Pastor Challenges Presbyterian Ban On Gay Unions

mrw142,

Well and good, then. Obviously, I have nothing to say either way about a specifically Christian text.

However, don't you see, as a lawyer, that the law must be interpreted in light of the "legislative history" (so to speak) behind it? Even God apparently changes the rules when the reason for the rule disappears.

Do not mistake me here. If someone actually required me to defend Jewish Gay marriage against the Leviticus ban, I don't think I could do it. The arguments I have heard heard have been less than compelling. But I think it's intellectually dishonest to point to the line in KJV and huff, "God said so and that settles it." which is, frankly, what I think I hear from some folks.

 

I don't want to be one of those narrow-minds, but if one accepts the Bible as inspired by God--and I do, from Genesis to Revelations--then I don't think it's particularly out-of-line to say: "God said, ergo I'd better follow it." Now if your premise is that God doesn't exist or that if He does, He had little or nothing to do with the 66 books that I call "Bible", then of course, nothing there will convince, that text wouldn't be authoritative--I wouldn't expect it to--for one who didn't believe in its veracity.

Read the Bible honestly; take a look and tell me if applying standard textual interpretation, like you would to a law, a case or a constitution, if there aren't portions that come across very clearly as parables, others very clearly as edicts and mandates, some as literature, some as poetry, etc. etc. Just because not all of the Bible is in edict form, does not mean it should all be spun into some vague parable with only the vaguest of references to human behavior. It's simply not written that way--and I'll bet that your upbringing in the Hebrew texts has given you enough knowledge to demonstrate this to you--we muust take it as its written. Clear mandates are to be taken as such, vague parables as such, otherwise, you're not following any coherent method of legal textual interpretation.

Please take this in the best of lights, you know I still have highest regards for you!

 

I basically agree with you, Tolstoy. I guess that a lot depends on how one reads the Bible, and ultimately on what one thinks that the Bible really is.

The theologically conservative approach, which is dominant here on Degreeinfo, treats the book as if it were a transcription of God's own word. When the Bible speaks, God speaks. All parts of the Bible have equal authority, except when Paul says otherwise. Period.

But another view that I've seen widely expressed (not on this board though), is that the Bible was written by men, over a period of centuries, and reflects the ancient Hebrews' growing understanding of, and relationship with, their God. On this view the Bible is a semi-historical record of faith and religious ideas over time. A believing Christian would read that history as man's response to real actual divine revelation.

A theologically liberal Christian would likely accept that the Bible is the work of man, hence inevitably limited in that sense. That's actually explicit in the "higher Biblical criticism" that evangelicals so often reject.

What the Christian liberals might want to embrace is the direction of change that the Bible shows ancient man's understanding taking under God's continuing guidance. These non-evangelical Christians may hope personally to participate in that movement and to continue on in that same direction themselves, today.

 

The Bible was written by 40 different people over the course of approximately 15 centuries in three different continents; it was written by people from vastly different stations in life: kings, celebrated scholars, slaves in exile, blue-collar laborers and fishermen; it was written in three different languages.

Any yet, when one reads it thoughtfully from cover-to-cover (takes about three years) what one is left with is the singular notion that it's a perfect unity--not at all about the growing development of a mythology by primitive men, but about a God who chose to reveal himself over time to a people He loved. The stories of the Hebrew scriptures are sublime: read the story of Joseph or Esther and be struck by the subtle irony, the twists that would make O. Henry's jaw drop; read the poetry of the Psalmist and Solomon in Song of Songs and tell me if Browning is but a pale reflection. Look at the prophecy: the startling revelations of Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53 vis-a-vis the crucifixion of Messiah (apologies to Nosborne48), the startling similarity between the Messiah's crucifixion and the story of the Passover, and recognize that these are but a few prophecies among dozens that the Messiah fulfilled; recognize that this Bible--written as it was by so many different people, different places, different times--fits together like the tightest of interlocking puzzles.

The only ones who would interpret it as a confused ramble, primitive man's struggle to fashion some meaning out of their existence, are either liberal scholars who know it only as a scientist who dissects, oblivious to the whole of the organism and its function, or those who are largely ignorant of it, knowing only a smattering here or there, some of what they perceive being true and some being popular misconception.

 

mrw,

No apologies necessary, of course not, but doesn't the suspicion occasionally creep into your doubting lawyer's mind that the later books may have been written with precisely that idea in mind? Doesn't even JESUS sometimes do things exactly for the purpose of fulfilling some prophecy or other?

I admit here that my view of TANAKH is almost exactly the one outlined by BillDayson: a human document reflecting the semi-historical cultural and legal development of the Hebrews over time. This is NOT to say the Bible is therefore like all other books; plainly it reflects the beliefs and customs of the Jews in each succeeding period. Surely it is also the expression of the encounter between that people and God thoughout history.

Torah is something separate and apart, which is, BTW, a fairly good translation of kadosh, which is generally rendered "holy" in English. It is entitled to great respect and deference as the ancient source of our living world. But I see no reason to accept the traditional idea that God dictated it to Moses. Not even all Orthodox believe that, BTW.

 

Hi Nosborne,

I just want to say that I really enjoy reading your posts and think that you are a great person. Your posts in this thread actually remind me of a very funny letter that was sent to Dr. Laura, and thats now circulating the net.

http://users.adelphia.net/~jimswanson/DrLaura.htm

I find it very amusing how a lot of people pick and choose specific parts of the bible in-order to justify their own prejudice. I personally take the bible with a grin of slat, and live my life by following the golden rule.

 

Perhaps we, as a society, are wrong.

 

Maybe. Perhaps religion should evolve and adapt to society instead of the other way around.

 

Of course it does, but there are so many things about which Messiah had no control, such as his place of birth, the town in which he grew up, his method of death, the events surrounding his death, etc,--each of these is a fulfillment of a prophecy contained in the Hebrew scriptures, and the Messiah fulfills many more--about 50 prophecies in all by very conservative estimates.

Many of these prophecies were fulfilled by those who had no notion whatever what they were doing, and no incentive to fake, such as the Roman sodiers who cast lots for His clothing at His feet--surely these very real, probably very earthy men who were merely trying to grab hold of a very valuable relic from a famous, soon-to-be-gone celebrity (and perhaps turn a quick profit) would've been astonished to know that they were fulfilling a prophecy made by a long-dead king (who probably didn't even know his words were prophetic, he likely just thought they made for catchy lyrics) some 10 centuries before!

Nosborne, the more you get into it, it's just too much to be cooincidence--it's absolutely astonishing, even to my skeptical lawyer's mind. And yes, you've pegged me, my wife views me as the ultimate skeptic, as do friends--and I am.

Here are three of my favorite "cool things" in the Bible.

1). My Bible has 66 books, 39 written by Jews before Messiah, 27 written by Jews after Messiah. Isaiah, who I'm sure you consider one of the greatest--if not the greatest--of major prophets, has similarly been partitioned into 66 chapters (I grant this was done by man, but the chapter breaks make perfect sense in light of the text). As you look at the composition of Isaiah, certain striking things emerge. The first 39 chapters deal primarily with God's judgment (as do in large part, the first 39 books of the Bible), the final 27 His redemption (like the last 27 books of the Bible). When you look at chapter 40 in Isaiah, it seems remarkably to coiincide with Matthew, the 40th book of the Bible, and the start of that 40th chapter contains a prophecy that's remarkably reminiscent of Matthew--check it out for yourself.

2). The Bible contains over 1,100 total chapters. The exact center chapter, the 118th Psalm, is bounded by the shortest chapter (117) and the longest (119)--quite a coincidence! Again, the Bible was put together by various councils throughout centuries, by Jews before Messiah and after; its final form that we have today was voted upon by those who had distanced themselves from the Jews. And yet, through all these centuries and the intervention of fallible man, we have these astonishing patterns emerging--of which the various councils were likely not aware, and in any event would not likely have been able to manipulate.

3). The Passover was probably the pivotal moment in Jewish history--if you celebrate it you know the story well: the angel of death passed over those houses in Egypt upon which the blood of a perfect, unblemished lamb was daubed to the two sides of the doorway and the top, and Jews were specifically told to pour that blood in the basin (bottom) of the doorway. This blood would very closely approximate the four points of a diamond shape--and that is what protected them from death and God's wrath. Moving forward about 1500 years, we have Messiah, who was hung on a cross with his head, feet and wrists pierced (pierced like your matzah--the Lord even laid out Jewish diets to point to Messiah), that blood precisely mirroring that diamond shape. And Messiah of course was called the unblemished, perfect lamb, who protects us from death and God's wrath. And Roman crucifixion is a historical fact, the method by which Messiah was sacrificed was not the creation of a small band of Chistians to bolster their arguments.

There is a subtelty to it all that does not bear the fingerprints of man, even though many men took part in putting this book together, there's a fitting together and a clarity that astonishes if you just look into it with open mind and heart. By the way, this is merely scratching the surface, these parallels and "coincidences" are turning up all the time, scholars are discovering new ones as they dive into the original Hebrew, it's very exciting.

I implore you to take a look at the Bible to which I refer, reread those non-Torah and prophetic books, look into what I call the New Testament, and email my dear friend Dr. Lois Tverberg, who holds a PhD in Molecular Biology from the University of Iowa, is a former college professor, and gives me a serious run for skeptic of the year--she's the Exec Director of the En-Gedi Resource Center, an organization based in Michigan. She's one of the scholars researching this, and her skepticism, like mine, is gradually waning.

http://www.en-gedi.org

[email protected]

The best to you my Jewish friend! Next year in Jerusalem!

 

Tolstoy: if religion is about truth, then it should do anything but; if religion's not about truth, then it's a damnable lie and should be utterly disregarded. In either event, your comment misses the mark.

 

To Jimmy Clifton, greetings!

I do agree with you that no one is perfect, other wise Christ would not have to die for our sins.

However, just because we are all imperfect, including Christians, that is no excuse for the blatant disregard to the true scriptural teachings concerning homosexuality and homosexual marriage, with in the Christian Church.

The Apostles themselves were sinners, and yet, what were their teachings concerning this subject?
Other wise why were the scriptures written in the first place, and then perserved throughtout Church history? Romans 15:4

Some ones political agenda, especially from a Christian, should not nullify the authority of the word of God, for if the scriptural doctrines were good enough for the early Church, why is it not good enough for the Church today?

Rich Hartel

A.A. in Theological Studies, Trinity College of the Bible (present)

 

Good post, Rich (How are things at Trinity?).

My point is simply why select one sin on which to focus? I would rather see the attention and monies spent on fighting abortion, physical (and sexual) child abuse, spousal abuse, addictions, etc. These cause real harm to individuals and damage many of the victims for life.

Again, it's a matter of the "beam and splinter" verse.

 

I'm on Jimmy's side, while the Bible's unequivocal on the issue of sexual sin and we aren't to soft sell it, Jesus was far less tolerant of the pharasaic sin of thinking that you're better than the sinner down the street that he was of sexual sin--he called the former sinners whitewashed tombs and snakes and sons of snakes, he extended love to latter group--saving them from the stones of the pharisees--and told them to "go and sin no more".

I think Jimmy's comment is true to Christ's intent; I don't think he's trying to wink at sin. Just my opinion, but I appreciate your comments Rich, we'd probably agree on 95/100 po.ints

 

To Jimmy,

I agree with everything you said, these are things that the Church should be addressing.

I am focusing on this particular subject, because in my opion if the Church starts to ignore it's Biblical doctrines and historical teachings, then how can the Church truly address other issues if they don't have the direction by which I believe Christ set down in writting for the Church to follow.

This is more than just talking about homosexuality, so I hope I've made some sense?!

And as far as Trinity is going, it's going well, but slowly. But I'm not going any were, so I don't mind if takes me longer than most people to finish!

Blessings in Christ,

Rich Hartel

A.A. in Theological Studies, Trinity College of the Bible (present)

 

To mrw142, greetings,

I to agree with Jimmy, my problem is not so much with homosexuals, they to need the love of Christ, as we all do.

However, I think it would be a dangerous road that Church would go down if it starts to ignore it's holy foundation, the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

If the Church does except homosexual marriages and ignores the scriptural teachings on it, then what?

The scriptures were written for a reason, to give the Church the authority, direction and doctrine to address correctly such issues.

I do agree, we would probably agree on most things!

Blessings in Christ,

Rich Hartel

A.A. in Theological Studies, Trinity College of the Bible (present)