I would like to clear some things up. Sometimes if you know something (or if you've done something) and you don't say anything it is interpreted as lying. So here I go.......
There is an old saying that "Silence is Consent". I am posting this so as to be clear that tolerance doesn't mean I am "OK with it" and just because "love covers a multitude of sins" (1st Peter 4:8) doesn't mean that it's ok to pursue sin.
Also warning someone (or reminding them) of danger is not judgment. We humans tend to be quick to respond or react without taking things into consideration like context, history, or a full understanding of the fundamentals of a subject.
For instance people using the slogan "God hates Shrimp" as a response to other people declaring that homosexuality is immoral. The problem with this in that it overlooks the context of the reference. The Levitical law found in the old testament scriptures was given to a particular people at a particular time for a particular reason. It also overlooks the fact that God told them regarding (indirectly) that shrimp, particularly the eating of, "shall be an abomination unto you", not that they "are" an abomination, Lev 11:9-12. Whereas regarding homosexuality in Lev 20:13 it states that they "have committed an abomination". BTW the definition for abomination is: intense aversion or loathing; detest (in case your not clear).
Now I know that many argue that this passage is not referring to "Gay couples" but fornicating singles but that would require supposition, the law also deals with fornication, basically the penalty for fornication is marriage.
Exd 22:16 (and again let me clear up, not all marriage is a penalty. Love you honey. oxox)
The Law (as given to the Hebrew people after God delivered them from Egypt) is good.
Some that read this are now mad at me, maybe you are "gay" and you are thinking "so you think I should be killed?". The answer to that is no, but you have to understand what I am saying, so if you can, please keep reading.
God gave the Law to the Hebrew people to make them the best people possible in the whole world. The healthiest, the wealthiest, the smartest, wisest strongest people among all of the people in the world.
It was also given that we could see that we as fallen humans are not capable of satisfying the requirements of being perfect before God. So when it says to do this or don't do that it's purpose is to show what is the best.
We don't always know how or why but I can tell you that God ALWAYS wants the best for us.
We see in the scriptures themselves that the Law was not executed just as it was laid down. God is a God of mercy and grace and loves us more than we can know in this life. The extreme penalties for some of the laws were meant to reflect the weight of those laws. The purpose being to protect the community as a whole from the effects of the actions not just to punish the actions. We see that rarely were the death penalties laid down ever executed. In the case of king David, he committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband Uriah. According to the Law he should have been executed but God brought him to repentance and he offered sacrifice and did what he could to make things right. And although God accepted David again when he repented, the fruit or results of his sins brought great trouble and hardship not only to him but to all of Israel.
This is the nature of sin. It doesn't just hurt us but those we are connected to as well. There are many sins that we look at and think "Why is that a sin? I don't see what is the harm". But just like a parent that can see danger that a little child cannot, so God is far above and greater than us and knows what is the best for us. We are his creation, he knows what we need to have and be the best that we can. He sees what will do damage to us (individually and collectively).
God created us for a purpose. To be something particular. When we "sin" we miss that purpose or target. This is what the word means. Sin means to err, fail, "to miss the mark". Some may want to take exception with that definition and I agree it may be rather simplistic but not incorrect and fits within the point I am trying to convey here without expanding this entry unduly.
Let me be clear, I have made this entry longer than I planned because, as I am writing, I hear in my mind all of the arguments for things that I am saying and feel compelled to try and answer them as I can but if you have stayed with me this far I would like to to know one thing.
Jesus Christ told us "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men" (Matthew 12:31).
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is this: denying God's Spirit when you encounter the truth and he deals with you about it.
Let me be clear, You might be a drunk or druggie, an adulterer, a homosexual, a whatever... fill in the blank. I will love you (or at least strive to) but that does not mean I think it is OK, No one who loves you wants you to remain in a state that is harmful or keeps you from having or being all that you can.
Jesus says in Revelation 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me".
I guess I will stop here. This entry is too long already.
Please feel free to leave comments but I will not argue with you. This is not a discussion forum. if you wish to make an extended rebuttal please do so on your own blog and leave a comment with a link to it. If you are flat out mean or vulgar I will delete the comment.
For a related earlier post see "From Where I Stand".
For an online bible reference I suggest http://www.blueletterbible.org
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
From where I stand
I have gotten so that I don't say much, mostly because I don't think most of what I have to say matters in the big picture.
I also tend to be "a leaver not a fighter". After a contentious youth I just didn't realize much or any benefit from it (fighting/contention) but after being on Facebook for a while now and having so many of my friends, family, classmates and acquaintances pipe up with opinions on a number of political and religious (and often the two combined) topics some to which I agree and many to which I am adverse. In my silence I began to feel dishonest with my cyber-social peers so I have decided to publish my view on some of the more pronounced topics.
Many people throw the word "Tolerance" around but confuse it with acceptance or even embrace. You tolerate discomfort and people have different levels of tolerance for any given discomfort.
My first issue to address is going to be homosexuality (HS). I have/had quite a few HS friends and family. It has not kept me from caring about and loving them. My views and stances regarding HS has kept me from them, whether by their choice or mine. I would like to cover this is two parts, first religious and secondly civil/political.
Before going any further in this subject I will state for the record "I am the vilest of sinners". If you want to get down to Biblical law, I have broken most all of them. I doubt there is any human being that hasn't violated their own conscience and has done, or not done, what they knew or thought to be right/wrong. Violating that moral value doesn't make that value invalid it simply makes you guilty. (I have to exert effort here not to diverge to far from my primary target lest this whole exercise become too meandering and the whole point lost). All that to let you know I am in no way attempting to justify myself or show myself as being more righteous than someone else.
Now that I have my preamble out of the way let me say that I became a "born again" follower of Jesus Christ in August of 1981. I believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is the primary way we are able to know the living God and Creator of all things. If you are tempted to stop reading here and presume upon the rest of what I have to say I ask that you please tolerate me a bit further.
The problem as I see it with many peoples view of the scriptures is that it is taken piece-meal when it needs to be viewed as a whole. Jesus Christ is the same God that gave Moses the Law. The Law was given to show us our need. Jesus came to supply that need.
Many people talk where the Bible is silent and are silent when the Bible speaks. This causes a lot of trouble. As for my main focus here the Bible says very little about HS.
The first direct reference is found in the book Leviticus, chapter 20 verse 13; "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them".
It also gives the same penalty for adultery and cursing your parents, I don't say that to diminish anything but to draw perspective to those who make such a greater deal of HS than another sin.
A popular defense for HS is that it is the natural state of a person at birth and therefore should be as acceptable as any other feature a person possess, like blue eyes or brown hair.
In the beginning God created Man and Woman and placed them in a garden and instructed them to tend to it. They were created to eat. They ate fruits and vegetables of every kind. God told them to not eat a particular fruit from a particular tree and told them that they would die if they did. Many people have tried to explain the whys and wherefores of Gods command and the result but outside of what the Bible actually tells us it is speculation and boils down to the bare fact that God said "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat".
Eating fruit was a natural desire and the Bible tells us that the forbidden fruit was desirable (Genesis 3 verse 6, "the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make [one] wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate").
What mattered here is that God told them not to do something, even something that was natural to them and when they did it was sin and caused death.
(Here again is an opportunity to rabbit trail off subject and pursue questions other than the topic of this writing, please bear with me and lets keep it here for now).
I personally do not believe that HS is a genetic trait contained in the chromosomes and RNA/DNA that forms the basis of who we are at a physical level. I do see that people are born with varying degrees of masculinity and femininity that could influence behavior. I know far too many HS that follow a pattern of environment (classic over-protective mother and emotionally unavailable father, having been raped/molested) for it to be just a genetic coincidence.
Beside all of that there are many "natural" behaviors that if followed and unchecked are harmful. Promiscuity is a natural behavior but is is also harmful.
In the New Testament scriptures the only reference I have seen regarding HS is found in the book of Romans chapter 1 verse 25 through 27:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
The context of this being those who deny the knowledge of God and turn to idolatry. Idolatry being referred to in the Bible as more than just worship of icons/statues/avatars.
I have heard argument that this is only referring to "perversion" as opposed to a wholesome loving relationship that most homosexual couples claim but in the light of what little scripture reference there is regarding HS then I feel that explanation is stretching the context and intent.
There is what I consider a very good representation of debate on the issue that I found at the following site:
http://www.christianadvice.net/homosexuality_and_the_bible1.htm
I personally agree with Dr. Ulrich Mauser. I find Dr. Walter Wink's argument extremely weak especially as he seems to think that the scriptures, starting with the Levitical Law, was/is simply the construct of an ancient society of men and not inspired by God. Acknowledging that in Christ we are not bound by the technicalities of the Law it still stands as a point of reference as to the mind of God. Keeping in mind that this Law was given to a particular people for a particular purpose. If that (Dr. Wink's view) is so then all we know of Christ is also simply the fabrication of an archaic culture, a mold into which it sought to pour it's decedents and proselytes, in order to form what it perceived as ordered civilization. If that is true the there are no morals to be bound by at all and the whole act of debating the point is useless.
As for the purely civil application, the recognition of same sex couples; I think that anyone should have the liberty to designate any other person they chose to be their legal/personal representative in any and all matters (legal/medical/financial) which from a civil/legal perspective is all that marriage is; it is the binding of two entities in a contractual responsibility toward each other. As far as issue of tax code goes, I think they should just tax everyone the same regardless of marital status or dependents but if there were no loopholes or complexity it would be to hard to control people or exploit for profit; but I digress.
Insurance coverage issues are a whole other nest of hornets. Insurance is a business, if it is not profitable it goes out of business. HS men are considered high risk and to extend that risk by including a HS spouse is seen as bad business. I don't have numbers and don't want to get into if it holds up statistically or not but insurance like the stock market has as much to do with perception as much as (maybe more so) reality. You would think that if there was profit to be made insuring same sex couples like traditional spouses they would be all over it.
So if your still reading......
In summation:
If I tolerate same sex marriage I should also be afforded the same tolerance of my not supporting a homosexual union.
God does ask difficult things from us.
Jesus did not abolish or negate the Law he satisfied/fulfilled it.
Jesus said "This is my commandment that you love one another".
Sometimes love says "no".
I also tend to be "a leaver not a fighter". After a contentious youth I just didn't realize much or any benefit from it (fighting/contention) but after being on Facebook for a while now and having so many of my friends, family, classmates and acquaintances pipe up with opinions on a number of political and religious (and often the two combined) topics some to which I agree and many to which I am adverse. In my silence I began to feel dishonest with my cyber-social peers so I have decided to publish my view on some of the more pronounced topics.
Many people throw the word "Tolerance" around but confuse it with acceptance or even embrace. You tolerate discomfort and people have different levels of tolerance for any given discomfort.
My first issue to address is going to be homosexuality (HS). I have/had quite a few HS friends and family. It has not kept me from caring about and loving them. My views and stances regarding HS has kept me from them, whether by their choice or mine. I would like to cover this is two parts, first religious and secondly civil/political.
Before going any further in this subject I will state for the record "I am the vilest of sinners". If you want to get down to Biblical law, I have broken most all of them. I doubt there is any human being that hasn't violated their own conscience and has done, or not done, what they knew or thought to be right/wrong. Violating that moral value doesn't make that value invalid it simply makes you guilty. (I have to exert effort here not to diverge to far from my primary target lest this whole exercise become too meandering and the whole point lost). All that to let you know I am in no way attempting to justify myself or show myself as being more righteous than someone else.
Now that I have my preamble out of the way let me say that I became a "born again" follower of Jesus Christ in August of 1981. I believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is the primary way we are able to know the living God and Creator of all things. If you are tempted to stop reading here and presume upon the rest of what I have to say I ask that you please tolerate me a bit further.
The problem as I see it with many peoples view of the scriptures is that it is taken piece-meal when it needs to be viewed as a whole. Jesus Christ is the same God that gave Moses the Law. The Law was given to show us our need. Jesus came to supply that need.
Many people talk where the Bible is silent and are silent when the Bible speaks. This causes a lot of trouble. As for my main focus here the Bible says very little about HS.
The first direct reference is found in the book Leviticus, chapter 20 verse 13; "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them".
It also gives the same penalty for adultery and cursing your parents, I don't say that to diminish anything but to draw perspective to those who make such a greater deal of HS than another sin.
A popular defense for HS is that it is the natural state of a person at birth and therefore should be as acceptable as any other feature a person possess, like blue eyes or brown hair.
In the beginning God created Man and Woman and placed them in a garden and instructed them to tend to it. They were created to eat. They ate fruits and vegetables of every kind. God told them to not eat a particular fruit from a particular tree and told them that they would die if they did. Many people have tried to explain the whys and wherefores of Gods command and the result but outside of what the Bible actually tells us it is speculation and boils down to the bare fact that God said "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat".
Eating fruit was a natural desire and the Bible tells us that the forbidden fruit was desirable (Genesis 3 verse 6, "the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make [one] wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate").
What mattered here is that God told them not to do something, even something that was natural to them and when they did it was sin and caused death.
(Here again is an opportunity to rabbit trail off subject and pursue questions other than the topic of this writing, please bear with me and lets keep it here for now).
I personally do not believe that HS is a genetic trait contained in the chromosomes and RNA/DNA that forms the basis of who we are at a physical level. I do see that people are born with varying degrees of masculinity and femininity that could influence behavior. I know far too many HS that follow a pattern of environment (classic over-protective mother and emotionally unavailable father, having been raped/molested) for it to be just a genetic coincidence.
Beside all of that there are many "natural" behaviors that if followed and unchecked are harmful. Promiscuity is a natural behavior but is is also harmful.
In the New Testament scriptures the only reference I have seen regarding HS is found in the book of Romans chapter 1 verse 25 through 27:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
The context of this being those who deny the knowledge of God and turn to idolatry. Idolatry being referred to in the Bible as more than just worship of icons/statues/avatars.
I have heard argument that this is only referring to "perversion" as opposed to a wholesome loving relationship that most homosexual couples claim but in the light of what little scripture reference there is regarding HS then I feel that explanation is stretching the context and intent.
There is what I consider a very good representation of debate on the issue that I found at the following site:
http://www.christianadvice.net/homosexuality_and_the_bible1.htm
I personally agree with Dr. Ulrich Mauser. I find Dr. Walter Wink's argument extremely weak especially as he seems to think that the scriptures, starting with the Levitical Law, was/is simply the construct of an ancient society of men and not inspired by God. Acknowledging that in Christ we are not bound by the technicalities of the Law it still stands as a point of reference as to the mind of God. Keeping in mind that this Law was given to a particular people for a particular purpose. If that (Dr. Wink's view) is so then all we know of Christ is also simply the fabrication of an archaic culture, a mold into which it sought to pour it's decedents and proselytes, in order to form what it perceived as ordered civilization. If that is true the there are no morals to be bound by at all and the whole act of debating the point is useless.
As for the purely civil application, the recognition of same sex couples; I think that anyone should have the liberty to designate any other person they chose to be their legal/personal representative in any and all matters (legal/medical/financial) which from a civil/legal perspective is all that marriage is; it is the binding of two entities in a contractual responsibility toward each other. As far as issue of tax code goes, I think they should just tax everyone the same regardless of marital status or dependents but if there were no loopholes or complexity it would be to hard to control people or exploit for profit; but I digress.
Insurance coverage issues are a whole other nest of hornets. Insurance is a business, if it is not profitable it goes out of business. HS men are considered high risk and to extend that risk by including a HS spouse is seen as bad business. I don't have numbers and don't want to get into if it holds up statistically or not but insurance like the stock market has as much to do with perception as much as (maybe more so) reality. You would think that if there was profit to be made insuring same sex couples like traditional spouses they would be all over it.
So if your still reading......
In summation:
If I tolerate same sex marriage I should also be afforded the same tolerance of my not supporting a homosexual union.
God does ask difficult things from us.
Jesus did not abolish or negate the Law he satisfied/fulfilled it.
Jesus said "This is my commandment that you love one another".
Sometimes love says "no".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
