A student recently asked me for some advice about how to defend same-sex marriage biblically to people who insist that the Bible is against it. My basic response to such questions is, "Don't."
First of all, there is no "the Bible." It is a collection of texts spanning millennia, recounted orally for centuries in multiple languages, finally written down in Greek and Hebrew by countless anonymous authors over the span of several more centuries, then further collected and translated into hundreds more languages in hundreds of stylistic versions. What we think of as the Christian Bible thus encompasses different things for Catholics, the Orthodox and Protestants. And second, there was no such thing as a "homosexual" identity or same-sex marriage when the various parts of the Bible were written (despite what some English translations say), so they can offer no explicit direction about it.
But putting such details aside, the Bible does, in fact, present a consistently disapproving picture of men having sex with men, or women having sex with women. Hebrew Scripture makes it clear that the job of human beings is to "be fruitful and multiply," which necessitates genital contact between males and females. The Christian testament is much more ambivalent about the usefulness of genetic multiplication, but Paul's letters nevertheless make it crystal clear that he saw male-male or female-female sex as something for pagan idolaters, not for Christian Jews or Christian Greeks. There are some fairly complicated and sophisticated theologians who make the case that Paul's arguments about God working "against nature" might allow for same-sex marriage, but these interpretations surely fail to persuade thinkers who prioritize the plainest meaning of scripture.
This begs the question as to why we care what Paul thought, or would think, about same-sex marriage. Yes, Christians consider the Bible (whichever version they prefer) to be the inspired word of God, useful for teaching and training in righteousness. But Paul lived 2,000 -- TWO THOUSAND -- years ago (Moses another 2,000 before that), in what might as well have been a galaxy far, far away. Why, then, is it so important that biblical writers agree with us?
Most Christians today disagree with and openly disobey the Bible every single day: We see slavery as a crime against humanity, lend and borrow money at interest, don't force our raped daughters to marry their rapists, wear mixed fibers, don't cover our heads, eat bacon and sometimes even mix it with cheese, and -- perhaps most shockingly, given its high priority in the Big Ten -- trample the holiness of the Sabbath with reckless abandon. (Fans of "The West Wing" will remember similar observations beautifully immortalized by Jed Bartlett.) A few authors have recently conducted high-profile experiments in living biblically and found it to be much more difficult than many "Bible-believing Christians" would have us believe.
Christians with a more nuanced understanding of biblical authority may find a different type of biblical support for the dignity of same-sex marriage, such as in Genesis chapter 1, when God creates human beings "in our own image"; or from Paul's argument that, while celibacy is the ideal for Christians, "it is better to marry than to burn." And then there are always the overly generalized love-not-hate kinds of arguments. But all of these approaches take for granted that biblical rules can no longer be taken at face value. It is utterly futile to imagine that the biblical writers would be pleased with the concept of men marrying men or women marrying women -- akin to arguing that the founding fathers of these United States would be excited to see women and African Americans voting and serving in congress. They probably wouldn't. But so what?
Those folks, those human beings, were ahead of their time in many ways, and we can be deeply grateful that they pooled the best of their wisdom together for the benefit of posterity. But like it or not, even the most inspired human authors are still only human; not only did our intellectual and spiritual ancestors get some stuff dead wrong, but they also never thought of many of the questions that we have to deal with. When such questions arise, we must courageously stand in our own time, trusting that inspiration and wisdom are renewable resources (that "God is still speaking," as one church puts it, even if some of us do have longstanding tradition on our side).
We must also accept that others in the future will surely decide that we, too, were wrong.
Follow Kate Blanchard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@blanchard_kate
Rev. Susan Russell: And Here's to You, Bishop Robinson
Mikah Meyer: Slapping Gay Christians in the Face
Remy M. Maisel: Please Stop Trying to Convert Me
You are correct about the neglect that many Christians today have for the Bible and many sin and feel redeemed by going to Church on Sunday and contributing a few dollars to the collection. Their sins are equally weighed. Sin is sin, there are no grey areas. Our perception of morality and political correctness is likely very different from how an omnipotent and eternal entity would view it.
To be Christian is not to hate or cause hate. It is to spread the word of G-d and his teachings, to turn those who sin away from it so that they might be saved.
"For the wages of sin is death" - Romans 6:23.
Christians acting accordingly aren't hating, they are expressing concern for you in what is to come.
To make my point clearer. Fornication is also a sin.
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" - 1 Corinthians 6:9
If a Christian is hating homosexuals because it is a sin then they are hating a lot of heterosexuals as well.
To end, your response with "Don't" was good. It is the simplest and correct answer since there is no such thing as acceptable sin.
I've just finished reading Kate Blanchard's blog with interest and I have also finished reading all of the comments posted by a large number of readers. All I can say is that Ms. Blanchard's blog has certainly stirred up a hornet's nest!
The one thing that I have taken away from this blog is in her opening remarks, " My basic response to such questions is, "Don't.""
Speaking strictly for myself, I feel pretty strongly that to attempt to engage in a dialogue with someone on the question of homosexuality whose arguments are based solely on quotations from the modern version of the Christian Bible is a complete and total waste of energy. It's an argument that cannot be won, even by the most knowledgeable of biblical scholars.
The other thing that I took away from the blog was, "But all of these approaches take for granted that biblical rules can no longer be taken at face value."
Regardless of one's perception of what "the Bible" actually is, it is the basic foundation of what is generally accepted as "moral" on this planet (i.e., It is wrong to steal, to kill, to lie, etc.) Even atheists and agnostics live by those precepts. Once we get past "the big 10", however, things begin to get a little murky.
i made no mention of "Old" or "New"
Jesus said “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18)
"It is a collection of texts spanning millennia, recounted orally for centuries in multiple languages, finally written down in Greek and Hebrew by countless anonymous authors over the span of several more centuries, then further collected and translated into hundreds more languages in hundreds of stylistic versions."
Everything she writes there is factually correct. But I would also add that some of the texts are in Aramaic as well.
reality would stipulate snakes don't talk
people are not born of virgins
and people don't disappear when they die...
yup, it's fiction alright
Reading the Bible is like watching that movie, "The Life of Brian", when Moses comes down from the Mountain with three stone tablets with commandments on them. "I bring you 15......15 commandments." then drops one tablet, "10, 10 commandments."
However, by the time of Jesus the world population had grown to 231 million (7 million were Jews). This growth cannot be explained by God´s message to “go forth and multiply” as this phrase was only known by less than 5% of the world´s population (the Jews) throughout this time span.
Jesus never said that all the old has passed away, it was Saint Paul. According to the Bible Jesus said “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18) but most Christians ignore these laws today.
In Sodom and Gomorrah God killed everyone including innocent babies and pregnant women (does He approve of abortion?). He also slaughtered all the innocent first-born Egyptians and even agonizingly drowned the whole world except for 1 family and a few animals (2 or 7?). All the innocent babies plus the animals died (did the fish drown?).
Reading the Bible is more like watching that a horror movie where the monster enjoys murder, blood sacrifice, torture, and the smell of burning flesh.
Every Christian has to struggle against sinful desires, sexual or whatever they may be. Its part of the Christian life and part of becoming more Christ-like and sanctified. So then any Christian with a desire towards same sex sexual activity is to not engage and seek God for relief. Same for any other kind of sin. You seek God for victory over these inclinations until your recieve it. Its not easy, who said it was? You dont give up give in and rewrite the Bible to tell you your partiuclar sins is actually ok with God, in order to avoid having to struggle with it
It's not only about a desire for toward same sex activity, it's a about who we innately are, our predisposition. While you have no attraction/feelings/emotions/love for a person of the same sex, we do not have any attraction/feelings/emotions/love for a person of the opposiate sex.
No one is rewriting the Bible again that has been rewritten thousands of times with pour translations by men who did it to appease there way of thinking.
The Bible does not say one word about sexual relations in a same sex relationship.
Christ never said one word about homosexuality. He did talk a lot about love. And he talked about divorce and yet most Christians have no real problem with divorce. See they, might need divorce one day. So we will ignore that sin. Oh how hypocritical. One reason I left the church. I don't need a church to have a realtionship with Christ who loves me for who I am. Eternally.
The Bible doesn't say one word FOR sexual relations in a same sex relationship, but it does stand to reason that if it says the mere act of sex between same sex people is prohibited any relationship is as well.
Jesus never spoke about incest or many other things we wouldn't support. Appealing to the fact that other Christians sin(divorce) doesn't validate this issue, hypocritical or not.
Sure you don't if you make up your own rules, that's not something Jesus supported. Jesus was part God and even he went to church.
No.
"You dont give up give in and rewrite the Bible to tell you your partiuclar sins is actually ok with God, in order to avoid having to struggle with it "
Bearing false witness is a sin. Please repent.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon: "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim. The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel – notwithstanding that they were both eunuchs.
...why would he defile himself for sex outside of marriage? (between he and a woman, of course; people were stoned for adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and fornication {sex outside of marriage)
God would not have used a "defiled vessel" to work miracles through; use to interpret dreams and visions or give prophecy-information declaring future events.
Daniel was a holy man of God, with deep convictions who knew and LIVED the bible or the laws of God from his youth up. That's one reason why God used him to perform these miracles through.
What you and most don't understand is that there's favor and love that comes with serving God. (You also have your haters, but that comes with the territory.) The favor and the love is described like this, "It's something about this guy that I like, I don't know exactly what is, but he's different or special...I like his attitude, his confidence, his charisma, his charm, his abilities...I'm going to show him mercy and special favor because I like him"...in a non-sexual way.
God, (HIMSELF) brought Daniel into favour with the prince of the eunuchs.. because Daniel was a servant of God and God had a purpose... not only Daniel but for every Jewish person and the Body of Believers.
Ironic that few if any BIblical scholars ever define that passage in that way. Gay proponents in the Bible try to paste homosexuality on almost any two straight people in the Bible.David(of lusting after Bathsheba and dozens of wives fame) and Jonathan, Naomi (who was previously married and had sons which is where Ruth came in, and then remarried and had another child) and Ruth. Sorry the shoe doesn't fit.
Besides if that were the case with it why wouldn't the author a professor of religious studies have made that case? She rightfully admits the Bible does speak out against it and properly tells those who seek support from it, to stop trying. On that point I completely agree with her.
Your denial doesn't accomplish anything. You are arguing from circular reasoning.
"What you and most don't understand is that there's favor and love that comes with serving God."
Bearing false witness, which happens a lot in your posts, means that you are, as you put it, a "defiled vessel". That means that God, according to you, cannot be working through your posts.
Bear in mind, you personally teach something that destroys human lives and drives people away from God. According to Christ, the evil fruit of 'homosexuality is sin' proves that those who teach it, like you, are false teachers.
David and Jonathan had loved each other as friends. The basis of their love was not lust, it was a shared and mutual love and deovtion for God that both shared. But gays like to dirty up that relationship too swearing it was sexual
Disgusting and pathetic
Samuel I 18:1 "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
Now you are suggesting that David had sex with his brother-in-law;
which would be shunned upon even in today's society.
and the ending of that story...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
Wow ,do you actually think she was having a lesbian relationship with her mother-in-law?
And on top of it , you believe God blessed them while they engaged in this "union"?
SMH...even this Godless, secular society of today would have a problem with that type of a relationship, let alone God...think before you type.
Cheeky little things, are they not?