The Tony Jones Blog at Patheos
I agree with you mostly. But. Given that blessing monogamous homosexual relationships is a significant departure from Christian tradition, shouldn’t we take seriously the concerns of some Christians who may see this as a threat to the very essence of monogamy/fidelity? That is, if we can make such a dramatic change, what other changes to Christian sexual ethics might be proposed? I think it vital that we advocates of this view address Scripture faithfully on this matter and make it clear why this change does not necessarily entail anything else. It is true that the slippery slope argument is fallacious and insufficient to resist a compassionate and biblically faithful change, but I’m not sure the concern raised is a dramatic example of the slippery slope argument since the initial step is a significant departure from Christian tradition.
Tony, I won’t generalize, but for me, the slippery slope argument has no bearing on my opposition to your views on gays and the church. We tend to color this issue with ideologies that are completely motivated by emotion. And you once said that the emotional can never be completely ignored; however, when emotion counters God’s word (whether you’re a literalist or not) therein lies the problem. Homosexuality is a sin, and I do not say that callously. My worry with recognizing gays as Christians does not come from a fear that such a belief will give way to more liberal practices, my fear is that I go against God.
The slippery slope does exist. Prior to 1973, there were no states in the union that allowed abortion on demand. With Roe v Wade, laws in all 50 states were invalidated. Pro-life advocates feared that legalized abortion would lead to late term abortions, infanticide and euthanasia. Today, abortion is allowed for up to full term babies if the “health” of the mother is at risk, and health is defined so broadly as to allow for nearly anything. Partial birth abortion is tolerated and defended by the orwellian linguistic games of most of the Democrats. Live-birth abortion, where the child is fully delivered then left to expire on a table or in a closet, was opposed by even staunch pro-“choice” pols like Kennedy and Clinton, but one senator who could not see a life worth defending was Barack Obama, who several times killed efforts to outlaw the practice in Illinois. Jack Kevorkian is yesterdays news. Terry Schiavo, was a victim of the slippery slope. Euthanasia is largely legal now in Oregon. There is no question legalizing gay unions is a slippery slope. It is how the left operates. The use of a wedge issue, played hard with endless pressure, emotional anectdotes and a fair amount of intimidation, is the norm. Legalizing unions outside of marriage will without a doubt lead to more and more liberalized sexual attitudes and practices, and groups like NAMBLA will not shrink from making use of whatever legal precedents are set. And the more liberal courts will push the envolope based on even the smallest of legal precedents. The slippery slope is well documented in the abortion issue and there is plenty of cause for concern with this issue. To say there is no slippery slope is the height of willful blindness – and sadly deceives many who don’t bother to learn from history.
God believes in the slippery slope (Romans 1:18-32).
What a bunch of baloney. Tell Canadian Christians that there is no slippery slope on this issue… gay marriage is yesterday’s news, currently polygamy is where the battle is at. Once one rejects the Bible as a standard, you can’t really make an argument for homosexuality and yet still reject polygamy… it just comes down to cultural prejudice. And as Tony has shown, any cultural prejudice can be overcome as long as there is no standard.
Well…now that we’ve heard the inspired word from Tony I can rest assured that my so-called slippery slope fears are fallacious. I’m glad God finally revealed to us that He made a mistake in letting the error of 6 unconvincing scriptures and 2000 years of orthodoxy rule his chief evangelistic organism (the church) *end sarcasm* The whole argument hinges on a big “IF”. If the Bible doesn’t mean what it says (and what it’s been taken to say for 2000 years) then…. This brings me to another “If”…. Tony, if you are wrong and homosexual behavior is a sin (which would answer the question of why one couldn’t continue in such behavior and grow in a relationship to Christ) what would be your response to Christ when you stand before Him as you discover you encouraged open rebellion against Him through these questions? Maybe another question should be asked… Can you love a God who hates homosexual behavior?
Darius writes: “any cultural prejudice can be overcome as long as there is no standard.” Hence the attack on the authority of scripture by any means possible. Redefining inspiration, questioning inerrancy…basically making the Bible nothing more than our own special interpretation and turning hard passages into little more than unconvincing annoyances.
When you come to stand before the judgement seat of God – it is a safer thing, I would have thought, to have said “I believed what you left us written down” rather tahn “I thought you didn’t mean what you said so I went and reinterpreted it my own way”. The bible’s call to holiness has never been popular and has always been counter to the innate sinfulness of the human heart. Calling something “not sin” when the bible calls it as “sin” is a dangerous move, and one that is likely to be sending people who believe it to hell
Tony, Why did you include a “philosophy” tag on this video? Did you think you were doing philosophy? Out of curiosity, which, if any, of the philosophers in all of history do you think would find your video clip profound in any way? I like how you ended the video in fundamentalist fashion with the dogmatic declaration that “it just doesn’t work that way!” An absolute, declarative truth claim like that seems to contradict your worldview and affirm the one you’re critiquing. Anyhow, thanks for another great example of contemporary irrationalism. Tonight Barth turned in his grave, and Moltmann probably laughed…
Thanks for your brave journey in this conversation, Tony. I’d like to offer three responses, if that’s ok: 1. I don’t get why we always view the slippery slope from the basis of fear. What I mean is, we begin the conversation from the assumption that what we are wrestling with is inherently “bad” and “dangerous” and that the only possible and inevitable consequence will be more “badness” and “dangerousness”. And, if we’re honest, a lot of these arguments (if not all) have very little to do with what the Bible says. But, why don’t we look at the potential of a slippery slope into benefits? Take homosexuality for example. What potential benefits could arise from a world in which gay relationships are not only condoned, but recognised, protected and supported? Let me brainstorm a few: a) There would potentially be an increase in faithful, monogamous and stable relationships among gay folks (since the pressure of social rejection puts added stress on gay relationships, leading to higher levels of break down than necessary), and this would contribute to greater stability and fidelity in society in general (not to mention the reduction in STDs that such fidelity could also provide. 😉 ). b) There could potentially be an increase in the number of stable, loving homes to adopt orphaned and “unwanted” children into. c) Society in general would gain the benefit of being more compassionate, peace-loving and inclusive, as opposed to adversarial and divisive. There are many more potential benefits, but these are just a glimpse into what could happen if we started to think of a “positive slippery slope” instead of only a negative one. 2. I don’t understand how we get to the slippery slope the way we do. What on earth do homosexuality and polygamy or beastiality have to do with one another? We don’t say: “Let’s ban flu medication because these pills are drugs and it could become a slippery slope into addiction”. We don’t do this because medicinal drug use and addiction are two completely different issues. In the same way, homosexuality and polygamy or any of the other potential behaviours that lie in wait on the “slippery slope” are totally different issues, and it’s simply bad logic to try and support a view about one thing by referencing the dangers of something completely unrelated. 3. One thing I miss in the whole conversation around homosexuality is the kind of nuance and variation that we take for granted in talking about heterosexual relationships. Not all relationships are equal, and not all sexual behaviour is equal. I wouldn’t have genital sex with my sister, but I happily kiss and hug her in greeting. I wouldn’t kiss and hug my secretary, but I do a lot more with my wife. All of these relationships are different. There is a huge difference between a faithful, monogamous marriage, and promiscuity. And our morality takes these differences into account – both biblically and socially. So, why do we lump all homosexual behaviour into one bucket and call it all the same sinful thing? There is a huge difference between promiscuity and a loving, committed, monogamous relationship. All I would argue for is that we subject homosexual relationships to the same standards that we do for heterosexual ones. And, if we do the due diligence to the biblical passages, they really don’t speak at all to the idea of monogamous, committed homosexual relationships. I hope this doesn’t add to the noise, but contributes something to the ongoing journey. Thanks again for putting yourself out there, Tony.
There is a point to saying that the slippery slope argument is not a powerful argument because in one sense, any practice can lead to further libertinism. But to say the slippery slope does not exist at all is ridiculous. Does anyone really think that the push towards full recognition of homosexual behavior as something good would be possible without our society having first accepted physical pleasure in itself as being a goal that should be pursued and widespread acceptance of heterosexual sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage?
John G. – I think Tony may have added the philosophy tag to this video because the idea of logical fallacies (such as the slippery slope) are typically classified as relating to philosophy, a subject predicated on the ideas of argumentation and logic. I’m not sure he would then need the support of a particular philosopher to have a valid point. In fact, dealing with a very real-world, practical kind of problems from an approach of logical argumentation is a very profound and philosophical approach. As to Tony’s “dogmatic declaration,” I think it’s safe to assume that Tony speaks of 21st century American democracy as he experiences it. This means he can make claims that he believes to be true, and as a member of a society in which people are represented, he can even promote those ideas as his own particular voice. It’s a fairly common (and extremely uninformed) view of postmodern thought to accuse postmodern thinkers of being able to make what might be called “truth-claims.” The issue is not that postmoderns don’t have beliefs, rather that they choose to have those beliefs while recognizing the cultural and structural realities that completely surround and influence their thinking. That being said, to critique Tony’s argument based on a video tag and his own “relativism” when it comes to a particular and fairly peripheral truth-claim about the reality of a given situation creates another one of friendly logical fallacies: the straw man. I think it’s fairly obvious that you don’t agree with the actual opinion of this blog (though you barely addressed that), but it might be a bit presumptuous to assume that both Barth and Moltmann are on your side without giving any substantial explanation of why Tony may be missing the mark with this video.
After giving this post a night to settle in it suddenly occurs to me that Tony might have something here…. if there is no slippery slope that means that orthodox Christians should no longer have the false “making homosexuality illegal leads to the persecution and torture of homosexuals” argument thrown at them. meh…only a slight positive.
Hi Tony, This article: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.htm is an academic discussion on the slippery slope. It discusses some mechanisms in human populations that lead to slippery slope sorts of behaviors. I think you would find it interesting.
Tony, Thanks for your video and thanks to the commenters for a fairly elevated dialogue. I’m sure you’ve expressed something about my following comment before and if you have please aim me there. That being said, I do think the slippery slope argument does exist as a “straw man”. It’s kind of the last gasp in the debate when all of the other proof-texts and Bible-bullets are declawed. So, isn’t the more fundamental disagreement around how we read the Bible? There’s a whole realm of theological interpretation of Scripture that forms the basis for what each of us brings to the table in any disagreement or even agreement! I would appreciate your comments on this sometime. I reviewed a book by Stephen Fowl on my blog that is a helpful start for folks who don’t realize they are actually performing a theological task when they open their Bible’s and that theology isn’t just in the realm of the academy anymore. Further, are we really still debating on whether gay or lesbian people are actually Christians? I didn’t think that was still an issue in the Church. But if it is still an issue my question would be this, “Who said *we* get to decide if someone is Christian or not?” Finally, Barth and Moltmann never approached life’s intersection with Scripture as prescriptive but, rather, descriptive, no? peace, Chris
JR Ponce – well said. I for one don’t view this as a “slippery slope” issue. Homosexuality is sin. Period. (Here come the hate-speech acccusations). As Jason rightly pointed out, Romans 1 doesn’t indicate a “slippery slope” for all sin – and specifically includes homosexuality. Tony, I know you disagree, and hold your position as firmly as I do mine. That doesn’t mean I hate you. I trust that it also can mean that you don’t hate me.
Wes (and Jason): The scary thing about the Romans 1 passage is that the litany of sins that Paul lists is described as almost a judgment: “Therefore (as a result of man “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness”) God gave them over to….” The prevalence and acceptance (or simply ignoring) of pretty much every aspect of that list in our culture…not to mention when aspects of that list pop up in our own lives…should drive us to our knees in repentance and intercessory prayer for our country.
All positive social change (some of which probably every commenter here would agree is positive, e.g. right of women to vote, acceptance of interracial marriage, civil rights, abolition of slavery) I wager had opponents who resorted to the slippery slope argument in resistance to the change.
Korey you’re illustration only works if the subject in question is on a moral level with the illustrations you use. Right of Women to vote: Women voting isn’t listed as sin…especially since God only ordained one form of government, and that was for a specific nation. Interracial Marriage: If you take a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 we recognize that there is only one human race anyway…basic genetics from then on out. No biblical issue there. Civil rights: All men are created equal (Founding fathers, but based on a biblical truth) Abolition of Slavery: Especially the way it was done in the 1700’s-1800’s where people were ripped out of there homes and forced into slavery (many times based on a unbiblical view of race). But even when slavery was “normal” in Biblical times the principle of valuing human life and not defrauding another human being was instilled into the law. Apples and oranges
i’m from canada, and in british columbia, there is a sect of polygamists who are using the exact same arguments that the gay advocates used the past decade [gay marriages have been legal in canada for a few years now] and it’s tragically amusing because the homosexuality community is getting freaked out and are disparaging the polygamists, and are essentially saying “you’re making us look bad.” yeah. there’s a slippery slope.
Daniel, I think you miss the point entirely? Imagine you were the sort of Christian that actively resisted the social changes I mentioned. Presumably you’d have resorted to Scripture (as many Christians no doubt did) and you would have perhaps used the slippery slope argument. The former is legitimate and can be debated and discussed (as is going on today), but the latter is a weak justification to avoid otherwise morally good changes. I gather you reject the slippery slope argument anyway. Instead you resist this change on Scriptural grounds. That is, if you thought there was a compelling argument that Scripture has been misread or misunderstood or misused, then you would not resort to the slippery slope argument to remain in error. Of course you believe wholeheartedly in the absolute opposite and fortunately you are not advancing the slippery slope to make your case.
Korey, Correct. My basic point is that while the slippery slope (henceforth called the SS) in matters of sin exists (take for example the oft taken track after a man gets involved in pornography). Such a SS can be used to offer a deterrent to further sin, but the main argument against sin….is (or should be) that it’s a grossly offensive act against a holy, righteous, just and loving God!
Thanks Daniel. I think that is instructive. So you’re saying that sin often results in increasing sinfulness in terms of scope and degree and that is what you mean by a slippery slope. If you were convinced that monogamous homosexual relationships were moral (I grant you clearly and unequivocally dispute that), you would not think that they should be resisted based on a slippery slope argument. In fact, you may even reject that there is a slippery slope if you thought they were actually not sinful. I agree with Tony if he is concerned with: (1) people who may find monogamous homosexual relationships moral, but fear acceptance would lead to some other hypothetical immorality, or (2) those who find these relationships sinful based heavily/exclusively on a slippery slope argument. You don’t fit in that category, so I don’t think he’s addressing his post to you. He thinks these relationships are not sinful, hence no slippery slope. You think they are, so you see a slippery slope, but you reject it as a form of justification. The slippery slope argument should be out of bounds in discussing this issue and on that perhaps there is agreement. It is merely a byproduct of where one comes down on the issue and is unconvincing. We need to be careful not to accuse others of using it as the crux of their position, just as opponents of monogamous homosexual relationships need not bring up as it if is convincing.
As an argument for or against the morality of homosexuality the SS is a distraction. But…if homosexual behavior is immoral then allowing it will, apart from the intervention of God in a person or country, inevitably lead to a SS. Similarly if I allow pornography into my life it will, apart from God’s intervention, lead to other sins. Just thought of this…the SS argument also tends to classify sin. Now granted there are some heinous sin’s out there but all sin is equally wrong because it’s not the sin that makes it so bad, it’s the fact that we’ve sinned against holy, just and infinite God. As far as the morality of homosexual behavior I’d pose the question I posed earlier to Tony: Can he love a God that calls homosexual behavior sin?
If the slippery slope doesn’t exist, why are they dealing with polygamy now in Canada? Tony, you’ve gone from being reasonable to being an outright liar.
As for slippery slopes it was made clear in my â€œevangelicalâ€ time. Such slopes included, being friends with Catholics and believing they are Christians, even human. They were robots controlled by the black pope and chomping at the bit to take down true Protestants. Showing grief, a true slippery slope as one does not let the dead bury their dead and move on past the loss of family. It is irrelevant. Believing human beings that are not â€œtrue Christiansâ€ cannot be trusted they are totally controlled of Satan and should be shunned, with deep passion. There are demons, Jesuits, NWO folks, Satanists, Homosexuals, Liberals, Apostate Christians lurking in the shadowy darkness ready to trip up the True Christian Soul. The slippery slope, one should not trust, ever, no one, fear, dread, waiting for the wrath of God to be poured out on all of reprobate humanity. So the slippery slope also happens with the evolutionists that wait at the door to say we are just animals, lowering our value in Godâ€™s eyes, unless we are the vast majority of reprobate humanity which has no value, only to prove God will slaughter millions, if not billions for all eternity to prove a point. Yes these are slippery slopes. We need to dread this, may I suggest we go back to the dark times, where we dreaded the night, where we thought that misery and pestilence was an act of God and we have no recourse then to shake for terror as our loved ones die. Well no I donâ€™t want that slippery slope; neither do you if you are a caring thinking human being. We donâ€™t want to live in those dark times. Personally Mr. Jones like some of his ilk are realizing we need to grow up and become adults, and discuss the reality we see, yes we should live by faith, but do you want just faith when a member of your family is sick, or do you want a competent doctor, etc. Of course there is an apologetic, which is hollow and empty. But it is an apologetic. I would ask for prayer and mercy, but in my experience this is another thing a true christian does not seek.
That’s a pretty big slice of Swiss cheese. Even if I bought into that premise, the logic of that statement is so pathetic that it simply doesn’t work. I’m almost embarrassed for you, and don’t really know where to begin. One could take your position to say a number of things (which I’m sure you don’t intend to say) which are blatantly false. In your rush to be all-inclusive for the sake of the gospel – which is somewhat admirable – you remove any need for God’s law, either through Torah or Spirit. And without those two ends, you have no covenant or gospel or kingdom or grace. I’m not trying to condemn anyone for their lifestyle here, but there is such a thing as morality, to which believers are summoned to work. Oh, and your comment about how gay marriage doesn’t open the doors to other marriages . . . this is simply ill-informed. It already has been the link in many other societies, and has been the basis for numerous legal cases already popping up in our own debate. You’re simply wrong on the facts, or choose to ignore them.
Western Christianity has not been following Jesus and ONLY Jesus for a long time. This is why I make sure to read the letters of Paul and Peter as just that , letters to a certain group of the church. The term homosexual was never in the the letters, but of ANY misuse of sex. What needs to happen is to let GOD sort this out and help open the eyes of those who have been blinded by the law, since Jesus brought the law into completeness and started a “new heaven and earth” by his death on the cross. Tony, I believe that you are correct in your stand. Everyone was forgiven, but there are those who are still using the law as a covering.
It isn’t just a slippery slope argument (which are sometimes fallacies and sometimes not), it is a “cliff” argument. Once you state that marriage is not just between a man and a woman then you open it up to whatever you want it to be. And if you have legal recognition of same sex marriage then there are logical consequences, such as pitting the real church (not Tony’s fake one) vs. the government. After all, the real churches will be preaching against the “civil right” of sexual preferences. Also, you’ll poison the minds of kids as young as 5 with the teaching in public schools of how “normal” gay, lesbian, transgender, bi-sexual and who knows what else. Tony and pro-gay theologians oppose Leviticus 18:22 but would be shocked — shocked, I say — if anyone suggested that 18:23 was wrong. Leviticus 18:22-23 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. But what if the situation were reversed? Since Tony et al are editing the Bible, who are they to say we can’t discard other passages we don’t like? Why is he so bigoted, hateful, judgmental and intolerant towards those who want to have sex with animals?
“If the slippery slope doesn’t exist, why are they dealing with polygamy now in Canada?” But…but…polygamy IS a Biblical form of marriage. Can you show me in the Bible where it is condemned? I can find several instances of where it was practised openly, and one instance where God explicitly enabled it. So…where is your moral argument against polygamy again?
r johnson. i don’t think it matters what arguments i would make against polygamy. if i refer to any of paul’s writings, i will be told that either paul was an arrogant and sexist and misogynistic man, and was simply wrong in his beliefs, or that nothing paul says applies to us today, as he was only speaking to the churches at the time and we are far more enlightened than he was. so what’s the point?
To RJohnson: The foundation is laid in Gen ch 2 in the creation account, â€œTherefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and the two become one flesh.â€ Jesus affirms this idea, as does Paul.
TONY: In your â€œHonest Questionâ€ post you asked us for â€˜something Inherentâ€ in a monogamous homosexual relationship that would prohibit the persons involved from loving God and wholeheartedly following Jesus. Iâ€™m not sure what you were looking for there. I asked you to show us what that would look like with a sexual relationship we could all agree was morally objectionable, so I laid out the scenario involving Earnest the St. Bernard. This was not a slippery slope argument; it was a means of testing your methodology. You had stated earlier that you did indeed find certain forms of genital intercourse morally objectionable/sinful, but you never explained why. I think we need to know what compelling reasons you would have, apart from the clobber verses, which would move you to tell someone that they cannot be in full communion with God while practicing such behaviors. Having said that, the redefining of marriage IS a primary concern of mine. Setting aside for the moment the fact that marriage is an institution defined and established by God, and therefore not ours to redefine, it is naÃ¯ve to believe that redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships will stop there. Redefining marriage to include gay couples would necessarily blow the doors off the institution of marriage and family. I donâ€™t believe anyone holding your view can give me a compelling reason for not also recognizing two faithful lovers who happen to also be biological sisters. Or, even more in line with the â€œheterosexual ideal,â€ a biological brother and sister who want to be married. Sexual liberals are like a gang of toddlers running loose inside of a nuclear submarine, flipping switches and pushing buttons. You donâ€™t understand what youâ€™re messing with.
As Iâ€™ve thought a bit more about Tonyâ€™s video post, a couple of additional thoughts come to mind. Regarding the question of the existence of a slippery slope, we donâ€™t even have to wonder: 1) In the field of jurisprudence weâ€™re all familiar with the idea of â€œprecedentâ€. Judges routinely look back to previous legal decisions in order to arrive at conclusions for new cases. If the definition of marriage is expanded to include same sex couples, a precedent will have been set. It is a virtual certainty that judges will eventually HAVE TO include other groupings of people under the definition of marriage. This IS the way our legal system works. 2) With regard to human sexual behavior, YHWH believes in the existence of a slippery slope. This is, in part, the reason he ordered the Israelites to slaughter both human beings and animals belonging to the nations which the Israelites were dispossessing. This was also a clearly stated reason he ordered the stoning of Jews who engaged in the forbidden sexual behaviors of the nations they were dispossessing: â€œâ€¦And you shall not walk in the customs of the nations which I am casting out before you; for they did all of these things, and therefore I abhorred themâ€¦You shall be holy to me; for I YHWH am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.â€ (Lev 20:23, 26, following an entire list of deviant sexual practices beginning in verse10.) These merciless acts were commanded by our compassionate and slow-to-anger Creator precisely to keep sexual behavior which he considered to be abhorrent from becoming â€œnormalizedâ€ within the Israelite nation and culture. God could have commanded them to be inclusive and affirming. Why didnâ€™t he? (Lest someone â€“ not to mention any names â€“ jump to the conclusion that I am here advocating the stoning of anyone, let me say I am absolutely not. With Abraham, Moses, and the â€œOld Covenantâ€, YHWH was establishing a nation, including a justice system and a means of enforcing it. As Dan and others have correctly pointed out, this has been replaced with a â€œbetter covenantâ€ and a kingdom â€œnot of this worldâ€ wherein Christ will be the ultimate judge.) None of this negates love, but part of the question here is â€œWhat is love?â€ Tony, call it slippery slope, the camelâ€™s nose in the tent, the genie out of the bottle, or whatever metaphorical phrase you want, but there is no question the world does work this way. Part of the proof is that you can’t give us compelling reasons, (something inherent,) not to consecrate the aforementioned deviant sexual behaviors.
Let me ask this a bit more directly, one of the biggest â€œargumentsâ€ against Gay Marriage is God did not ordain it from the beginning, I e there was a literal Adam and Eve, and an original fall. Of course this flies in the face of modern science, which holds to an evolutionary view of origins. Basically evolution has been proven, despite all the apologetic hand waving. So I ask myself let is refute evolution with Holy Scripture, but remove the rhetoric. God created the world, the universe, created a garden, the animals, fish, birds, stars, planets, etc, then the first women was talked to by the serpent, she deceived the man and all of humanity the many billions sense that first family were fallen. Under the curse of eternal God for having fallen, basically they did what they were created to do. Now the Human Race grows and becomes more evil and a literal flood, that engulfs the entire Earth, mouth Everest, the Andes, etc. with a world flood. Now discounting the fact that such a deluge would drown most fish, yes fish can drown, along with most aquatic life, whales, dolphins, trout, etc. The list does go on. Well in this flood a family of eight and all the animals enters into the ark, but is there room for all bird life, insect life, mammals, and then there is that pesky bacterial and viral life. Floating on a large boat with a world totally flooded. Well on this arc is small pox, plague, diphtheria, flu, Cholera, fill in the blank, and none of these eight suffer from these diseases along with tens of thousands of other illnesses. So then the ark comes to rest and all the animals disperse, how they do that is up for debate. So all of humanity is at the tower of Babble and God is ticked that they are working together so he cast men aside with different languages and so on. Well science offers models, that are predictive and fairly accurate, and we have our stories, which well, I donâ€™t know. Now I understand that there is an apologetic concerning all this, it rings totally hollow but it is an apologetic. From the cheap seats we wonder, from the laity, we wonder, of course the laity have no meaning, cannon fodder. Trust me they are cannon fodder. You know from the back row it is not good news, it never has been. Personally I am totally ticked at being lied to about this, and I am even more angry at myself for buying into it. Offered for what very little it is worth.
Idontgetit – “Basically evolution has been proven” – which since you include the word “basically” shows that it actually hasn’t. Btw…creation is very unscientific…because it wasn’t observed and can’t be repeated. So naturally modern science wouldn’t be able to prove creation scientifically. But that’s just “apologetic hand waving” I guess. When I read your post one thought kept coming back to my head. If you even believe in God…what a small ineffective god he must be! First off, he can’t effectively communicate what he did in the beginning of history, second he can’t keep a family of 8 healthy on the ark, and third he seems to be just as bound to the laws of science as we are. From your comment, I’m guessing that your god is the god of science, which is basically the reasoning’s and rationality of a human race that changes their mind every decade or so. And of course….science and/or scientists have never lied to anyone.
Korey, You purport that “blessing monogamous homosexual relationships” somehow is “a threat to the very essence of monogamy/fidelity?” Sorry, but that does not compute. How can blessing monogamous relationships be a threat to monogamy?
As usual, the ‘right’ speaks in the wrong tense … “Legalizing [gay] unions … will“ Sorry, but they’ve been legal for more than 5 years now, and they haven’t.
JR Ponce, “Homosexuality is a sin” According to your religion, maybe. Not according to mine. “and I do not say that callously” No, you say it both erroneously and arrogantly. The Church (TM) is not of one accord on this matter.
Darius T, “Tell Canadian Christians that there is no slippery slope on this issue.” Okay, tell me. I’m a Canadian Christian and I don’t believe there is. “gay marriage is yesterday’s news, currently polygamy is where the battle is at. Once one rejects the Bible as a standard …” Well, apart from the fact that polygamy is, in fact, quite Biblical (nowhere is it condemned in the Bible), it is in no way where the “current battle” is. I haven’t heard a peep about it – and I am a serious newshound. Wild imaginings yet again from the delusional ‘right’.
“Calling something “not sin” when the bible calls it as “sin” What we understand of homosexuality today is not even addressed in The Bible (TM). It does speak (a bit) about the sin of homosexual rape, the sin of homosexual lust, and the sin of homosexual cult/temple prostitution. I have no problems with condemnation of any of those. Too bad for your side that it isn’t what we discuss when we speak of same-sex marriages.
Milk and the Slippery S;ope… Every crack addict I’ve ever heard about started out drinking milk, then went on to carbonated drinks, then tried beer, then moved on to liquor. Where liquor is, there’s often cigarette smoking. After cigarettes comes maryjuanna, then LSD, ecstasy, methamphetamines, K, and of course crack. Ergo, milk is a slippery slope to crack addiction. Please send your prayers and your money to “Help stop Milk – the gateway drug.com” Fools.
“No, you say it both erroneously and arrogantly.” I now realize that I must bow down to your inerrant interpretation of Scripture along with Tonys inspired statements. “The Church (TM) is not of one accord on this matter.” Doesn’t matter if the church is or if the church isn’t…it matters what the Bible says. I’m going to place my bets with (a) the orthodox interpretation of scripture and (b) The almost 2000 years of church teaching on the subject. Letting the Scripture speak for itself. But again, I submit a question that seems to go unanswered: Can you love a God that considers homosexual behavior a sin?
Read this the other day… http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/09/top_ten_worst_b.html some of the comments are good… some terrible… some interesting. I thought 24 was the most interesting of the bunch.
There is a slippery slope for those that believe the Word and try to follow it. Dan gave the example of abortion. It was not made legal to solve any social problem, but for the hard cases of health, incest and rape. Today any woman in America can pay to have her child killed and killed at any gestational age. Euthanasia is legal in Oregon and it is not just done on people who are terminal. Standards have relaxed and we are headed exactly to where Sweden and the Netherlands are with legalized killing for any reason. This is not just about the sanctity of life. This is about Gods standards for His people. It’s about what He ways is moral and right, NOT what and how we think it should be. I find it highly ironic that Tony who professes to be a Christian, never mentions God and how He sees thing. He never posts scripture to back up his points. He canâ€™t because nothing in the bible backs up his libertine views on these social issues. Not once does he bring God into the equation. Why Tony? I can see if someone was not of the Christian faith believing the points he makes, but not someone who can read and understand the Word. Tonyâ€™s views are completely opposite from how God wants us to live. Tony you had a blog where you wanted everyone to eliminate the scriptures from Leviticus about homosexuality. You want them thrown out because they speak to how God feels about the sex sin in your life. If you say that homosexual and heterosexual sec is ok in Gods eyes, then why isnâ€™t bestiality ok? Its listed in Leviticus as well. Is there something wrong with group marriage Tony? You want society to embrace same sex marriageâ€¦.well why not group marriage as well? How can you look at a group and tell them what you say I canâ€™t tell you, that homosexual marriage is wrong? Slippery slope and double standard. The path that God wants us to take is not slippery if you try to stay on it Tony. If you try to live a Godly life and do the things that God ordains and that means making sacrificing. Sacrifice earthly things and living right. You obviously do not care what the Word says about your behavior. You want to see something that just is not there. There are consequences for ungodly behavior. You said, â€œWe all make those choices everyday, we all make relative choices on what we think is appropriate want what we think isnâ€™t.â€ Yes we do, God gave us free will to make our own choices. But the thing is, those choices should be aligned with Gods Word, the Truth. It is not about what we thinkâ€¦â€¦not about how we see adultery or stealing, or lusting, or sex. God speaks in the Bible about what is right and wrong. He speaks about who can married and who can have sex. He defines what sin is. The problem you have is that you do not agree with God and you are trying to find any loop hole to get around what He calls is sin. Thatâ€™s why you can’t post scriptureâ€¦â€¦none backs your view up. If I am wrong, as I have challenge before find me scripture that says same sex marriage is condoned by God. Legalizing and blessing same sex unions, or any sex outside the marriage bed would be a sin and as Christians we must stand up against it, not because we hate anyone but because the Bible is Truth. It does not matter if it leads to anything else or not, because itâ€™s sin. Sin is ungodly and separation from God because He is Holy. Chaos will come one day as stated in Revelation. And when it does, people will have to give account of their words and actions. Romans 1:24 â€Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorâ€”who is forever praised.â€ Do not trade truth for a lie.
tony, on the wider debate over sexuality/church this recent lecture could be of value. I certainly found it very interesting: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/richard-burridge-being-biblical-slavery.html
Daniel, (me):”The Church (TM) is not of one accord on this matter.” (you): “Doesn’t matter if the church is or if the church isn’t…it matters what the Bible says.” Which version says what you seem to think it says? And which church must I belong to? Yours? And if so, why? To reiterate, what we understand of homosexuality today is not even addressed in The Bible (TM). As I said above, it does mention homosexual rape, lust and cult/temple prostitution. That isn’t what we are discussing when we speak of homosexuality (specifically gay marriage) at all. “I now realize that I must bow down to your inerrant interpretation of Scripture “ I never said you did, nor that my interpretation is “inerrant”, only that there are many interpretations and Biblical scholars do not agree on the many different ones. Or, maybe you should explain why I must bow down to your inerrant interpretation of Scripture.
churchmouse, “There is a slippery slope for those that believe the Word and try to follow it. “ Again, which version of The Word (TM)? “If you say that homosexual and heterosexual sec is ok in Gods eyes, then why isnâ€™t bestiality ok?” Because (for the nth time) animals cannot give consent. We are discussing conseenting, adult, human behaviors. Gawd this gets tiring explaining what should, by now, be perfectly obvious to the clueless. “why not group marriage as well?” Not that there’s anything wrong with it (at least according to the Bible), once again, we are discussing committed relationships, as in, ‘I choose you‘, not ‘I choose a bunch of people’. That’s why not. “You obviously do not care what the Word says about your behavior.” We obviously don’t care what you make up about what the Word says about our relationships. “not about how we see adultery or stealing” etc. Adultery is the breaking of a covenant. It is not what we are discussing when we speak of committing in marriage. Stealing causes harm. Consenting, adult, human relationships do not. “Legalizing and blessing same sex unions … would be a sin” In your religion, perhaps. In others’, not so much. Or, must we all become members of your Church? ” the Bible is Truth” So, you believe snakes and donkeys can talk, that a man can live 3 days in the belly of a fish, that bushes can burn and not be consumed, that we should put disobedient children, victims of rape and gays to death, that the disabled should be denied communion, and that eating lobster is an abomination. Yes? (I doubt it, but I’ll wait for your answers.) And, if not, then it seems there’s a lot of “truth” that you simply choose to ignore.
Churchmouse â€“ you said â€œI find it highly ironic that Tony who professes to be a Christian, never mentions God and how He sees things. He never posts scripture to back up his points.â€ The â€œyou donâ€™t agree with me so I will try to intimidate you into agreeing with me by saying you canâ€™t possibly be a Christian unless you agree with meâ€ is lame and ineffective so please don’t use it anymore. And btw, you donâ€™t need scripture to back up the idea that something â€œdoesnâ€™tâ€ exist. But what does exist in scripture is that as followers of Christ we should be against injustice and oppression
HUSBAND: //Because (for the nth time) animals cannot give consent. We are discussing conseenting, adult, human behaviors. Gawd this gets tiring explaining what should, by now, be perfectly obvious to the clueless.// Please help me out here. You havenâ€™t explained anything. Why should this be perfectly obvious? ALL of your stipulations â€“ â€œcommitted, consenting, adult, humanâ€ â€“ are merely your Western, cultural, subjective opinion. If you take away the authority of YHWHâ€™s revelation in the Judeo-Christian Bible, you are simply a cork in the ocean. Human beings around the world regularly institutionalize behavior we would consider deviant. Regarding â€œconsentâ€, I recently read about an Islamic law forbidding a woman to refuse to have sex with her husband. Regarding â€œconsenting adultâ€, I saw an e-news story about an eight- year-old bride in Saudi Arabia whose father had legally married her off to a middle-aged man. Regarding bestiality, Iâ€™ve already shown that animals can indeed give consent in their own way. I understand that you happen to be biased toward committed, monogamous, consensual, adult sexual relationships, but many people obviously disagree with you. To get back to Tonyâ€™s test: For the hypothetical person involved in a private, monogamous sexual relationship with his/her fluffy St. Bernard dog, is there ANYTHING INHERENT in the relationship that would keep that person from loving God and wholeheartedly pursuing a relationship with Jesus?
//HUSBAND: Milk and the Slippery S;ope…Every crack addict I’ve ever heard about started out drinking milkâ€¦Ergo, milk is a slippery slope to crack addiction. Please send your prayers and your money to “Help stop Milk – the gateway drug.com” Fools.// Your reasoning here is fallacious: Milk is a food. Crack is a drug. Thatâ€™s like saying that breathing air is a slippery slope to glue-sniffing. Weâ€™re discussing actual sexual behaviors here. Youâ€™ve yet to successfully argue for any objective basis for distinguishing between â€œrightâ€ and â€œwrongâ€ sexual behavior. Until you do, you are on a slippery slope.
Artboy, Since your examples do not involve actual consent (note: not this “in their own way” stuff – real, legal consent), yours is not a post worth replying to. Basically, you’re discussing rape – of animals or children. Feel free to try again, but you’ll have to do much, much better than that.
P.S. The milk=gateway analogy was meant as humor – something sorely lacking in this, er, debate.
Tony, while it’s important that we love those in the GLBT community, and these issues that separate Christians from that community need to be addressed, pragmatics is a woefully insufficient means of finding our best solutions. Our utilitarian predecessors brought fleshed out numerous problems associated with these types of tactics. (John Stuart Mill, Hume, etc) It seems that deciding things merely pragmatically is on the lower common denominator end. Decisions needn’t be made on that end of the equation. Often when they are the best outcome does not occur. As we look to God, and “his” nature, we see reflected in “him” true reality, the sum of all ideals and perfection. That is our standard for making decisions. Yes, we can’t and don’t always stick to the highest Good, but ignoring what reality is based in-a good, holy, and perfect God-is no way to live normatively. Grace comes in and makes up for the standard for which we cannot attain, but the standard is still there, and it is a perfect one, not a flexible pragmatic one, despite our everyday muddling through in that course. Slippery slope or not, we meander through difficult decisions and ethical choices hampered without a reference point of a Standard, which exists as the person/being of God “himself”.
Lisa, “while it’s important that we love those in the GLBT community, and these issues that separate Christians from that community need to be addressed” There’s an inherent fallacy in your supposition. “that community” is not “separate” from “Christians” to begin with. There are many Christian faiths that embrace God’s glbt chidren fully and equally. (I happen to belong to one of them.) We are by no means separated communities, apart from those that would reject us from membersihp. And in those instances, it is not the glbt people who separated themselves out of faith fellowsihp; it is the anti-gay faiths. They shoulder the blame 100%, and rightfully so.
Wow…reading thorugh all of this not only hurts my ears but it hurts my heart. I can only imagine how Christ would respond to this. Slippery Slope…How can you argue that it doesn’t exist. Is that not the basis of entropy; moving towards ever increasing levels of randomness and chaos (I know that is a very generalized and simplified definition of entropy – my apologies). We see slippery slopes everywhere. I would argue that we especially see them in moral/ethical/sociological issues. That is the essence of our sin nature. We humans are quite adept at creating new, more satisfying ways to sin. Yet all we are really doing is altering and/or intensifying the same old sins of days gone by i.e. God did not address embezellment or terrorism specifically in the 10 commandments…lying and murder sort of covered that for Him. A wiseman once told me “Be careful what you tolerate today, because you will accept it tomorrow”…the slippery slope. Husband…what you are doing with Scripture…be careful, because it does not bring Honor to Christ… and that Slippery Slope might burn at the bottom. God means what He says and says what He means…It’s not difficult to figure out…stop trying to make it what you want…thats called justification and only Christ can do that…not you!
Re: Comment from: Husband at: September 24, 2009 3:08 PM How right you are. The insistence of conservative Christians that we are not Christian is their worst and most hateful trespass against God. I have yet to see one of them actually explain how they can be OK with rejecting the clear demand of Paul that we promote slavery and yet attack gay Christians for demanding our basic human right to marry. It is nothing but hatred, pure and simple. Were there any basis in God to their actions, we would not be seeing the false witness and violence against us.
What’s wrong with incest? What’s wrong with marrying two or more spouses? What’s wrong with interspecies sex? Why can’t gays like T. Jones be more tolerant of other people’s sexual preferences for a change? I’m always shocked to see such bigotry spouted by gays towards other people who have unusual yet love-filled sex preferences.
IsYouBigoted, Tony has never disclosed his sexuality on this forum (at least not to my knowledge) and, frankly, I am not the slightest bit interested in whether he is gay or straight. Nor do I see the relevance of his sexuality to the topics at hand. You, on the other hand, are denigrating the human status of homosexuals through your obscene suggestion that our battle to be granted the same rights and left in peace as are our fellow heterosexual citizens is somehow the same as advocating for sex with animals or incest. Sexuality is not mutable, it is not a choice. Homosexuals are neither perverted nor is our sexuality in any way less willed by God. Try actually reading some current research on sexual orientation and evolutionary advantage. Should even popular sciences be beyond you, try reading the FBI stats on just exactly who commits what crimes towards whom. If you don’t want gay marriage, don’t have one. If your hateful, nasty church doesn’t want gays in it, fine – there are more than enough Christians who practice love, we don’t want or need to associate with you. Do, however, forget about ever forcing us into the deathly silence of the closet, ever again. We are roughly 10% of each generation, despite the ‘final solution’ attempts of conservative Christians throughout the ages. We’re here, we’re queer and we’ve had it up to here with your hatred.
Mr/Ms Panther: Quit making fun of those who have loving sex with multiple partners, or relatives, or even animals. We exist. Get used to it. Such preferences not going away, despite your bigotry. You may be sickened by the news of actress Ms Phillips and her musician father, but some countries are not. There is nothing wrong with any sex of any kind, and gays, of all people, should know not to be bigoted towards other forms of sexuality that they themselves find appalling. Do I really need to remind you that many in society find your attractions appalling? Screw church. Screw bigots.
Oh, look! A troll. Sorry folks – should’ve known. Sigh. Tony, If this is the best the conservative/fundamentalist Christians have to offer as arguments for withholding human status for my husband and me in the US, it is time to either relax or be very, very worried.
A troll? What?!?I think you should have as many husbands as you want. I could care less. But don’t you ever insult me and my sexual preferences again. I abhor hypocrites, whether christians or gays. There is nothing wrong with any sex of any kind. You of all people should know this deeply, personally.
Definitely, a troll. Don’t feed the trolls. I should learn. Tony, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the conflict which many supporters of human rights for gays feel about giving even an inch to those who oppose health care reform because they fear it will increase access to abortion for poor women.
Nope. You don’t get to tell me what I may and may not say. Feel insulted if you like, even a casual look at your other submissions shows you to be both a sock-puppet and a troll.
“you [are] both a sock-puppet and a troll.” Grow up. I could think of some names to call you, but I’m above that kind of nastiness.
IsYouBigoted wrote: Quit making fun of those who have loving sex with multiple partners, or relatives, or even animals. We exist. Get used to it. Such preferences not going away, despite your bigotry. You may be sickened by the news of actress Ms Phillips and her musician father, but some countries are not. There is nothing wrong with any sex of any kind, and gays, of all people, should know not to be bigoted towards other forms of sexuality that they themselves find appalling. Do I really need to remind you that many in society find your attractions appalling? Screw church. Screw bigots. end quote Sorry, my dear, but you don’t get to advocate for bestiality and incest, argue that all forms of sex are fine and then say “screw the church” and then maintain that you aren’t a nasty little troll. One or the other, not both.
//HUSBAND: â€œâ€¦ Basically, you’re discussing rape – of animals or children.â€// Not at all. Bestiality need not include force, coercion, or even penetration. And my example stipulated loving mutuality. Youâ€™re going to great lengths to not answer the question. If you prefer a different example, address the two women in a loving, sexual relationship who happen to be biological sisters. Is there anything inherent there that would keep them from loving God and wholeheartedly following Jesus? Why shouldnâ€™t marriage be redefined to sanction and include their relationship?
Artboy and IsYouBigoted, By now it should be plain to both of you that we simply are not going to play that game. A very great number of Christians in the US agree with you in rejecting our status as Christians, indeed as humans. A very great number of Christians and non-Christians in the US disagree with you and feel we are both human and capable of worshiping God as Christians. All we are asking is that you and your fellow Christians who don’t see us as fellow Christians or even entitled to basic human rights get out of the way of our secular rights. You can worship, without let or hindrance in your hateful churches. Fine. Let us worship in our inclusive churches, let us marry civilly. The only time we need have any contact at all is when the 10% of your young who are gay and the roughly one in one thousand of your young who are transsexual or intersexed or otherwise do not fall into your stereotypical world of male-female bi-polarity get kicked out of your hateful world. Then, we will welcome them and do our best to heal the grievous wounds you have inflected on them in the name of our Lord. If you haven’t driven them to suicide, first.
YN, “God means what He says and says what He means…It’s not difficult to figure out…stop trying to make it what you want” So you believe that gay people “shall surely be put to death” then? As should disobedient children, and the victims of rape. That eating lobster is “an abomination”, and that we should deny communion to the disabled? God’s Word sez we should. Or do you make it what you want?
“IsYouBigoted September 28, 2009 5:29 PM What’s wrong with incest? What’s wrong with marrying two or more spouses? What’s wrong with interspecies sex? Why can’t gays like T. Jones be more tolerant of other people’s sexual preferences for a change? I’m always shocked to see such bigotry spouted by gays towards other people who have unusual yet love-filled sex preferences.” 1. Yes, you is bigoted. 2. Bewing gay (or str8) is not a “preference. It is an orientation. 3. Marriage creates legal familial relationships where none existed before. Therefor, incestuous marriages are unnecessary. 4. Polygamy is widely accepted around the world. I think it abhorrent because of it’s inherent unequal relationship status (as in marriage means – or should – “I choose you, not a buncha people.”) Does anyone know if legally polygamously married persons (eg. from Indonesia or Saudia Arabia) can immigrate to America? After all, “President” George W. Bush welcomed the polygamously married Crown Prince (now King) of SA into the Rose Garden! 5. Interspecies sex involves lack of consent (which, in legal terms, is rape, which is not what is under discussion). You wanna screw your pooch, be my guest. But I think you’d have a difficult time convincing a Justice of the Peace to solemnize any ‘vows’, since animals can’t make them. Do you have any more ‘intelligent’ questions you need answered, Yes U Is Bigoted?
Artboy, //HUSBAND: â€œâ€¦ Basically, you’re discussing rape – of animals or children.â€// “Not at all. Bestiality need not include force, coercion, or even penetration. And my example stipulated loving mutuality. Youâ€™re going to great lengths to not answer the question.” In your dreams, Artboy. The essence of rape is non-consent. Neither animals nor children can give consent, regardless of lack of force or coercion or even penetration. IOW, it lacks the very “mutuality” you raise. Poor you with your poor logic, eh? “If you prefer a different example, address the two women in a loving, sexual relationship who happen to be biological sisters.” I already did. They have no need of marriage since they’re already related. “Is there anything inherent there that would keep them from loving God and wholeheartedly following Jesus?” Not at all, but, as has been pointed out, they’re already related, so have no need of marriage. ” Why shouldnâ€™t marriage be redefined to sanction and include their relationship?” Because their relationship doesn’t have to be included in marriage since they’re already related. Clearly you fail to catch the connection between ‘relationship’ and being ‘related’. Feel free to try again, but DO BETTER!
I would like to understand this controversy more, but it always seems to come to oneâ€™s opinion about whether or not God still hates gays but no longer hates prawn. Some argue that the prohibition against homosexuality is repeated in the New Testament but here the dietary laws of the OT supposedly ended. However, on the other hand there are numerous examples of instructions given in the New Testament, such as foot washing, kissing and head coverings that are disregarded by the same people who oppose homosexuality. So I would like to know your views on what you think about sexual morals in the context of our faith. Is there a biblical sexual morality? What is the guiding principle? Love? Respect? Covenant? We should be able to quickly exclude practices such as rape (even though it is quite tolerated in the OT) and pedophilia as both violate the liberty of one party. Perhaps the folks at PETA would say the same about bestiality, although I am not sure some dogs are of the same opinion. So there still remains monogamy vs polygamy/polyandry (simultaneous or serial). What is to be the guiding principle of our faithâ€™s sexual morals? Perhaps I cannot see any value of preaching monogamy when half of the people in our society are not monogamous and many of those are active Christians. Does polygamy or divorce and remarriage really affect ones relationship to God anymore than any other broken relationship such as a friendship. Are we to make divorced people as second class Christians? If we say it is some noble goal to try to attain arenâ€™t we sounding terribly hypocritical. Just what is a Christian sexual morality?
Pingback: Air Jordan Flight Club 80s 599583-032()
Pingback: Nike Air Max 90()
1. What's Up with Rob Bell?
2. Is Sojourners for Straights Only?
3. There Are Two Marriages
4. Homoerotic Churches
5. Would John Piper Excommunicate His Son?
6. A Call to Clergy: Stop Performing (Legal) Marriages
7. Mark Driscoll's House of Cards
Follow Patheos on