant by equivocating and I responded with:

"You are equivocating because the only Biblical support for the establishment and blessing of marriage is between a man and a woman. For you to then say, without any substantive Biblical support, that the establishment and blessing of marriage between a man and a woman can be extended to any two people who are in love, committed, faithful, etc. is assuming the two are equal. If you make two things equal that are not you are equivocating. (For example, if I were to say driving a car is legal, people drink alcohol when they drive, so drunk driving is legal; that would be equivocating because I am assuming without support that drunk driving is equal to non-impared driving.)

This assumed equivalence, or extension of what is established is what makes your position logically inconsistent. Your position is founded on the belief that the Bible is silent on gay marriage, and the assumption that marriage between a man and a woman is equivalent to marriage between any two people who are loving, comitted, faithful, etc."

You never returned to the question and statement, which is critical and fundamental to your position. So, more simply in a list format:

1) What support do you have for taking the positions that marriage between a man and woman, and marriage between any two people who are loving, comitted, faithful, etc. are equally blessed?

2) If you answer in any way other than, "I have no support for taking them as equal", then how can you arrive at that when you have first stipulated that the Bible is silent on marriage other than between a man and woman?

3) Why do you take the positive position of supporting gay marriage based on an argument from silence (the Bible has nothing to say on gay marriage) and an assumed equivalence (marriage between a man and woman; and marriage between any two people who are loving, comitted, faithful, etc. are equally blessed)?

I'd just like a simple straightforward answer to those three questions, and then i'd be glad to answer any questions you have of me relative to this issue.

Thanks in advance for your patience, consideration and simple straightforward answer to those questions.

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy I believe I HAVE answered those questions, but let me try once again...

1) What support do you have for taking the positions that marriage between a man and woman, and marriage between any two people who are loving, comitted, faithful, etc. are equally blessed?

My support is:

1. I believe committed faithful loving,etc marriage commitments are a good thing.

2. Being loving is a good thing.

3. Being GIVING is a good thing.

4. Being FAITHFUL is a good thing, etc.


So, JUST LIKE the Bible doesn't talk about NOT dumping toxic waste, but it DOES talk about being good stewards of God's creation and we, by extension, say that EVEN THOUGH opposing toxic waste is not mentioned in the Bible, it is still a good thing... JUST LIKE THAT, being in a faithful relationship is a good thing, being loving is a good thing, being respectful is a good thing.

My follow up question for you is: Do you think that being in loving, faithful, committed relationship is a bad thing?

2) If you answer in any way other than, "I have no support for taking them as equal", then how can you arrive at that when you have first stipulated that the Bible is silent on marriage other than between a man and woman?

My answer is, I have no biblical support that says specifically marriage between gay folk is similar to marriage between straight folk AND you have no biblical support that says specifically marriage between gay folk is NOT similar.

BUT, I DO have biblical reason to think that being in a faithful, committed, respectful relationship is a good thing.

Do you have any reason NOT to think so?

So, "how can you arrive at that when you have first stipulated that the Bible is silent on marriage?"

Because, AS YOU AGREE, we can and OUGHT to reach opinions on topics not covered in the Bible. I'm not sure why you keep asking this question because it seems I've repeated this answer repeatedly and asked for clarification of your original agreement on this point?

Jeremy...

3) Why do you take the positive position of supporting gay marriage based on an argument from silence (the Bible has nothing to say on gay marriage) and an assumed equivalence (marriage between a man and woman; and marriage between any two people who are loving, comitted, faithful, etc. are equally blessed)?

Because I believe it is okay to hold positions about topics not covered in the bible, AS YOU HAVE AGREED, right?

Dan Trabue said...

Earlier, Joe had said...

it's interesting to see how theists of the same religion have such differing views and bible interpretations.

I think it's quite interesting, too. But I would hope no one would find it surprising. We're 7 billion human beings right now and have probably about 12 billion different opinions on any and everything.

The great thing is that we can disagree without wanting to kill one another. Now, if we could only disagree with an obvious tone of love in our writing, that would be the next great step...

Mark said...

"IF someone sins and DOES NOT KNOW IT, and since they do not know it, they do not repent of it, are they doomed because of their lack of knowledge?"

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" ~ Romans 1:20

"All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God" ~ Romans 3:23

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" ~ Romans 3:10

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." ~ John 3:18

"If they are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus and are seeking God's will in their lives and they have simply made a mistake in trying to find God's will, are they doomed to hell?"

No, they are not doomed to Hell if they are truly saved, but they have God's Word to guide them. How can they mistake a behavior God has plainly declared to be a sin for a behavior that is blessed?

"Are you, if you are less than perfect in your knowledge of all sin, doomed?"

Asked and answered, Dan. I am imperfect in my knowledge of all sin, but I am forgiven. But, we are not talking about no knowledge of sin here. We are talking about a behavior that is clearly prohibited by God with no equivocation. You claim to know and revere the Bible. How is it you pretend you don't know these things?

You know these things, Dan. You know you are wrong. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are wrong.

You don't remain unconvinced. You remain stubbornly obstinate. "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." ~ Proverbs 16:18

Obstinance is symptomatic of pride, Dan. I would suggest you search your heart.

Marty said...

"There's no mistake because as I just got through saying to Joe, the Bible alone won't bring anyone to such a twisted conclusion"

Ah...but you are wrong Marshall. It was the story of David and Jonathan... when my daughter was a teenager... reading through the Bible... that caused her to call me at work and proclaim "Mom!!!! David and Jonathan were gay!"

No outside influence... only the Scripture text. Both of us, at the time, thought like you. But I will have to admit we didn't rant on and on about it.

I did, however, call Helen Degeneres "Helen Degenerate".

Marshal Art said...

"When we choose to engage in violent, deadly, hateful behavior, THIS is obviously against what is good and righteous. No one would confuse this."

When we choose to engage in and/or support sexual behavior God has called an abomination, THIS is OBVIOUSLY against what is good and righteous. No one would confuse this.

As you so clearly imply by your comment, Dan, what the all wise and holy DAN calls violent, deadly, etc. must be right. It doesn't matter to him that others might disagree because of the way THEY interpret the Bible. As I said and as you damn well know, racists and Klansmen insist their position is Biblical. But YOU insist they couldn't possibly be wrong and no matter what you say to them, I would wager they'd find it all so incredibly unconvincing. And I'm pretty damn sure they believe their not mistaken in their beliefs and if they otherwise consider themselves to be sincerely seeking God's will, why heck, they can hang as many black people as they have rope for and all will be well between them and God who reads their hearts.

Now all this might seem hard to swallow to you and me and maybe even Joe. But by your own standards, you must allow that such people are equally deserving of eternal life with God as you and your Oh so faithful homosexuals. You need to be more gracious to those who believe differently than you. After all, if they truly believe they're right with God...

That's why your question is inane. It applies to anything because they can, and likely would, use the same weak exegesis as you do to justify their position as you do yours.

Marty said...

"But thanks, Marty, for reminding me that I am a sinful man, just as much in need of forgiveness on a daily basis, as I ever was."

You're welcome Mark.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

You are obviously set in your position, which is fine, and it seems you can't see and don't agree with the very basic understanding that it is logically inconsistent.

You appear convinced that because God established and blessed marriage between a man and a woman, and because you assume on your own with no Biblical support that any marriage so long as the relationship is loving, committed and faithful is the same as what God has clearly established and blessed, then it follows that gay marriage is a blessed arrangement. Your position is an argument from silence and an assumed equivalence, which makes it logically inconsistent, which means it cannot be true.

I addressed your toxic waste dumping example previously and made a clear distinction between it and marriage relative to biblical support. But since you ask again in point 3: "Because I believe it is okay to hold positions about topics not covered in the bible, AS YOU HAVE AGREED, right?" I'll try to address it more simply.

How would you be logically consistent in handling the issue of dumping toxic waste? The Bible doesn't explicitly use the terminology "dumping toxic waste" so what is the fundamental issue? Human interaction with nature. Does the Bible address this fundamental issue? Yes. God created everything, He created man and gave him dominion over what was created and told him to be a good steward of that which had been entrusted to his care. We base a decision on dumping toxic waste based on a positive understanding of what the Bible does say regarding dominion and stewardship.

How would you be logically consistent with gay marriage? The Bible doesn't explicitly use the terminology "gay marriage" so what is the fundamental issue? Marriage. Does the Bible address this fundamental issue? Yes. God created woman from man, put them together, man and woman and blessed them. All references to marriage refer to a man and woman leaving their mother and father and coming together to become one flesh, and that leaders in the church should be husbands of but one wife. We base a decision on what the Bible does say about marriage and say that marriage in any case except between a man and woman cannot be supported, endorsed, celebrated.

The Bible may not include explicit wording for each and every issue, but we can look at the fundmental issue and base our position on what the Bible does say, without arguing from silence or assuming equivalence where it is not warranted.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

You also asked specifically: "Do you think that being in loving, faithful, committed relationship is a bad thing?"

We see explicit instruction from God not to become yoked, married, in a relationship with unbelievers in the Old and New Testament. Therefore, I believe that in the case of a follower of Christ entering into a loving, faithful, committed relationship with a non-believer would be wrong in doing so. In that instance it would be bad, yes.

Subsequently, because there is a defeater for your assumed position that all that is required for a blessed union is to be loving, faithful, committed, etc. then it serves as a positive nullification of your position that marriage between a man and woman is equivalent to any two people as long as they are loving, committed, faithful, etc.

It still does not provide a positive case for condemning gay marriage, just more support for the logical inconsistancy of taking a positive step to support it.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

I appreciate the dialouge with you on the topic and I think I have made my points as well as I know how relative to addressing your position. I don't think i'll need to address your position any more unless you have additional follow-up questions for me.

As I stated previously, i'd be happy to present my position or answer any particular questions you might have of me on this issue. Just let me know what you'd like to hear from me, if anything.

And thanks again for being patient. I know it's not easy to read a post where something thinks your position is false. I am trying to walk that line of sharing the truth in love. For a position to be true it must at least be logically consistent, but I hope i've been unwaivering and demanding to uphold that while also being respectful and cordial.

It's late and i'm signing off for the day. I'll check back in tomorrow to see if there is something to which I need to reply.

Dan Trabue said...

Yes, Jeremy, I do still have more questions for you, or rather, questions that I still don't see your answer to.

I don't know that I have time for them all, but let me address this first...

because there is a defeater for your assumed position that all that is required for a blessed union is to be loving, faithful, committed, etc. then it serves as a positive nullification of your position that marriage between a man and woman is equivalent to any two people as long as they are loving, committed, faithful, etc.

I did not put in an exhaustive list of qualifications and benefits for marriage, so let me ADD that the two people involved are both Christians along with faithful, loving, respectful, etc.

That would remove your "defeater," so...

1. given someone in that relationship, why would I oppose their marriage, gay or straight?

Given that you've said...

It still does not provide a positive case for condemning gay marriage

2. Are you establishing, then, that you have NO biblical reason to oppose gay marriage and, thus, you are neutral on the issue?

Those are my main two questions that I'd like a clear answer to.

I would also like to follow up with one other point, returning to my earlier giving a cup of tea analogy.

Let me change that to suggest that this issue seems similar to the suggestion of giving a cup of cold beer to a thirsty man.

A. Giving a cup of cold water is an obvious good for logical reasons and for direct biblical reasons.

Men marrying women is an obvious good for logical and direct biblical reasons.

B. EXTENDING those thoughts, then giving a cup of cold beer to a man dying of thirst is ALSO a good thing, EVEN THOUGH the Bible does not directly endorse it. EVEN THOUGH there are some Christians who believe that drinking alcohol is a sin. They have no direct biblical reason for thinking THAT and so, WHY WOULD I NOT support giving a cup of cold beer to a thirsty man, simply because SOME Christians think it is wrong.

Similarly, men marrying men seems to be a good thing, even though the Bible does not directly endorse it, even though there are SOME Christians who think gay marriage is a sin. They have no direct biblical reason for thinking THAT and so, WHY WOULD I NOT support gay marriage?

Which is just another way of returning to my first question above. Why WOULD I oppose gay marriage?

Thanks.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

I'm a little short on time so i'll be very brief and give you the crux of my position on gay marriage as that should hopefully satisfy your quesitons 1 and 2.

I begin with the fact that God is Holy, that He established and revealed through the Word what is Holy and that He expects His people to be Holy. You can look to Leviticus 19:2 and repeated in 1 Peter 2:13-16.

The Leviticus passage is especially important in this conversation because it comes immediately after discussions of sexual practice. Without going through each individual listed instance, suffice it to say that each practice deviates from what God has established and is therefore profane, "Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God." There is also the entirity of the Old Testament which serves as an example of God's people being called out for the purpose of being a peculiar people, which means being wholly different from all surrounding cultures.

God established marriage between man and woman, therefore that arrangement is Holy and blessed. Marriage is taught by the apostles to the early church in all cases to be between a man and a woman where they come together to become "one flesh". Intimacy of all kinds is a product and privaledge of the marriage covenant, with sexual activity being included and expected as part of that intimacy.

Because sexual activity aside from man and woman is contrary to God's established order, it is deviant and detestable practice, in the Levitical language previously quoted. So, participating in the intimacy designed as a product and privaledge for marriage is only acceptible between a man and woman to the exclusion of all other forms.

So, in brief summary, my position is a cumulative case argument. God established and blessed marriage between a man and woman therefore it is Holy. Those who call on the name of the Lord are commanded to be Holy as He is Holy. Therefore the only marriage that can be positively promoted is marriage between a man and woman. Sexual intimacy was established as a product and privaledge of the marriage convenant, therefore any deviation from sexual activity between a man and woman within the marriage convenant is deviant from God's established Holy order and is detestable. Therefore there is a negative case for participating in sexual activity that deviates from that established by God which can only legitimately take place within the marriage covenant. Based on the positive case for upholding the Holiness of God by maintaining what He has clearly established and turning from all activity that deviates from it; my position is that marriage is legitimate between a man and woman only.

cont'd

Craig said...

"So, I sincerely believe that gay marriage is no sin. My gay and lesbian friends sincerely believe gay marriage is no sin."

To clarify, I would suggests that no one here would say "gay marriage" is a sin. I would suggest that most here would argue that the Bible suggests that the act of homosexual sex is the sin. Not "homosexuality" or "gay marriage". Further, I would suggest that what you or you friends (or me and my friends) believe to be sinful is not the issue. The issue is what God believes to be sinful. As we have discussed before sincerity really is not a factor.

"So I AM saved by God's grace. My gay and lesbian and transgendered brothers and sisters are saved by God's grace. Marshall IS saved by God's grace."

For someone who believes that salvation can be lost this seems a bold statement.

I have no way to determine anyone's salvation and I'm shocked/impressed that you feel like you do. Maybe it would be more accurate from your perspective to say "...might be saved by Gods grace" or "... might be saved by God's grace, unless they decide otherwise."

I think that people like Dan and Geoff etc. do realize that there is a line that we can't cross. That line being sin. But it seems as though they go through life looking for ways to get as close to the line as possible without crossing. Or they look to redefine the line to accommodate their positions. I would suggest that a more Biblical position would be to try to stay as far from the line as possible and to err on the side of being too cautious rather that on the side of pushing the envelope.

Joe_Agnost said...

MA wrote: "What I see is a ridiculous person named Joe looking to any crumb by which he can mock Christian teaching."

I don't think I've been doing that at all. I've tried to be polite and NOT simply "bash" your views.

MA: "If a group of people were kidnapped, stripped entirely of all their clothes and made to find their way home, but all they had available to them to cover up were cardboard boxes, there'd hardly be a concern regarding which boxes were meant for men and which for women."

This, despite the fact that the bible is clear about the clothing issue? Do you not see that it's ~your~ interpretation that you're following here? You're not following the bible to the letter - you're making a judgement call.

MA: "...the point here is not simply wearing the clothes of the opposite sex, but the intention behind it."

I just can't understand how you don't see this as ~your~ interpretation. The bible doesn't mention "intentions", just wearing the wrong clothes. ~You~ have added your own spin to it so you can live a more reasonable life, you can't claim that it's god's "intentions" though.

MA: "If one is wearing women's clothes by choice, to present himself publicly, it is as if to say that he rejects God's design and knows better."

Or they just like the clothes... is that so wrong?

MA: "if my wife, for example, wanted to wear my shirt, because its my shirt and she loves me, as opposed to wearing it because she really wants to be a man, a thinking man of the 21st century should readily see the distinction and not ask stupid questions"

I fail to see what the difference is. She's wearing a shirt that was made for a man - and you claim god hates this. How are her intentions relevant? She's breaking god's law no?

Craig said...

"I can tell you that MY opinion is that I HONESTLY believe marriage (gay or straight) is a good and blessed thing...I have prayed about it, I have sought God's will and this is my sincere opinion."

And your honesty and sincerity are not the determining factors in deciding the sinfulness of any given act. NO one here is questioning the fact that you have honestly and sincerely come to the wrong conclusion.

Craig said...

"1) What support do you have for taking the positions that marriage between a man and woman, and marriage between any two people who are loving, comitted, faithful, etc. are equally blessed?"


Dan,

It seems as though Jeremy has made an excellent point here when he uses the phrase "any two people" (although I would add any two or more people). How can you deny the sincere, honest, caring, committed, loving, etc relationship between a 30 year old and a 16 year old? How about between a father and daughter? Multiple wives? Why would you arbitrarily draw the line at one point and not another?

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T., cont'd.

Condemnation is for God alone. All I would say to those who are defending gay marriage is what i've just presented, that they do so as a deviation from what God established not in a position of good standing.

Your follow up question:

"Let me change that to suggest that this issue seems similar to the suggestion of giving a cup of cold beer to a thirsty man."

This analogy of your cannot be used alongside your gay marriage analogy because be it tea, water, beer, wine, soda, etc. it is already established that all those liquids are fit for consumption and will slake a thirst. The point is to help a thirsty man in his suffering of thirst. The accurate analogy in this case would be if you encountered a thirsty man and had a glass with some fluid in it. It could be water, it could be drano. Would you then just assume it was fit to drink and just give it to him out of your desire to help and show love? Your position on gay marriage is like the glass of unknown liquid (based on your stated position). You can't say whether it will slake his thirst or kill him. Your assumption that it's water doesn't make it so. Just like your assumption that marriage between any two people who are loving, comitted, faithful, etc. is blessed just like marriage between a man and woman.

You said: "Similarly, men marrying men seems to be a good thing, even though the Bible does not directly endorse it, even though there are SOME Christians who think gay marriage is a sin. They have no direct biblical reason for thinking THAT and so, WHY WOULD I NOT support gay marriage?

Which is just another way of returning to my first question above. Why WOULD I oppose gay marriage?"

Once again, your position hangs on the word "seems". Just like in your water/tea/beer analogy, basing your entire position on "seems to be" may be OK or it may be an abomination to God in direct disobedience to His command, you can't say which. It's not a matter of whether He'll punish you for making your assumption or not. If your life is dedicated to being Holy like He is Holy, why would you seek to take that chance? Even if you hold to your position that the Bible is completely silent on gay marriage, why would you not move your position to at least say "I can't endorse it, I can't condemn it."?

My cumulative case argument for marriage is how I would answer your question, "Why WOULD I oppose gay marriage?"

As always, whether you choose to maintain your current position, move to the more logically consistent neutral position (based on your stated position), or accept my cumulative case argument and take the positive step of opposing gay marriage is up to you.

I believe I answered all you asked in that series.

Marty said...

Mark: "Well, if the gay couple continues in their sin and boasts that God blesses their sin, it's likely their repentance isn't sincere, so no, it's not OK."

Then does that mean that you don't believe that God has blessed your present marriage?

We're talking Christian couples here Mark. You can't have grace for one and not the other Mark. God doesn't show favoritism. He forgives everyone who asks.

Joe_Agnost said...

MA wrote: "Bubba is in no way suggesting thought crimes."

and: "If we fantasize about a sinful action, it is as if we physically committed it."

Your second sentence negates the first. The second quote (above) is the very definition of a "thought crime"! That thoughts==physically_committing the act. This is a "thought crime".

How can you deny this?

MA: "When God says, 'Thou shalt not...' there's not much mind reading necessary."

It's not the "thou shalt not" that you've interpreted, it's the part that comes after. Thou shalt not lie with a man as you would a woman (paraphrased) requires an interpretation as to what "lying with a man" means, or "lying with a woman" means. Is god saying you shouldn't nap with another man? Why not?

It's all in the interpretation, which so many different Christians contradict each other on.

MA: "Science has proven the humanity of the fetus and the embryo and the zygote and every other stage of human development"

It depends on how you define "humanity". Science does ~not~ make any claim about personhood... it just states the obvious: that the fetus is a member of the human species - at a VERY early stage.

MA: "...the very unChristian insistance that lame arguments deserve respectful consideration"

So it's "unChristian" to give "lame" ideas "respect"? Why do so many theists demand that their religion get respect then? It doesn't add up...

MA: "How about all the people killed in the Great Flood?"

The science that you believe supports your stance on the human fetus is the exact same science that has debunked the myth of the "great flood". If you accept science you ~must~ acknowledge that the flood story is metaphorical and not based on a true event. From geology to biology - all of the sciences agree that the flood did ~not~ happen.

Joe_Agnost said...

Mark wrote: "Jesus says, 'I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.'

I have done that, also.

I feel guilty for that. I have asked God for forgiveness, and He has forgiven me."

Isn't that nice for you, god has "forgiven" you. How convenient.

But this isn't a sin that you "have done", it's a sin that you continue to do, day after day. That you believe you're justified is irrelevant - by the letter of the law ~you~ claim to follow you sin every day in this manner.

If a gay man believes his lifestyle is a sin, and he asks for fogiveness (and believes he got it), by your reasoning he can live his gay lifestyle in peace thereafter. He's been forgiven right? Just like you right?

Mark: "We are talking about a behavior that is clearly prohibited by God with no equivocation."

Just like the sin you commit each day with your new wife... the only difference is you forgive yourself and won't forgive the gay person.

Marty said...

"Condemnation is for God alone. All I would say to those who are defending gay marriage is what i've just presented, that they do so as a deviation from what God established not in a position of good standing."

I don't think anyone is denying that God established marriage between and man and a woman. But, honestly, are any of us in "good standing" before a Holy God? It really seems you guys are leaving out God's grace. It also seems that you all are classifying sin.

But let me make it clear now, I do not believe a married gay couple, faithful to one another, are commiting any "sin". And if they are, then God's grace is sufficient.

Marty said...

Joe: "Just like the sin you commit each day with your new wife... the only difference is you forgive yourself and won't forgive the gay person."

Joe, I doubt that Mark will see his inconsistency here.

Marshal Art said...

Before working backwards here, if anyone is concerned that I missed a really, really intelligent question for me due to my inability to constantly monitor this thread, simply restate it and I'll answer.

Joe and Marty,

If Mark sinned by his marrying his current wife, how does he sin over and over since he can only marry her once? That's just for starters. His traditional marriage in and of itself is not sinful in the least except for his previous unlawful divorce. For that he has asked for forgiveness and in this new marriage as well, but he doesn't marry her every day. Yet, he and she are married to each other nonetheless. In any case, in the case of the homo couple, they definitely continue to sin not by any faux marriage arrangement, but every time they engage in homosex. You're viewing this as if a thief is forgiven for stealing, but then continues to steal. He has committed another sin. Mark has not done this by remaining married. He has taken another vow to which he must adhere. The one he broke, if he did in fact break it, and it seems he did based on his own words thus far, is what he has been forgiven for.

I'll concede one point here: if one breaks a vow, is one still under the vow or must the vow be taken again? I can't see that one is bound by a broken vow. If I promise to take out the trash every day it is collected, but don't do it one day, I've broken the vow and must "re-promise" after I've sought forgiveness. "Yeah, I know a promised, but from now on I'll be sure to do it."

Homo marriage is definitely sinful in the same way a man and woman living together without marriage is sinful. If they are not having sexual relations, they they are just roommates and not married in any sense of the word, legitimate or otherwise. The only sex that is permitted is that which takes place between a man and woman married to each other. All other sex is impure and unholy and forbidden.

joe, if you think science has definitively disproven the Great Flood, by all means, provide a link so I can review it.

"So it's "unChristian" to give "lame" ideas "respect"?"

Yes. Lame ideas are by their lameness, lies and falsehoods. Why would a Christian respect a lie or falsehood? Why would anyone?

"It depends on how you define "humanity"."

Unless you're looking for a way to mitigate your responsibility for bringing into existence another person when all you wanted to do was gratify your sexual urges by engaging in the act designed to invite that person into existence, you would define humanity as any human being in any stage of his natural development. It takes a thinking man of the 21st century to pretend that a person isn't a person because he hasn't yet had the opportunity to grow beyond it's initial single cell. And that definitely qualifies for a lame argument that is actually a lie. Since science confirms the humanity of that single cell, it is then also a person.

not done yet----

Marshal Art said...

"It's not the "thou shalt not" that you've interpreted, it's the part that comes after. Thou shalt not lie with a man as you would a woman (paraphrased) requires an interpretation as to what "lying with a man" means, or "lying with a woman" means."

And even homo biblical scholars understand that it means sexual relations. This isn't really a news flash. Consider it common knowledge.

"Is god saying you shouldn't nap with another man?"

Can you come up with a more idiotic question?

Lame argument alert!!!!!

"MA wrote: "Bubba is in no way suggesting thought crimes."

and: "If we fantasize about a sinful action, it is as if we physically committed it."

Your second sentence negates the first. The second quote (above) is the very definition of a "thought crime"! That thoughts==physically_committing the act. This is a "thought crime".

How can you deny this?"


Wow. How can one take pride to be a thinking man of the 21st century if this is an example of thinking? This belies your insistence that your not just trying to find any crumb by which you can rip on Christianity. I'll go slow: I'm. Not. Talking. About. Civil. Law. I'm talking about how we're taught in Scripture to understand sinful behavior. Jesus took a few sins as an example and mandated that the mere desire to commit a sin, to fantasize about committing it is the same as committing it. In order to truly be holy, in can't simply be an outward facade for the world to see, but also an inward and heartfelt desire to be the kind of holy person God wants us to be. Jesus said to hate is as bad as murder and that lust is the same as adultery. In civil law we use intention/motivation to prove guilt. For God, intention is guilt (so to speak).

More later---perhaps.

Joe_Agnost said...

MA asked: "how does he sin over and over since he can only marry her once?"

Because every time he has sex with her he (and she) are committing adultery.

Joe_Agnost said...

MA wrote: "to fantasize about committing it is the same as committing it."

And this is the definition of thought crime. To ~think~ about something is a sin (you say)... hense "thought crime". It's not hard to understand.

Marty said...

"If Mark sinned by his marrying his current wife, how does he sin over and over since he can only marry her once?"

Uh...Marshall...If we are divorced, I don't think we are supposed to get married again. If we do...we are living in sin and adultery... according to the Scriptures. You say it's okay because they are heterosexual and have been forgiven. But the homosexual cannot receive this same forgiveness.

I just don't see the difference here. If Mark and his wife can be forgiven and continue their relationship, so should a gay couple.

Marshal Art said...

I got the following from this site where more details can be found. It articulates my position on divorce and remarriage fairly well and also brings into the equation what we're talking about here regarding what the Bible does or doesn't actually say and how we can proceed as a result.

"In the Old Testament Law, the punishment for adultery was death (Leviticus 20:10). At the same time, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 mentions remarriage after a divorce, does not call it adultery, and does not demand the death penalty for the remarried spouse. The Bible explicitly says that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), but nowhere explicitly states that God hates remarriage. The Bible nowhere commands a remarried couple to divorce. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not describe the remarriage as invalid. Ending a remarriage through divorce would be just as sinful as ending a first marriage through divorce. Both would include the breaking of vows before God, between the couple, and in front of witnesses."

Thus, once a remarriage has taken place, the sexual relationship is as any other marriage. It is occurring between a man married to his wife and thus NOT a matter of continuing in sin.

But if a homo couple seek forgiveness and then return to their homosex relations, they are once again engaging in forbidden behavior. So I'm not saying they that there is a double standard for heteros and homos, I'm saying that the sex between homos, married or not, is always sinful, whereas the sex between married heteros isn't. As the article above suggests, the sin of the divorced guy is the remarriage (plus the divorce itself) but not ongoing second marriage. Read the article.

Marshal Art said...

joe,

I think I understand where you're going with this "thought crime" stuff, but it is really irrelevant. You brought it up as something scary, as if you were suggesting some civil action (whether you were or not doesn't matter at this point). But the fact is that God does indeed judge what's on our hearts, so it should scare you and hopefully guide you toward more holy behavior AND thoughts. To make a big deal out of labelling it as a "thought crime" is a big waste of our time.

Joe_Agnost said...

@MA:

Yes, you have articulated what I was thinking regarding thought crimes... it seems that you now understand my point. I understand how your view about god and his knowing what's in your heart. I guess there's no way to avoid thought crimes when you believe in an omnipresent diety.

Mark said...

The scary thing about "thought crimes" is this:

Thought crime legislation, when enacted by a Government, is wrong because it seeks to punish people for what they are thinking, but there is no way mortal man can know what someone is thinking.

God knows what we are thinking. Thus, we can be punished for what's actually in our hearts.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall quoted...

The Bible nowhere commands a remarried couple to divorce.

There's no NEED to mention it. The remarried couple, according to the Bible, has committed adultery and the solution for adultery, according to the Bible (the way YOU fellas read it) is death.

No need to divorce when you're dead.

Problem solved.

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy, I appreciate you trying to answer my questions. We've probably said all we need to say. I think we obviously BOTH are seeking God's will and we obviously BOTH have a hard time with the others' approach to understanding the Bible and morality. I'll point out a couple of what I consider to be problems with your reasoning, but no need to respond unless you wish to. You said...

This analogy of your cannot be used alongside your gay marriage analogy because be it tea, water, beer, wine, soda, etc. it is already established that all those liquids are fit for consumption and will slake a thirst. The point is to help a thirsty man in his suffering of thirst.

Yes, tea, beer, water ALL slake thirst.

AND, similarly, a committed relationship - gay or straight - BOTH slake our need for companionship and love.

It is an extremely apt comparison. You disagree, obviously, but I can't see how you would. You SAY we don't know that it has been established that gay marriage has been established to be good, but I say, of course it has. It has not been established to be BIBLICAL, true, but you and I have ALREADY agreed that not every moral position need be a biblical position.

That a good, loving marriage is a good and blessed thing is self-evident. Do you know any gay couples? Do you see the love in their lives? The sharing? The companionship, respect, support? These are ALL positives - what about support is a negative? What about healthy companionship is a negative?

Ultimately, as we agree, gay marriage is not in the Bible, but the proof of marriage's morality need not come from seeing some line in the Bible (whether that line is about kidnapping a virgin whose parents you have slaughtered and "marrying" her or it's Ruth and Boaz) is in seeing a good marriage. Purity, goodness, righteousness, etc, can be recognized for what they are just by seeing them.

People will know you are my followers, Jesus and the Bible repeatedly tell us, by your good behavior, by your purity, goodness, gentleness, self-control, etc, etc.

This is one obvious place where the anti-gay marriage argument falls apart: There are no real world reasons for opposing it.

Dan Trabue said...

Jeremy, you also said...

God established marriage between man and woman, therefore that arrangement is Holy and blessed. Marriage is taught by the apostles to the early church in all cases to be between a man and a woman where they come together to become "one flesh". Intimacy of all kinds is a product and privaledge of the marriage covenant, with sexual activity being included and expected as part of that intimacy.

Because sexual activity aside from man and woman is contrary to God's established order, it is deviant and detestable practice


"Sexual activity aside from man/woman is contrary to God's established order..." THAT is where your argument jumps the shark. You have not established this point.

It's like you're reading the Bible, you see a passage about male/female marriage and then conclude "sexual activity aside from man/woman is contrary to God..." without seeing that you've made a leap in logic that the text does not support.

YES, the bible mentions male/female marriage. But it does not say, "In this manner and in this manner ALONE shall you consider marriage good."

YES, the Bible mentions Israel kidnapping the virgin girls of your slaughtered enemy and making THEM your wives. But it does not say, "In this manner and this manner alone shall you consider marriage good."

YES, the Bible mentions giving a cup of cold water. But it does not say, "In this manner and this manner alone shall you rightly slake the thirst of the thirsty."

Just because an action is mentioned in the Bible does not mean that this is the sum total of morality on that particular behavior. I'm pretty sure we agree on the concept, but it seems to me that you keep coming back to that without any good biblical and certainly no good real world, logical reasons to do so.

You disagree, of course, and there we are. Two fellow Christians seeking God's will and managing to have a disagreement on one particular action.

It happens.

May God grant us wisdom (ie, may you realize you're wrong... ha!)

Peace.

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Dan T.,

Very well, i've enjoyed the dialouge as well.

I would only repeat two points in departure based on your final reply:

1) You did mention again about things where the specific word usage is not found in the Bible. I would encourage you to re-read my answer to you on this point, copied below:

"How would you be logically consistent in handling the issue of dumping toxic waste? The Bible doesn't explicitly use the terminology "dumping toxic waste" so what is the fundamental issue? Human interaction with nature. Does the Bible address this fundamental issue? Yes. God created everything, He created man and gave him dominion over what was created and told him to be a good steward of that which had been entrusted to his care. We base a decision on dumping toxic waste based on a positive understanding of what the Bible does say regarding dominion and stewardship.

How would you be logically consistent with gay marriage? The Bible doesn't explicitly use the terminology "gay marriage" so what is the fundamental issue? Marriage. Does the Bible address this fundamental issue? Yes. God created woman from man, put them together, man and woman and blessed them. All references to marriage refer to a man and woman leaving their mother and father and coming together to become one flesh, and that leaders in the church should be husbands of but one wife. We base a decision on what the Bible does say about marriage and say that marriage in any case except between a man and woman cannot be supported, endorsed, celebrated.

The Bible may not include explicit wording for each and every issue, but we can look at the fundmental issue and base our position on what the Bible does say, without arguing from silence or assuming equivalence where it is not warranted."

2) I'll re-publish also the remainder of my response to your tea/beer/water analogy because you left out the portion of my reponse that most directly addresses your position, it is copied below:

"The accurate analogy in this case would be if you encountered a thirsty man and had a glass with some fluid in it. It could be water, it could be drano. Would you then just assume it was fit to drink and just give it to him out of your desire to help and show love? Your position on gay marriage is like the glass of unknown liquid (based on your stated position). You can't say whether it will slake his thirst or kill him. Your assumption that it's water doesn't make it so. Just like your assumption that marriage between any two people who are loving, comitted, faithful, etc. is blessed just like marriage between a man and woman."

Thanks again for the friendly discussion.

Marshall, thank you for the venue and opportunity to comment. Until next time...

Jeremy D. Troxler said...

Oops, spoke too soon.

Dan, I established the point based on the Leviticus and 1 Peter references and subsequent discussion on God's people being Holy and set apart. You don't accept it and I understand that, but I did establish the point with scriptural support.

I'll be praying for you to one day move to the more logically consistent position of being neutral on the issue, neither supporting or opposing. Peace to you as well.

Marshal Art said...

"There's no NEED to mention it. The remarried couple, according to the Bible, has committed adultery and the solution for adultery, according to the Bible (the way YOU fellas read it) is death."

Dan,

Your corruption and dishonesty knows no bounds. Again, you insist on jumping on that aspect of OT law that has been satisfied by Christ's death on the cross as if Christ's death had no impact on atonement and punishment for sin. The way WE fellas read the Bible has shown that the behaviors restricted by Levitical law is still restricted today, but that the ritual, ceremonial laws and the means of atonement and punishment do not apply to us today. The way WE fellas read the Bible does not require perverting the word of God in order to satisfy the corrupted culture of today. The way WE fellas read the Bible is to put God's word ABOVE the whims of today's corrupted culture, not to subvert it to them.

For example, we don't pull parts of the Bible like God's mitigating the practice of taking captive girls as wives and pretending it is a standard of marriage that has any bearing on His intention for marriage. He wasn't condoning the taking of captive girls as wives, but the practice was common during war. It was a nod to the suffering of the captive, not an encouragement to take captive girls as wives.

Marty said...

"There's no NEED to mention it. The remarried couple, according to the Bible, has committed adultery and the solution for adultery, according to the Bible (the way YOU fellas read it) is death."

Right on Dan. I only brought up the adultery issue to expose their hypocrisy.

When it's the sexual "sin" of adultery, one that they are guilty of themselves, they can easily find a way around it in Scripture....but woe to the homosexual...they are forever ridden with "sin" unless they become as eunuchs.

They really don't believe in God's Grace. Theirs is a religion of works, rules, and right doctrine (as interpreted by them).

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

The way WE fellas read the Bible has shown that the behaviors restricted by Levitical law is still restricted today, but that the ritual, ceremonial laws and the means of atonement and punishment do not apply to us today.

And this is the problem with your exegesis, seems to me.

You and I have no literal biblical reason to dismiss ANY of the OT laws or any PART of the OT laws, with the exception perhaps of what we eat. Jesus literally said that it's okay to ignore the OT laws about what we eat - even those things that were an abomination are okey dokey now.

But setting aside the law that says "men who lay with men shall be killed," or ANY PART of that law, there is no real biblical justification for doing so. Nothing direct.

Instead, you all have decided (not wrongly, mind you) that those PUNISHMENTS within the laws were part of rules written for a particular people at a particular time and thus, those PUNISHMENTS aren't applicable to us today.

Not at all.

We are free to ignore GOD's COMMAND to kill disrespectful children, adulterers (like Mark, for instance, among others...) or "men who lay with men" (whatever that may mean - which you are applying in instances that the original text did not).

The problem with your exegesis is its complete whimsical randomness. If there's a passage you can't make fit, you feel okay then saying that it no longer applies, that it was for a particular people at a particular time.

You are correct in your assessment that some texts (well, really, ALL the texts) were written to a particular people at a particular time. Where you err is in thinking that you can randomly say, "but THESE texts are universal in nature, applying to all people at all times - and we can know this because it's in the Bible..."

There are certainly universal notions found within the Bible. We really OUGHT to love our neighbor, we really OUGHT to love our enemy, this IS God's creation and we really OUGHT to be good tenders of this creation, for instance.

But we can't just grab some text and say, "THIS is in the Bible therefore, it is all true and equally valid taken literally EXCEPT for the part that deals with punishment."

We determine which parts of the Bible are universal in nature by testing it, considering it, weighing it using our fallible reason and morality, using our fallible traditions as a reference...

Tell you what, I don't really have enough time for this right now. Here's an article that you might find interesting and over which we may actually find some common ground...

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html

I don't know the author, but he seems to be a fairly traditional Christian.

He makes the orthodox case, pointing out that we are no longer under the OT covenant, that covenant has passed away. But he also makes the point that we can still learn many valid moral ideals by reading the OT laws, but we must approach it with some consistency, not arbitrarily dismissing this or that moral ideal and arbitrarily trying to enforce this or that moral ideal.

Let me know what you think...

Marshal Art said...

Here's what I think: I think your link supports my position more than you think it does. There's nothing arbitrary in the way I determine which laws apply and which do not. I definitely consider the principle behind it as the author suggests one should. The author also suggests that NT references matter as well, and we see that Christ does indeed suggest the principle by which we should base our understanding when he reiterates why we were created male and female. Again, there's no big mystery here.

Also, there's much the author says that relates perfectly with the points made by my massive cut and paste in my very first blog posting, which you dismissed saying merely, "I don't buy it." or words to that effect. This is seen in his bit speaking on the separating of what is holy and what isn't and the symbolism of this concept in laws such as not mixing seed or fibers in clothing. It is also noted in regards to penalties for sins why they no longer apply, while the sin that called for it still does.

I think the author errs a bit in putting too great an emphasis on the land and the times because of how the law is merely reiterated later in very much the same form. More importantly, the laws with which I've concerned myself in our many conversations are, again, dealt with by Christ Himself and more often than not made more rigid. Plus, I don't think a case can be made that if the Jew leaves the land that God waves the rules of behavior that would make him holy. Even if the entire covenant were broken by either side, one still needs to make the case that said rules of behavior have no value to God.

But what's even more interesting to me about your link, is the additional articles available that ALSO support my position on things like homosex over your position. This article I found most compelling, and, like the homo scholars to which I referred in an earlier comment, very much refutes a point or two that you've consistently tried to pass as factual regarding what was or wasn't known about homosex back in ancient times AND more importantly, whether or not there were loopholes allowing "loving, committed, monogomous homosex relationships.

Marshal Art said...

Since Dan was passing along his distorted view of Scripture at another blog, I decided to post the portion of the link from my previous comment that addresses Dan's unfounded belief that the Levitical prohibitions against homosex aren't comprehensive. He believes they don't address "loving, monogomous" relationships. The whole article goes into greater detail of course, addressing the notion that they just couldn't know about such relationships, but here's the salient bits:

"The exact terminology of these laws deserves note. Lev 18:22 states: 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination'. This obviously prohibits the active type of homosexuality that was quite respectable in the ancient world. It should also be noted that the passive partner is just described as 'male', rather than 'man' or 'youth'. Clearly this very general term prohibits every kind of male-male intercourse not just pederasty which for example the Egyptians seem to have condemned. Finally, the practice is condemned as an 'abomination',21 one of the strongest condemnatory words in the Old Testament, for offences deemed specially heinous in God's sight.

Lev 20:13 states: 'If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them'. Lev 18 prohibits various acts but prescribes no penalties. Lev 20 does mention how offenders should be treated. Sometimes human punishment is decreed, sometimes it is left to God. Homosexuality here attracts the death penalty, which puts it on a par with adultery (Lev 20:10) or the worst cases of incest (Lev 20:11, 12). These were offences that nations outside Israel did view with extreme seriousness: but they never put homosexuality on the same level. Secondly it should be noticed that both parties in homosexual intercourse are punished equally: the passive partner and the active are both put to death. The use of the term 'lie' (here and in Lev 18:22) without any qualifying verb, e.g. 'seize and (lie)', and the equal punishment shows that consent to intercourse is assumed between the partners. Comparison with the laws on adultery shows that if it were a question of homosexual rape only the rapist would have been executed (cf. Deut 22:22, 23, 25). In other words the Old Testament bans every type of homosexual intercourse, not just forcible as the Assyrians did, or with youths (so the Egyptians). Homosexual intercourse where both parties consent is also condemned.

The two motive clauses also underline the culpability of both parties. 'Both of them have committed an abomination ... their blood is upon them.' The second clause occurs only in this chapter (vv.9, 11, 13, 16, 27) and in Ezk 18:13, 33:5 and apparently justifies the demand for the death penalty. It seems to be equivalent to the commoner phrase, 'his blood shall be on his head'. It appears to mean that if a man breaks such a law, he does so knowing the consequences, and therefore cannot object to the penalty imposed."


It would be interesting if Dan could present anything substantial to counter this explanation rather than simply saying he doesn't buy it.

Dan Trabue said...

Been there, done that. I've pointed out how, in context, the Leviticus passage is telling Israel that they were not to be like the nations around them, engaging in ritualistic sexual practices. In context, that seems to be what they're talking about in those passages.

Marshal Art said...

Total and absolute nonsense, Dan. You've only said that the context suggests that. But there really isn't anything within the text that suggests the behavior need be tied to any ritual whatsoever. It merely says that homosex was one of the ways the people being driven out defiled themselves, and as with the other behaviors should never be done. There's no mention of ritual practices.

And why would there be? What were the rituals for if not for acknowledgment of pagan gods? THAT was already well covered in the Ten Commandments. To then list the ways pagan gods were worshipped and then restrict them makes no sense. No worship means no worship. What matter how that worship is manifested? The whole argument is silly and a pathetic, cheap rationalization that requires a major suspension of that God-given reason you claim to employ.

What's more, the article to which I linked responds to many of the claims you put forth as springing from that so-called God-given reasoning, which is really the result of outside influence, so now it the ball is once again back on your side of the net waiting to be returned by the swat of real substantive evidence. (First you'll have to actually read the article.)

Dan Trabue said...

Lev 18...

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices...

Lev 20...

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death.

Marshall...

You've only said that the context suggests that. But there really isn't anything within the text that suggests the behavior need be tied to any ritual whatsoever.

In truth, Marshall, the text (and context) suggests that TO ME and others more learned than me who've studied the history and the context. Whether or not it suggests it to you, I can't answer. But I'm not responsible for reading the Bible as it makes sense to you, am I? I am responsible for reading the Bible and seeking God's will as best as I can understand it.

This is what I'm doing.

Marshal Art said...

Dan,

If the context suggests that to you, then it's a wonder you get the point of anything you read. One cannot get such a suggestion like without outside help. As to those more learned than you, I doubt any of them reached their conclusions honestly, either. Did you read the link I posted? It disrupts much of what you and other enablers try to put forth as "the way things were" back in ancient days and without YOUR (that is, you and those 'more learned than you') "facts" there's less reason to believe that the text alone can suggest such nonsense to anyone. Even the verses you just posted don't help your case without twisting them to make it so. Someday you'll actually have to make the connection between the text and your conclusions. Most of us just can't make such illogical leaps and assumptions.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 263 of 263   Newer› Newest»