Get updates from Theoblogy delivered straight to your inbox
Here are just a few of the pics from yesterday, the day in which Rachel & Ratchet and Tony & Courtney got married, Jay Bakker witnessed, and Caroline Yang shot photos. Also, it was 23 degrees.
I think often of the night you welcome our MRE class to dinner with Courtney, Rachel, Ratchet, and others. Glad yesterday was a blessed, although very cold, ceremony. Grace and Peace.
Blessings to all of you! The evening in downtown Minneapolis with Rachel and Ratchet continues to be one of my most formative experiences.
Congratulations to all.
Congratulations all! Great photos of some of my very favorite people!
Congratulations to both happy couples.
It’s a real pity as Christian’s we blind ourselves to the biblical basis for marriage [Gen 2:24] and force what has essentially become a civic institution representing this into a politic fight.
For the civic institution, we can call it whatever we like (even marriage) but it will never be biblical marriage, and will always be sinful. I don’t lament that the civic institution has lost its biblical basis, but I do lament that Christian’s values have become so corrupt that they see same-sex unions as legitimate. I suppose it is only a matter of time before we bring back polygamy, or adultery loses its stigma.
Would you like for me to tell you why I think infidelity is wrong and hurtful, where homosexual marriage is not?
It comes down to trust. Relationships, along with love, are based on trust. The same trust exists between gay couples as straight couples, in the same manner that the same love exists. The ways of showing it vary between each couple regardless of orientation, but regardless of who is showing it, and to whom that love and trust is shown, it is noticeable to those who look.
Adultery, or infidelity, is a violation of that trust. An adulterer/ess looks at the love and trust that they share with their partner, and say – either consciously or not – “Eh, that doesn’t really matter to me right now.” It is very nearly absolute disrespect for the one (or more, as polygamy is simply sharing that love and trust with and among many, and thus not inherently wrong, just not my personal bent) person who you should have the most respect for.
Finally, your comment really doesn’t belong here, being so rude, dismissive, and condemning of these nice people you really don’t know.
Itarion, I dismiss sin and sinfulness, not people, and I include myself in the ‘sinful’ catagory.
Also, I was not talking about relationships, love, or trust – I was talking about two (or more) flesh becoming one. The bible sanctions a very specific type of sexual union.
Apart from issues of sexuality however, I have no problem with people having loving, trusting relationships, and agree that such relationships are indeed biblical.
I dismiss sin and sinfulness, too, but in a slightly different way. They’re not real. They are human constructs designed to control.
You cannot speak of sex without speaking of relationships. Sex is very much a part of the human experience, and not something to speak of in quite corners, separate from the rest of life. It’s not.
Oh, so they can love. But not fuck? And because of a book that they might not believe in?
I have a simple question for you: Are gay people equal to straight people?
Love is not sinful. God is love thus love for another person is Godly. Christian values that degrade and marginalize the other is not of God but your own insecurity. The four people of this post are fantastic people of God. Take your name calling and bronze age thinking someplace else.
Agreed, but sexuality is something quite separate from ‘love’. Sexuality happens all the time without love.
Besides you also mistake the clear identification of sin with marginalization. Homosexuality is sin, just as pride is. We all sin so simply calling a sin a sin should not marginalize anyone since we all fall into that ‘sinners’ category.
Nevertheless, you cannot truly love someone if you refuse to tell them the truth. Telling someone that they are at risk of perishing because they flagrantly refuse to give up their sin, is an act of love.
This might not be obvious to someone who cannot discern the difference between ‘sexuality’ and ‘love’, or who conflates the identification of a sin with the marginalization of a sinner.
You are excluding people with same-sex attraction from loving one another in the same way opposite-sex attracted people love one another. Everyone is capable of loving another in an equal manner. By that exclusion you are marginalizing a group of people simply because you don’t recognize their love for one another. That is your failure (sin).
Actually no – I’ve not focus’d on homosexuals at all. That would be ad hominem, and indeed marginalize. I am quite aware that people of the same sex can ‘love each other’.
While my best friend was alive, I am certain I loved him, as much as I do my brother, however there was nothing ‘sexual’ about that love. We agree, ‘love’ is not a sin.
That said, the exaggerated way humanity debases its sexuality IS sin; sex with animals, sex within the same gender, sex outside the sanctity of marriage, sex without love and commitment. Of course, the abasement of sex has little to do with love.
Biblically, the sexual principle is clear:
[Gen 2:23] – “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘Woman’ because she was taken out of Man.”
[Gen 2:24] “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother (not his father and father, or mother and mother) and hold fast to his wife and they shall become ONE FLESH”
… also so repeated by Paul in [Eph 5:31].
The sin here (and so the problem) is that people have abandoned the fundamental unit of humanity, “one man and one women as one flesh” for an individualistic, self-centred, hedonistic ‘do what feels right’ view of things, but Paul foresaw this [2 Tim 3:2-5] ” … swollen with conceit ..”.
Although there can be love between members of the same-sex, there should not be the conjoining of flesh. There is no problem with people loving people of what-ever gender. There is a problem calling ‘sin’ – ‘not-a-sin’ and mistaking ‘sex’ for ‘love’.
Have a peaceful day.
.. agreed ..
Blindess – pride will do that … something to pray about.
Ahh, the ‘I denigrate you because I love you’ justification. You should hang out with the Westboro loonies, they use the same morally bankrupt justification for their actions. You can’t even let people share their joy without throwing your judgmental little jabs. Perhaps you should spread that ‘love’ in your garden where it will at least offer some benefit.
Ahh, the ‘I disagree with you so will misrepresent and insult you’ rebuff. Very nice! Typically when someone cannot address the force of what is being said, they shift focus onto the one doing the saying. This is, of course, also a fallacy.
Lets say I took you up on your advice, and went and hung out with the Westboro loonies, let’s also assume that they were indeed morally bankrupt as you claim, in no way would any of this invalidate the basic observations that ‘Love and sex are not the same things” and that mistaking one for the other, or using them as interchangeably in this debate is a common polemic tactic to badger ‘the other side’, or really – just a way to avoid engaging the issue. It also does nothing to show that sexual union between the same sexes is sinful biblically (but of course we all sin regardless of sexual preference, and so the real issue is what do we do about it? Either we deny sin is sin, or we come before God recognizing it.).
See here’s the thing – there are really only two groups, and I’m not speaking about homosexuals and heterosexuals, rather I’m speaking about those who believe and obey God, and those who don’t. Whether or not one is homosexual is not what determine’s which of those two groups a person is in, so that ‘barrier is not of my making’. Rather, the dividing line here is whether or not one believes and obeys God, and this is divisive, but also not of me (it is God decreed). So, I am sure, come the end of days, there will be both homosexual and heterosexuals in that group that is accepted of Christ, but they will only be the ones who deny that ‘sin is acceptable’.
In the mean while, if I take you up on your advice about freedom of association, it may not change the truth of the argument presented above, but it may give me new friends who you can despise and mock. If they are indeed as morally bankrupt as you claim, some good might actually come of such an association since one cannot evangelize to those one despises.
I am a homoromantic Christian gentleman who doesn’t think finding a special same sex someone and settling down with them in a romantic relationship is a sin yet I can see why you would think it is and disagree with your view. I think the difference in our views on Scripture are based in our differing views of how to interpret it. I approach the Bible from the Historical Critical Method measured against my conscience where I determine what is real and what is myth using archeological evidence, scientific evidence, personal conscience, and historical context.
For example, I reject the entirety of Genesis as creation mythos passed down by the Jewish people from their early days having the same use as the story of Gilgamesh and Ekidnu does when understanding the ancient Mesopotamians. As such, using it as the basis of an argument against my “lifestyle” or what have you is ineffective – to me it is a fiction built on a nugget of historical truth, likely detailing the founding of the original Israelites from the two hill tribes that first formed them. Since my view of Scripture is one where I view it as Inspired Truth (or, more precisely, methods to finding your way to it) hidden in a menagerie of man made imperfections and laws, I can see how your view would lead you to your conclusions.
You may view my interpretation as wrong, of course – likely, you do – and if it is I am here with all the other theologians and scholars who have debated this for centuries; God can show up any time and explain to me the proper method of interpretation. If I am wrong then the ball is in His court. It isn’t like I haven’t asked for clarity before only to be met with silence.
I’m glad you are honest that “your” definition of sin is a function of your preferences, and not something or someone apart from you. I’m also glad you recognize how dominate the role ‘your view’ on scripture plays in flavouring how you interpret scripture.
If you agree it is possible, that that which decides sinful from non-sinful behaviour might be something other than our own preference, you can likely conceded that looking to the bible for this standard is not unreasonable.
If you agree that it is possible to treat the bible as a source of knowledge about what constitutes sin or not than the only question that remains is how do we interpret the bible.
Fortunately, and notwithstanding our capacity as humans to lend the greatest weight to our own view points, intellectuals do have interpretive methodologies for judging good from bad interpretations; things such as plain meaning of the text, explanatory power, etc.
You say that God can show up any time and explain it to you, but what if God has already done that in form of witnesses throughout all generations, and you choose to ignore this revelation?
I am not judging homosexuals as sinners, for we are all sinners, and the power of sin is a terrible thing. I pray they be given strength against their temptations as we all must – however the claim that homosexuality was not seen in scripture as a sin never appears in the history of scriptural interpretation, at least not until about 30 years.
The denial that this is sin is a very modern thing. At least of one recognizes it as such, one can repent of it and pray about it, even if one feels powerless to conquer it. But if it isn’t even seen as sin one might refuse to pray about it, and that might be a terrible decision.
“I’m glad you are honest that “your” definition of sin is a function of your preferences, and not something or someone apart from you. I’m also glad you recognize how dominate the role ‘your view’ on scripture plays in flavouring how you interpret scripture.”
I would correct you in saying that it is a function of my conscience and not my romantic preferences. I have many preferences that are, indeed, sinful and I do not allow myself to indulge in these precisely because they violate the Law written on the Heart. Vanity and Pride would be an example of this – a sin many grapple with, I suspect. I would also correct you in saying it is not the dominant factor as conscience without outside influence can be poisoned by rationalization of evil; I do measure it against Scripture. I do believe in Objective Morality and am not one for rationalizations for bad behavior relied on by many of my peers today.
“If you agree it is possible, that that which decides sinful from non-sinful behaviour might be something other than our own preference, you can likely conceded that looking to the bible for this standard is not unreasonable.”
I do concede that and do look to the Bible and other places of that sort for Spiritual guidance. To spit on the tops of the heads of the giants whose shoulders I stand upon to reach where I am today, spiritually, would be an act of unconscionable arrogance.
“If you agree that it is possible to treat the bible as a source of knowledge about what constitutes sin or not than the only question that remains is how do we interpret the bible.
Fortunately, and notwithstanding our capacity as humans to lend the greatest weight to our own view points, intellectuals do have interpretive methodologies for judging good from bad interpretations; things such as plain meaning of the text, explanatory power, etc.”
If your “etc” includes archaeological evidence, historical context in which the words were written, cultural understanding of their implications, and using this as the basis for separating the Biblical wheat from the man-made chaff then I would fully agree.
“You say that God can show up any time and explain it to you, but what if God has already done that in form of witnesses throughout all generations, and you choose to ignore this revelation?”
I could ask the same of you, of course. What if God sent me to you and you ignored me? The big problem with such claims is without extraordinary evidence that these witnesses are right, I am left with many different interpretations still. As such, I measure my interpretation (the Historical Critical Method) as superior because it is unsullied (as is possible) by human hands. If the Matt Slick’s and Rob Gagnon’s of the world want me to abide their more Traditionalist Interpretation then they will have to prove it is superior.
“I am not judging homosexuals as sinners, for we are all sinners, and the power of sin is a terrible thing. I pray they be given strength against their temptations as we all must – however the claim that homosexuality was not seen in scripture as a sin never appears in the history of scriptural interpretation, at least not until about 30 years.”
Homosexuals are sinners, this is true. Homosexuality is not. Appeals to tradition aside, it should be noted that serious archaeological study of the Bible, open interpretation of the text by non-religious people, and a real meeting of Bible scholars hadn’t ever really been done (more 50ish years ago, but that is a non-issue as I get the implication). In truth, many things have come up through history that throw a wrench into the prospect of viewing the Bible through the fundamentalist lens; modern archaeology casting doubt on the Egyptians even owning Jewish slaves, the real father of the Israelites being Solomon (and Abraham most likely being myth), and before the archaeology we had Evolution and Darwinian Theory, and before even this we had the New World filled with Natives (and casting doubt on the veracity of the World Wide Flood of Noah). This concept that the modern world is attacking the Bible and this has never been done before isn’t true, I think. What you see as attacking, I see as a separation of good from bad – an ever growing understanding of Truth.
I feel the Bible itself supports my interpretation as the correct way of doing it. If it were not and the black and white view of the law was most important (more so than our conscience) Jesus had no business claiming the Kingdom of Heaven “was made for ones such as these” (in reference to children). If children are saved by merit of being innately good without being taught this then it means our understanding of the nature of good, evil, and being “Saved” is not complete.
“The denial that this is sin is a very modern thing. At least of one recognizes it as such, one can repent of it and pray about it, even if one feels powerless to conquer it. But if it isn’t even seen as sin one might refuse to pray about it, and that might be a terrible decision.”
The idea that black people don’t live under the Curse of Ham is also a very modern thing. To recognize my homosexuality and romantic attraction to other men as sin I would have to idolize the wisdom of human beings, ignore my conscience entirely, and accept what God has revealed through our growing understanding of our world via science and archaeology as false. That path also seems like it might be a terrible decision.
Thus we arrive at the impasse that Bible Scholars sit at. Are you right? Am I right? I suppose we will find out someday.