Rainbow Sherbert

Twice this was brought up to me this week in a debate and even though I already answered it in different ways here on my blog, twice it's still got thrown in my face like they had something. The snort is "man and woman becoming one flesh." And this PROVES it can only be a man and only a woman.

I'll now give my ice cream analogy to show what isn't stated, isn't automatically prohibited.

If a man talks about vanilla ice cream, that's doesn't mean he thinks strawberry ice cream is a bad flavor, he just didn't talk strawberry ice cream (let's say vanilla was first and strawberry wasn't created yet). Now if this same man specifically stated; "Vanilla ice cream is a good flavor AND strawberry ice cream is a bad flavor," you could can say, without question, strawberry ice cream is a bad flavor. But you only believe strawberry ice cream is a bad flavor just because it isn't vanilla ice cream. Making a flavor bad when it isn't even mentioned.

Now I want ice cream.

Fishes and Furs and Danny Trejo

 

A common challenge brought up by the anti-gay religious goes like this; "Show me a gay relationship in the Bible or anything that affirms it?" 

First, you are asking me to prove what isn't written, what you believe is proving your point in some way if I can't. I'll turn it around and show me a clear chapter and verse stating; "Man and woman becoming one flesh AND ALL ELSE IS NOT ALLOWABLE." The burden of proof is on you to show me they aren't allowed, with what isn't written, because YOU are the one saying these gay relationships are forbidden from the start. You'll then have to admit you're making the Genesis narrative that was only a narrative into a Biblical edict for every man and woman to follow, forever, and reading between the lines of Matthew 19 what isn't there with making up a Biblical prohibition out of a Biblical silence. The Bible is also silent on the early Bible patriarch's practice of having concubines, historically arranged marriages without love or heterosexual anal sex.

Second, In situations like these when there is Biblical silence on a topic, what is either permissible or what is not permissible to us with iffy borders, it should be decided by the test if it breaks the Royal Law of love or if it harms, hurts, or exploits. Fur-wearing and fish hatcheries are two examples the Bible says nothing about but is clear with what we are to decide on it. Fur-wearing caters to one's vanity, it's also a status symbol of the rich that gives a bad message to unbelievers when Jesus was no fan of the rich, not to mention the horrific conditions these animals live in that make us not good shepherds over these creatures. This is not a permissible practice. Fish hatcheries give a chance for a fish population to grow from the greed of overharvesting, it's good for the environment, nothing is harmed or exploited, this is being a good shepherd over these creatures. This is permissible practice. Gay relationships hurt or harm no one with two people finding loving companionship. No one is exploited, or forced, and the rule of Royal Law is kept. This is permissible. 

3rd, We as Christians have been given the power by Christ to "Bind" or to "Loose" (Matt. 16:19) on subjects coming before respective Church leaders, subjects the churches have never needed to address before when a judgment call needed to be made. What is decided by them with these subjects on Earth, Heaven will respect. This autonomy was given to the Jews (Matt. 23:3), and Christ gave it to the Christian elders who sit at the "Seat of Moses" with the body of believers they lead in agreement (Acts 15:22). 

When church bodies decide the affirmative on issues of homosexuality only now coming before them (acceptance, marriage, ordination), it is loosed in Heaven. Some church bodies still "bind" on homosexuality and that is fine, they have that power on Earth that WILL be respected in Heaven, but this is not binding to those church bodies that loose acceptance. As far as I know, I'm the only one who put this little apologetics gem in relevance to the Church with homosexuality. Let someone else run with it in more depth.

The Bible is clear that marriage was made for us, not us made for the "institution" of marriage. 

Scholar James Brownson on Gagnon's "Gender Complementarity"

Reviews of Brownson's book; "Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships:"

*"Brownson does a great job of explaining the difficult verses in context and history. Over the years, as I have had conversations with conservative pastors in hopes that they would consider broader understanding of biblical texts, it is apparent that many of these pastors have relied heavily upon the writings of Robert Gagnon. Prof. Brownson tackles Gagnon's objections with ease. Gagnon is masterful at taking a verse, making a supposition, calling that a fact and creating a "biblical truth." Brownson skillfully confronts those assumptions... 

If I were to pick ONE book, and have it placed on the desk of every conservative pastor in the United States, that book would be Brownson's book."

- Barnes&Noble review.


*"This work is the only one I know of that gives such extended attention to dissecting and deconstructing arguments against same-sex relationships based on "gender complimentarity." Brownson clearly defines the different ways of understanding what is at the heart of different gender complimentarity arguments, and then proceeds to dismantle these arguments through very careful and close readings of the relevant biblical texts, especially Genesis 1-3. His critical interaction with the complimentarity arguments of Robert Gagnon, who has written the strongest and most comprehensive work for the traditional view, is worth the price of the book."

- Amazon review.


*"Along the way, Dr. Brownson offers gentle but strong critiques of previous works on the topic from both sides of the debate. Herein lies one of the strengths of the book: Brownson seems to have read everything out there on the topic prior to his own book. I can’t think of a single argument on either side that he leaves unaddressed (bold italics by author). True to his non-combative style, Brownson classifies the various positions of previous authors, not as “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” terms that incite more than they describe but as “traditionalist” and “revisionist.” And he is balanced in calling into question some approaches from both camps. (Particularly devastating is his analysis of traditionalist Robert Gagnon’s focus on the gender non-complementarity of gay relationships. I mean, there is just nothing left of Gagnon’s argument when Brownson is finished, and it all unfolds in the most scholarly, respectful manner)."

- Christian author Matt Rogers.

Johnny SCOTUS And His Giant Robot

When SCOTUS passed gay marriage for all the land, I was 'happy.' Not a screaming out windows; "Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last!" Happy. The reason is because I went through years of a long back and fourth tug of war in my own state of California with fighting for gay marriage that started back with Prop 8's demon birther mama Prop 22 when the roller coaster ride first started with gay marriage in my state, in other words I felt I did my time when Prop 8 finally fell a whole two years before the SCOTUS ruling.
My best to all states and tell me where to register for wedding gifts (I hope all the states are registered at the same place and it's cheap because I'm not made out of money).


Soon after the ruling came in I saw a big spike in social media of anti-gay Christians losing their mind in all kinds of sloppy ways. They made it sound like instead of it being about gays getting married, it was something going out of the way to attack them personally, making it all about them. They were actually angry because gays bypassed them with asking them; "Can I get married with your kind permission?" Like my ability to marry can only be decided by them when I have all the same Constitutional rights they have according to our founding documents as an American. There isn't tiers of citizenship where a Christian American can trump the rights of a gay American. Our founding fathers made sure of that with trusting future generations would do good with what they were trying to say.


Justice Kennedy who favored in the ruling made a point that needs to be printed here and is at the heart of the decision:

"Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other."

This saying is Christ-like in echoing God with man not wanting to be alone:

"Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him."

Geneses 2:18.

See this in contrast to the other judges who voted against gay marriage with them saying; "Let's keep it just for us and not lovingly broaden this for others."
 

One thing I'm also noticing are religious leaders asking their followers to defy the ruling, not understanding by telling others to do that, they and those who follow them go against God Himself:

"All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged. If you do what is right, you won’t need to be afraid of your rulers. But watch out if you do what is wrong! You don’t want to be afraid of those in authority, do you? Then do what is right, and you will be praised. The one in authority serves God for your good. But if you do wrong, watch out! Rulers don’t carry a sword for no reason at all. They serve God. And God is carrying out his anger through them. The ruler punishes anyone who does wrong. You must obey the authorities. Then you will not be punished. You must also obey them because you know it is right.
That’s also why you pay taxes. The authorities serve God. Ruling takes up all their time. Give to everyone what you owe them. Do you owe taxes? Then pay them. Do you owe anything else to the government? Then pay it. Do you owe respect? Then give it. Do you owe honor? Then show it."

Romans 13:1-7.


One YouTube comment said this when I quoted the above verses:

"Christians are not to obey any law that contradicts the bible and God's holy nature. In the book of Acts, Peter and John are taken before the Jerusalem Council (Supreme Court) and told not to speak about Jesus Christ. This law by the Jerusalem Council goes against Jesus Christ command in Matthew 28:18-20 to go and make disciples of all nations teaching to obey all that I have commanded you. Peter and John have two commands before them one from God and the other from man. Who will they obey? God. from Acts 4:18; So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." 

My comment back:

"This has NOTHING to do with fair laws that put all American citizens on equal footing with rights that follow; "loving others as yourself." Would you deny yourself marriage? Than if you deny it to another, you break the Golden Rule that we are to seek and follow with all our choices and decisions. Questions like gay marriage the Bible doesn't specifically address? Apply "love another as yourself" before all else to the situation to get your answer that also puts ALL the Laws and what ALL the prophets had to say in the backseat.

Peter and John loved others as themselves enough to share the soul saving message of salvation they themselves had to others and that is why they were able to break the law in good conscious."

He never responded back.


I find it interesting that the same states bucking the most against the SCOTUS ruling are the same states that also fought the hardest against segregation. Some things never change.

Tying knots

I'm posting again to address an issue I don't think I've dealt with at any length on this blog.
Scripture on marriage and how supposedly they only allow a relationship within that paradigm. I'm amazed people are now trying to pull this sham that there are Scriptures that are against homosexuality outside of the 'clobber passages,' like we somehow missed them the first time.


I've posted about the Biblical emphases on celibacy over marriage and of Christ even downplaying the family unit (Matthew 12:46-50) as a focus.* For Christians to choose an ever-evolving institution called 'marriage' (at one time constituting polygyny and later for the purpose of carrying over bloodlines and later than that for the sole purpose of securing social contracts for land and power) from the Old Testament admonition to "Be fruitful and multiply" (since been replaced with "Seek the Kingdom first") over living and breathing human beings can not be justified Biblically.

One Scripture is repeatedly brought up as an argument for the "God only acknowledges a relationship within straight marriage." It's in Matthew 19:4-6:

"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

The context this was put in was the issue of divorce between a man and a woman being brought up to Jesus (you have to wonder if Christ would have even bothered to talk about marriage if it wasn't brought up to Him first?). Christ is talking about a spiritual dynamic of two beings coming together with the first beings being Adam and Eve in the garden. To say this is to mean anything else is making a completely new prohibition from the silence of Christ. It's dangerous to do eisegesis with reading between the lines of Scripture because you can just about make the Bible say anything.

We next go to verse 8:

"Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.  I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Now THIS is groundbreaking. Jesus is stating the Laws of God were fudged for the sake of man and that some rules were only meant to be kept in a specified time frame. Jesus is putting something (easy divorce) in the context of what was only for a specific time (days of Moses) for a specific reason (man's hard heart) and saying it no longer applies.** 

As if Christ ANTICIPATED His bringing up the first couple of Adam and Eve would be used against same-sex unions, you go further down in the same chapter to verse 11 and Christ says:

"Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."

Christ right here is saying the Garden of Eden pairing of man and woman is not a Universal rule applicable to everyone because Christ is leaving it up to the listener on if it applies to them or not.

Jesus then goes on to clarify to who this rule of marriage and divorce doesn't apply in the following verse 12, the 3 types of "eunuchs" (I've already covered the ground 'born' eunuchs fit the definition of a gay man HERE and the backing of that interpretation from one of the world's foremost anti-gay Bible scholars HERE).

Jesus ends the whole dialogue by saying:

"The one who can accept this should accept it."

In other words, Jesus is saying that if you follow the Biblical role of covenant marriage for yourself, you'll have to follow what I have to say on its divorce, and the rest who this doesn't apply to will take the rest of what I have to say.

Now, I'll play the Devil's advocate and this view of a relationship doesn't fit the definition of traditional "religious marriage."

There is no specified ceremony or guidelines of what can be considered marriage in the eyes of God. If two people come together to consecrate their relationship before God, even if it were just between the two of them alone, nothing, at least not Biblically, cannot call that a marriage. Some insist marriage will have to be done within a church body or clergy to be recognized by God, but individual churches within almost every denomination and both liberal and conservative synagogues have by majority vote allowed gay marriages within themselves and the Bible states that Heaven will acknowledge that decision with it being loosed on Earth (Matthew 18:18). The only other argument is if the marriage is against the law of the land because God will not accept a marriage if it's against the law, laws God said we are to obey because it's God who put those lawmakers in power to make those laws, but now that gay marriage is happening in state after state even as I type this, no other arguments exist.

Two points of debate have been brought up to me. One says; "Jesus was talking only about divorce and for you to imply Jesus would be breaking away from the old prohibitions of homosexuality are you reading into the text," but the only reason why we know how Jesus felt about Old Testament divorce was that it was brought up to Him first by the Pharisees to trap Him, it was not something he divulged freely in either a sermon or to His Disciples. We don't know how Christ saw homosexuality because it was never brought up to Him. It's not to say it wasn't brought up to Him because the Bible says not everything Christ said or did was written down (John 21:25), but we just don't have an account of it. We DO know how Jesus felt about the Sodom story and it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Jesus talking about Sodom would have given Him the perfect opportunity to condemn homosexuality if, in fact, the ancients believed the city was destroyed because of homosexuality. but He doesn't say a word about it or when He came across the same-sex practicing Centurion.

The second point, made by theologians, is this Scripture shows Jesus being more restrictive with and narrowing down the Old Testament Laws and Jesus would have felt just as strongly if not stronger about the Jewish prohibitions against homosexuality. If you look at this through the lens of Jesus keeping old laws, you'll come to that conclusion, but from Leviticus 19:18 to Jesus and then to Paul, we are to see everything through the narrow lens of "Loving your neighbor as yourself." If you approach the Matthew 19 passage this way, you will see that divorce is only permissible if the woman commits sexual immorality because it's her first breaking the command of "loving her neighbor (husband, mate, fellow human being) as herself." Now since a man loving another man does not constitute breaking "Loving your neighbor as yourself," We can't say Jesus would have fallen in line with the prohibitive view on homosexuality held by the Scribes and the Pharisees who only saw the world through the eyes of keeping old laws. Jesus didn't come down with a laundry list of subjects to check off. He was very narrow with what he said with the time he had. He expected us to make judgment calls in His absence using the Golden Rule which is the Royal Rule. The rest can fit in the category of Paul's "It may be allowable, but is it beneficial? These two things will give us our answers on subjects like if gays can get married or if I can watch horror movies.


The folks over at comereason.org bring up this point:

"Because marriage is a covenant to be entered freely by two individuals, is must be witnessed by at least two or three people. This idea is confirmed in Matthew 18:16, where Jesus quotes Leviticus, "Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 

Ruth 4:9-12 shows this applies specifically to marriage when Boaz seeks out witnesses to secure his right to marry Ruth, the Moabites. There, the witnesses even pronounce a marriage blessing on them."

But let's look at the Scriptures they bring up. Matthew 18:16 is talking about when a fellow believer in the church is accused of committing a sin he won't admit to. Jesus says; "Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact (of his sinning) may be confirmed." Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with this Scripture.

Ruth 4:9-12, in context, shows a financial transaction and not a marriage transaction. Boaz bought land and Ruth was thrown in with the deal.


Another issue that was brought up was when a Pastor (though he saw the Bible as condemning homosexuality, believed the church should be called out for its less than charitable treatment of homosexuals) was asked the question; "Can a Christian attend a gay wedding?" His answer was no. He saw it as a type of condoning the relationship and the Christian should, in a loving way, give their faith as a reason. I see it differently (Now I'm saying this from the perspective of an anti-gay Christian because only an anti-gay Christian would ask this question) and this is my answer:

Any decisions or choices we make as a believer should go through the test of "Loving your neighbor as yourself." Now the question is asked; "Would I want someone I love to attend my wedding even though they might not approve of the union?" The answer is yes if you really followed the edict of "Loving your neighbor as yourself" as a hard truth. Doing into another that you would want to have done to you in real action. Weddings are attended all the time by people who might not necessarily approve of the person the loved one is marrying, but that shouldn't change because it's a homosexual union and the fact you are playing a part in their joy and happiness because you love them is a Christ-like testimony they won't soon forget and will be the greater witness than anything you could say on homosexuality. Christians have no problem attending secular weddings that are all ceremony and not faith-based with the two getting married, why should it be different here?

One last note: This "Marriage between man and woman reflects the marriage of Christ with the Church, His bride" makes no theological argument to reject gay unions while we are on Earth, which again, is making a prohibition out of Biblical silence. 

Never is the Church called "the Bride of Christ. All words relating to marriage (divorce, bride) are either talking about the Jewish people in the Hebrew Bible (they committed adultery, so God filed divorce papers (Jeremiah 3:6) or the New City of Jerusalem (Ιερουσαλημ) coming down from the sky to become the Bride of Christ forever (Revelations 21:2). Who was the Bride of Christ to John the Baptist? He tells you himself in John 1:31; "...but for this reason I came Baptizing in water; that He should be revealed to Israel." There is no word "husband" (ἀνδρὶ - is "man," not husband) or "betrothed" (ἡρμοσάμην - is "join," not betrothed) in 2 Corinthians 11:2. In Ephesians the Church is never called "her," but instead a different word is used for the Church (ἐκκλησ - Assembly) and the word is not "female/wife" (γυναῖκας). Believers WILL be invited as a guest to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb in their finest clothing (Revelations 19:7-9), but so will the birds in the sky be guests (Revelations 19:17). Will Jesus have two brides? Believers are called the "Body of Christ" in that He is the Head of the Church body (1 Corinthians 12:27, Colossians 1:24). They are an extension of Jesus because He rules over them like the head rules over its body parts (Ephesians 4:15,16). We are already joined to Christ on Earth by the Holy Spirit in salvation, not in some future marriage event or as a bride to a husband.

*Even though the term "Family Values" was a term from the late 20th Century, it only became a rallying cry against homosexuality in the '80s. It was a smokescreen to make it sound like Christians are on the defensive with the myth homosexuals somehow hate and want to destroy good, straight, marriages and good, Christian, families. 

**Adherents to the belief that we are to keep Old Testament prohibition "Moral" Laws and it's only the "Ceremonial" Laws we are no longer to keep flies in the face of what Jesus is saying here. The Bible makes no such distinction within itself with moral or ceremonial laws and it's not how the ancient Jews divided their laws (Remember that even though breaking the Sabbath is considered a 'ceremonial law' to Christians today, it was still a law that required the death penalty because of its importance, Numbers 15:32-36).

Marriage in the Hebrew Bible

Scholar/Theologian Ken Stone is the foremost authority on what "marriage" was in the Hebrew Bible. He makes the argument that it was never about "one man and one woman," at least according to the ancient Israelites, and that the Hebrew verses were never meant as a prohibitive of same-sex unions as we understand it today.

Against Nature

Homosexuality is said to be against nature because it goes against the natural order of a man with a woman.  

But celibacy goes against the nature of heterosexual human desire given to us by God, undermines the traditional family unit and if everyone became celibate (like the argument is with homosexuality) the world would die out. Celibacy goes against God's command to; "Be fruitful and multiply." Yet Jewish tradition says Moses chose to be celibate after his encounter with God. John the Baptist was also celibate. Paul said to prefer celibacy to marriage like himself and Christ lived that example as did the Disciples who weren't already married prior to meeting Jesus according to Tertullian. The early church fathers advocated celibacy over marriage. Celibacy is the ideal way of existing according to the New Testament because Paul said the attention you would give your spouse, would instead go to God. So where is this emphases on marriage and the "family" Jesus Himself downplays (Matthew 12:46-50)? The Bible says there is no marriage or procreation in Heaven and this shows the lack of importance Christ gave to this now and in the next world.