Expanding on Aforementioned Topics
Just adding some thoughts about some of the issues from yesterday. None of the writing except for the first paragraph and the last two paragraphs were my own, it was all copying and pasting from the quiz site. So, those stances weren't my writing, but the explanations given on the website about how to select whether you strongly oppose, oppose, agree, or strongly agree with a particular issue.
As I said yesterday, I haven't been into politics for a majority of my life. I have only voted once, and that in a presidential election back in 2000. I lost. So, if I am wrong in any of the things I portray democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, tradionalists, secular-progessives, etc, as believing, then forgive me, I'm new to this.
First off, let's discuss the right to life. As I showed yesterday, I believe in the right to life in all cases. I think that republicans generally support capital punishment, but oppose abortion, whereas democrats generally support a woman's reproductive rights, but oppose capital punishment. This seems strange to me. It seems like life is life, is it not? Why say in one case that ending life is appropriate but not the other? At least the republicans have it halfway correct, in my opinion. They give the innocent child an opportunity at life, but take away the life of the convicted rapist/murderer. The democrats deem it acceptable to extinguish the life of the child, but give full rights to life to the one who has taken it from another. As I said, I am for the presevation of life in both instances.
Now what about the woman's right to choose, you say? I say, what about the father's right to choose? Both man and woman are equally responsible for creating the life, so both should have a say in what happens. Some say that carrying a baby to full-term is inconvenient for the mother who is say, in some sort of professional workplace or in school. Well, there are lots of aspects of life that aren't very convenient, aren't there? Take some resposibility for the actions you have freely chosen to do and accept the consequences that come with them. What if the mother can't afford the child or to have the burden of an extra mouth to feed? They have this thing called adoption, where another family does have the resources to care for the child. What about the extreme cases of rape or incest? This is a difficult situation, but I must say that I still believe in the right to life.
Last paragraph on abortion, I promise. Some say that the child, before the actual birth is "unborn". So, at what time is the child born? At birth? Why not allow abortion up until the umbilical cord is cut? So is the child legally born at the end of the second trimister? This is strictly a legal definition, not a biological one. I believe human life begins at conception and anything that takes away that life by forceful means is murder. The end result of all pregnancies is a child, plain and simple, so the moment that the path to human life is begun, the child can be considered "born". Some say that if the fetus can't survive outside of the womb, abortion should be allowed. Seriously? It is okay to murder something that can't survive on it's own? What about infants, elderly, severly mentally handicapped, paralyzed, and other such individuals? Is it okay to end their life without asking them? Why would couples who suffer a miscarriage decry the loss of life if the "thing" dead wasn't their child? Why can people be tried and convicted of murder when they kill a fetus inside of a mother if the "thing" wasn't actually alive? Why is it then acceptable for a doctor to kill the fetus? Well, as I said, this whole post isn't only about abortion.
It's about homosexuals too! I wrote long ago on this blog that I was going to comment about my feelings on homosexuality, it never happened. The stance I copied off of the website, sums it up to an extent. I think that homosexuality is a sin, but I don't hold a Phelpsian point of view. I try to view the issue as Jesus would. What is the evidence? Would Jesus agree that "God hates fags"? Not at all. God hates sin, and we have all sinned. Does God hate sinners? Well, he sent his one and only son, Jesus, to die for them to forgive them of their sins if they but repent and believe in his name. So, does that mean that Jesus condones sinning and homosexuality? Not at all, Jesus condones no sin, but repentence. So does that mean Jesus would shun homosexuals? I doubt it, Jesus was known for continually conversing with the "tax collecters and sinners", and with prostitutes, much to the chagrin of the so-called religious elite of that time. So, no person is to be shunned for their choices, but that does not make all choices "good". Then, what part of homosexuality is sin? The actual act of physical sexuality or simply being homosexual? While not biblically based, I believe that only the physical act of homosexuality is sin, not simply being homosexual. But, these are topics that could be theorized elsewhere. I do not think that homosexuals should be able to marry in the traditional sense of the word and I would be suspect of any church that allows gay marriage, but if the government allows homosexuals to have civil unions, then I would be in support of them. It would have to be voted upon by the general populace and thus far, even the liberal states have repeatedly struck down gay marriage referendums. How would I vote? Not sure, I would probably abstain.
Wow, there is 3 of the 20 topics covered.
Gun rights. I believe that gun rights are fine just the way they are, no more restrictions are necessary, although I must say that I don't know what restrictions there are right now. The major scare is that criminals can buy guns. More gun restrictions will simply keep honest people from buying guns, not criminals. Do you think a criminal who wanted a gun would only look through legal channels? They are going to get firearms, usually illegally, so why punish law-abiding citizens because others have broken the law? Hmm, I'm not entirely happen with what I wrote here, but I'm leaving it anyway.
Equal taxation of all citizens seems to be the way to go. A flat tax seems to be the fairest way to tax people. Each person is taxed 10%-20% of their earnings or whatever the number is and everybody pays the same rate. I used to think that the rich should have to pay more taxes than the poor, but no longer. Both the rich man and the poor man earned their money through hard work, so why should one man be punished and the other given leeway? This is going to transition into the role of social programs, too. Why have such things as the death tax, taking even more money away from the rich, who have been paying all sorts of other taxes during their lifetime? Just an extra penalty for outstanding achievement. Okay, so not everybody gains their fortunes through honest means, but those who do should not be unjustly punished.
What about the poorest people, they deserve happiness, too, don't they? Of course, but it is not the government's job to provide it for them. I believe that in this country the governement should cut back on social programs and leave charity to the church and to other secular organizations. The church you say, but that's not separation of church and state!!! Well, you know what, all the denominations of any religion can extend a helping hand. Just because America is predominately "Christian", doesn't mean that other religions can't help out. Also, what is the tragedy in meeting a person's monetary needs as well as potential spiritual needs? If a person has ill feelings towards religion in general, there are many secular charities out there as well. So, instead of being forced to contribute money to government programs they don't agree with, people could decide for themselves who to contribute money to or if they want to contribute at all, this is America after all.
This whole topic reminds me of the book Atlas Shrugged. In it, many countries have developed into "People's States" such as "The People's State of Argentia", and there is clear globalization and international coalescing going on. The people in America have grand ideas of feeding the poor and helping those who can't help themselves. How do they pay for it? By robbing the rich, the creative, the hard-working, and the honest. Through the 8 or 9 hundred pages of the book, American society crumbles as the government takes it's "give to the poor" mantra to the extreme. Each man and woman with a job no longer works as hard as they can, for if they do what they earn will be given to the next man or woman who needs it more. Each person who stands out through hard-work is singled out to take a cut in pay. Well, this isn't a book report.
I've worked with a number of people in the painting business who have changed my feelings towards social programs. They are receiving government checks for their kids, or for their housing, or for their general welfare and then come to work. Only, they don't want to work full-time. Why, you ask? If they worked full-time and received an honest salary, then they wouldn't get the government check anymore. Here, my boss was offering them a chance to earn a living and get off of government support and they turn it down. Why, simple laziness, they want the government to provide them with happiness in the form of money. The unalienable right in the Declaration of Independence is the right to the PURSUIT of happiness. We are free to pursue happiness is ways unheard of throughout the world, but it is not the government's job to PROVIDE us with happiness. Well, you say, those people represent a small but unfortunate amount of people who take advantage of the government, we shouldn't take away welfare from those who truly need it. I say, correct, but the church and other non-secular parties can take care of those people.
Along these same lines, I don't believe that the government should be as involved with social security or health care, either. It's a small amount of money in social security that I pay, but why can't I invest my money where I want to?
Hmm. Last is the war and role of the military, suppose. I don't think that Iraq is the best place for us to be right now. Are we so vain to believe that we can solve the world's problems? There has been political and religious fighting going on in the Middle East for thousands of years. I don't know what to think of the "War on Terror"? Are we really in that much danger? I don't know. I don't ever feel like I am in danger, but I live in Ames, Iowa. I support quickly pulling out the troops from a financial standpoint, this war is just too costly. The last day I was at work last Thursday, my boss went through how our current timeframe mirrors the end of the Vietnam War timeframe. We will arbitrarily pull out of the war, have incredible deficits, our economy severely weakened, and then head into a decade long recession. Great, and I don't have a high paying job to prepare for this recession. I hope I can count on the government.
Hate away if you wish! I'm a little surprised myself to know that I'll be registering as a Republican to vote for Ron Paul. I wasn't always a conservative person, but have become more conservative over the past couple of years. I'd say I've always been more of a traditionalist, so that hasn't really changed. As I said yesterday, I don't think I'd support any of the front-running Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, so maybe the 2008 election will be another abstention for me. I know these republican/conservative views aren't exactly the norm among my age group, but now that I've been thinking about these issues, they are my current feelings. To mangle a Mark Twain quote "If you are young and conservative then you have no heart, if you are old and liberal then you have no brain." So, I have no heart, Samuel? If you say so.
posted by Kevin Seiler @ 9:24 AM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Interesting posts. Like others, I agree and disagree with many of your points, but I appreciate that they seem well thought out, and appreciate more that without evidence I feel as if your opinions are under relatively constant internal analysis - the world would be a better place if people held on to their opinions with considerably less fervor, or at least were willing and able to challenge their own beliefs with some regularity.
Anyway, I don't have time to comment as in depth as I'd like, but I can't help but to recall a younger Kevin Seiler with his trademark orange Forbes campaign long sleeve t-shirt playing ultimate out by MWL. Once a flat taxer, always a flat taxer.
Do you have any more detailed thoughts on immigration? It's been a hot topic lately. I was listening to the "Mass Debate" on Channel Q about it. I won't go into a lot of detail, but the hosts pointed out a lot of misconceptions that people have about illegal immigrants taking advantage of the system. Also pointing out that immigrants don't want to come over illegally (obviously), but the citizenship laws are very strict (I don't know what they are), and that white, english speaking immigrants have a much easier time attaining citizenship. Some seemed to think that the discrimination was isolated, but I doubt it. One caller mentioned that there are a lot of Canadien illegal immigrants, but no one ever lifts a finger over it, but are very willing to separate Central American families. The rationalization being, "they broke the law, so it has to be done."
Another caller mentioned that America used to be the "melting pot" of cultures and views, and that so many other countries speak more than 1 language (usually including english). I'm not really sure if that relates, but I liked it.
I have trouble keeping a consistent opinion... on anything really. Probably because I don't like being wrong and I'm really bad at debating. Right now, I think they should make it easier to gain citizenship, but I haven't heard a lot of the opposing perspective. Plus, if my dad wasn't allowed to become a citizen I definitely would not be here.
Speaking of discrimination, have you heard about the British teacher in Sudan? It's very hard for me to see things from a Sudanese perspective, so I've been trying to think of things that would greatly insult me that a foreign born person wouldn't understand. I'm just glad she didn't get the 40 lashings, and it seems best for her to just be deported at this point anyway.
Jake and I got into a great conversation about the homos on his blog.
Kevin, if you aren't using the Bible as the basis for your opinion on homosexuality, where does it come from?
I don't think that Christianity has to be anti-homosexual. It's easy for me to say that as a nonbeliever, but in Seattle all of the churches openly welcome gay members into their congregations. Some even have giant rainbow banners splayed across their fronts. So, I think the two can coexist.
Abortion is a tough topic. I don't think I want to get in a huge argument about this with you, but I do want to say this: I think that pro-choicers do not necessarily think of abortions like a trip to the dentist. I'm sure it is a horrible decision to make, and it's a position that no one would want to face. However, you can believe that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy and you can also believe that abortions are a regrettable and unfortunate part of life.
Hey Mike,
I kind of left out immigration because I'm not really sure of how I feel about it. I don't know how people get on welfare, but it is interesting that illegal immigrants can get on social programs. As I told about how I feel about social programs yesterday, I certainly wouldn't agree that we should allow illegal immigrants to get money from our government. Now, if if other non-governmental charities wish to support them, that is their choice. It's a tough issue because on the one hand they are human beings searching for a better life, but on the other hand, they did break the law of our country. I would be interested in seeing some of the immigration numbers from the past couple of years. Maybe I'll seek those out later this afternoon, but probably not.
About the British lady, I don't know if she broke a law or if she simply broke an "unwritten" law. I suppose it speaks greatly about our country that a classroom could name a teddy bear Jesus and the teacher would not be under the threat of physical violence. Imagine if this story had happened in America and a classroom named a teddy bear Muhammed. Some parents might have objected, it would have become a national news story, the ACLU would file lawsuits protecting the name of the teddy bear, but ultimately, we would be urged to exercise tolerance. What if it was named Jesus? Some parents might have objected, it would have become a national news story, the ACLU would file lawsuits aruging separation of church and state, and we would decry the attempt to convert helpless children in public schools. Not saying either name is appropriate or whatever, but that is the state of our country and it is quite interesting.
Hey Brendan,
To be a little more clear, I did use the Bible as the basis for how Jesus might approach the subject of homosexuality. There are not definitive statements in the New Testament about homosexuality, barring some random instances in Paul's letters that treat homosexuality as "unnatural relations".
When I said that my opinion was not biblically based, it was referring to just exactly what part of homosexuality was sin. The Bible is not clear about the issue, in which case, it may be open to some interpretation. I was saying that some may believe that simply being homosexual is the sin, whereas others may believe that only the physical act, or sex, of homosexuality may be a sin. I was stating that while there is no biblical statement about which may be the case, I believed in the latter viewpoint. The Bible is certainly clear that homosexuality is a sin, but again, not clear about what exactly about homosexuality is a sin.
Certainly, the church should not turn away homosexuals or any sinners, for the church would be empty! The process of becoming a Christian involves a renouncing of previous sinful ways (repentence) and following the way of Jesus (beginning somewhat with the act of baptism). This does not mean that Christians are sinless, in fact, all Christians will continue to sin throughout their lifetime, but when one knowingly and repeatedly chooses to sin without repentence after becoming a Christian, the validity of their beliefs can be called into question. Thus, at a biblically-based church, one that takes the Bible as God's truth, all people should be accepted into the church, but sinful action from anybody is by no means celebrated. By this, homosexuals are welcomed into the church and should not be shunned by anyone of the church, but they are not celebrated as being a diverse part of the population.
I suppose there are many churches in America that are classified as Christian, some believing the Bible is authorative, others believing the Bible is simply a good guidebook for living. Some believe in a strict interpretation of the Bible, others take liberties in interpretation. Thus, some congregations allow openly gay ministers and allow homosexual lifestyles, and others do not believe in the toleration of sin.
It is funny how quickly people use the words homophobic and bigot and intolerance these days, as if the user of the word immediately gains some mystical moral highground. It seems like if you disagree with homosexuality you are labeled homophobic, bigoted, and intolerant of others. Tolerance is defined as "the disposition to be patient and fair toward those whose opinions or practices differ from one's own". It says nothing about having to agree with a viewpoint, but allowing the viewpoint to be expressed. Many people disagree with homosexuality without condemning or hating those who practice it, but get lumped in with the small but vocal majority of those who wish to eradicate the behavior. To be intolerant of those who have genuine disagreement with homosexuality but allow them to make their choice, is making the so-called high-ground "tolerance" soapboxers themselves the most intolerant of all.
Like Jimmy has stated before, I don't especially like reading over what I have written, so if there are unclear points, I'll have to post again later and drive up the comments counter.
Hey Kevin:
If the Bible is your basis for determining what is and what is not a sin, why do you shave, or wear polyester clothing, or choose to drive on the sabbath, or eat shellfish? The Bible says those are all sinful acts too. I'm not sure how strictly you interpret the Bible, but you have to admit that there are many archaic and bizarre commandments. So what then becomes the criteria for choosing which laws to follow?
Granted, there are churches that interpret the Bible more strictly than others, but I don't think any churchgoer follows every law of the Bible. The closest thing to that are the Hasids, but they of course don't adhere to anything in the New Testament.
The reason I mention this is because I think churches that lie on the conservative end of the spectrum tend to play up the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality for political purposes, while shrewdly ignoring the other stuff that's in league with those passages. After all, when was the last time Pat Robertson preached on Leviticus 15:19?
I think that your comments about toleration were probably directed as a general message to everyone following our conversation and not at anything particular that I wrote. Even so, I would just like to say that I'm not interested in condemning your opinions or calling you names. I think you should believe whatever you want to believe, and I appreciate your willingness to put your beliefs under scrutiny.
Brendan,
First, the comment about tolerance was certainly not pre-emptive of being called intolerant or predictive of your behavior, it was just me thinking out loud and posing the question. I actually glad to be able to discuss such things with you and others. I must say I prefer writing in this manner instead of face-to-face debate or argument or conversation because it allows me all the time I need to put together my thoughts and argument. Although, it certainly doesn't always help.
Second, about your Biblical references, one of the hardest things for me is truly understanding how the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are supposed the be the continuation of a single story. I've spent a lot of time over the past two or three years in thought this topic. There are certainly bizarre passages in the Old Testament, some graphic passages, and lists of seemingly arbitrary rules.
Before Jesus, the Israelites had The Law, given to them from God through Moses, outlined in books of the Old Testament like Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. They include 613 different laws to be followed, the breaking of any of them being considered a sin.
Now, of those laws, there are three categories. Unfortunately, I've read something great about this and can't now remember exactly what it said nor find it laying around. But, I know for sure that one of the categories contains moral laws, such as those forbidding murder, adultery, lying, etc. I believe there were some civil laws that outline how the Israelites should conduct themselves, and there were some health-related laws (this wasn't the name used, but I can't remember it), including what is permissible to eat, how to treat those with skin infections, what to wear, circumcision, etc.
In Romans 5:20, Paul writes that "the law was added so that the trespass (sin) might increase." Why did God give the Israelites the law? So they could recognize their sin. Indeed, see Romans 3:20--"...through the law we become conscious of sin." In the Old Testament, priests could conduct purification from sin rituals that included the slaughter of lambs and bulls. Their blood was sprinkled on the alter before God. These offerings to God cleansed the people of their sin, but they did not purify the people for long. As they sinned, more offerings were needed. God had another plan.
He sent his Son into the world to act as the final sin offering. You may have heard Jesus called "the Lamb". Christians believe that Jesus was a sinless man, the only sinless man...ever. In fact, he was both man and God. When he was crucified, Christians believe that his blood offered purification from sin unlike any of those animals in the Old Testament did. Jesus's blood was final, complete purification for those who believe.
So, the law was added so that the trespass might increase. In other words, so people might become cognizant of their sin. They will be aware that they have sinned and need forgiveness from God. The law itself has no saving power, so Jesus often criticized those who so strictly followed the law, yet were themselves law-breakers. But, people would realize their need for forgiveness and justification from sin, and that need will lead them to Jesus.
Okay, so what about the old laws that you've mentioned? The moral laws are still as relevant as ever, but the civil laws, dietary laws, and health laws are no longer applicable.
Such Bible verses as these back up that the previous paragraph.
Galatians 6:15--"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation."
How do you become a new creation? See 2 Corinthians 5:17--"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation"
What can be taken from those passages? The Jews believed heavily in circumcision, you could not be a Jew if you weren't circumcised. It was a way of setting yourself apart from the Gentiles (non-Jews). Throughout the New Testament, Paul in his letters talks of the now uselessness ritual of circumcision. No longer is circumcision of the body relevant, but circumcision of the heart. One should be cut to the heart by the teachings of Jesus, realizing sin, realizing that we have no way to justify our trespass on our own, and then accepting the grace offered by Jesus Christ, through his death on the cross. Colossians 2:13-14 says it all: "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, HAVING CANCELLED THE WRITTEN CODE (the Law), WITH ITS REGULATIONS, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."
In Acts 10 and 11, the disciple Peter, a former Jew, is called by God to visit the house of a Gentile. Now, even in the time following Jesus's death, the early Christians believed that only Jews could become Christians, and there were rules regarding their conduct with Gentiles. In Acts, Peter, through the help of God and the Holy Spirit, is shown that Gentiles are no longer shunned, and God's message is for all people.
Some verses:
Acts 10:15--"The voice spoke to him (Peter) a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
This verse shows God hereby cancelling the dietary restrictions of Judaism.
Acts 10:34--"Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."
This verse and the surrounding writing shows that all people, not just the Jews, can receive salvation.
Okay, this is getting rather long and I think a lot of this would make a good blog post later on down the road.
So, I hope this in some way answered your questions about the various laws of the Bible and why they may or not make sense and why people seem to break all of them. Make no mistake, Christians, and indeed everyone are all sinners, but these archaic Jewish laws that you reference are not the reason why.
Again, a vast majority of the laws and decrees from the Old Testament are just not relevant to Christianity. Those that are? The moral laws. Among the moral laws is the forbiddance of homosexuality.
So, you hate the sin, not the sinner. Thus, I harbor no ill will towards homosexuals at all, unlike some wayward Christians, but you may now see why I can't agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry in the traditional sense. Again, as I've said, a government recognized union would be acceptable, if voted on by a majority.
Maybe the issue for me isn't whether I think the government should allow homosexual marriage, but whether the church should, which I believe is a resounding no. My only issue with the government is keeping it called a union instead of a marriage. Just a semantics argument, I suppose.
Kevin,
Thanks for your clarification. I think your breakdown makes sense, and I wasn't aware of those passages in Colossians regarding the absolution of the old laws. Interesting!
However, it's unclear to me why the ban on homosexuality should be considered as a moral law instead of a social or health related law.
After all, moral laws condemn behavior that harms other individuals, right? So how would a consensual relationship between two same sexed individuals fit into that definition? Perhaps there's an aspect to morality that I'm missing, but I feel like laws that say "don't steal" or "don't kill" are all connected by that theme--respect your neighbor. To me, the law that says "don't have sex with a man" doesn't really fit into that category--in fact, I think it sounds more akin to "don't eat pork."
Perhaps the ancient Jews noticed that sodomy transmitted STIs at a greater frequency than heterosexual intercourse, so they outlawed the practice with the general health of the population in mind (as they did with the banning of certain foods.) Or, perhaps it was a law like the polyester law--one inexplicable and probably just based on superstition. Whatever the case, doesn't this seem like a more likely explanation?
Hey Kev. I was looking over some autobiographical authors today and realized that YOU are in the perfect position in life to write one too. Listen. It doesn't have to be the entire Kevin Seiler story. Just a phase or era or something. You should think about it you job-less genius. Of course, you could have a job now for as much as I see of you and your wife...thank you blogspot.
Brendan,
God's moral laws don't necessary only deal with actions that harm other individuals. Some of the moral laws, such as blasphemy and idolatry are solely between the individual and God. Others condemn actions that do not bring harm to those involved, but are considered immoral by God. Sexual immorality could be considered here. Sexual immorality is mentioned throughout the Old Testament and New Testament, lending support to the argument that homosexuality is considered immoral by God and is among his moral law that I mentioned previously.
Also, it is important to note that both Jews and Christians alike believe that their sins are not only against others in such cases as murder and theft, but more importantly, against God.
Leviticus 18 lists some of the sexual relations that God considers to be immoral. Now you may say, why follow Leviticus 18 and not 15, or 16, or 17? It is not always so easy to tease apart which may apply and which don't, but I'll show you some evidence in the New Testament that shows that time and time again, the authors speak out against sexual immorality, which includes but it not limited to homosexuality.
First off, look at Genesis 39:9. Joseph is tempted by the wife of his Egyptian master. He finally exclaims "My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a thing and sin against God?" This sexual immorality, though it would have been between two consenting adults, still would have been a sin before God.
In Matthew 15, the Pharisees, the religious elite, are trying to trap Jesus for not cleaning his hands before he eats, according to the health laws that the Jewish elders follow. Jesus responds with "...for out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean'. This is showing that the former laws such as the health laws are being made obselete by Jesus, but that moral laws are still as valid as ever.
In Acts 15, the former Jews become Christians are debating whether new followers of Christ should have to adhere to the old rules such as circumcision. There is a bitter dispute and in the end, circumcision is not required. In a letter sent to Gentile believers in Antioch, the few commands given include abstaining from sexual immorality.
Romans 1:24-27 shows how homosexuality is considered unnatural and immoral by God. "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural one. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, your were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God." After this, it goes on to talk more about sexual immorality.
This passage is important to consider because it clearly shows a New Testament passage whereby homosexuality is considered against a sin against God, yet all of those people mentioned (and all other types of people) are able to receive forgiveness through Jesus Christ.
I won't write out anymore passages, but for further readings mentioning sexual immorality in the New Testament see:
Romans 13:13
Galatians 5:19
Ephesians 5:3
Colossians 3:5
1 Thessalonians 4:3
Hebrews 12:16
Hebrews 13:4
Jude 1:7
Revelation 21:8
Revelation 22:15
That list is not exhaustive, either.
So, does this evidence convince you that homosexuality is against God's moral law? Do I know why God made it this way? No. Many psalmists write psalms on the very topic of "Who can know the mind of God?" It is probably because God made natural relations from the beginning to be between a man (Adam) and a woman (Eve). "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh (Genesis 2:24)."
I guess, if you don't believe in the authority of the Bible as God's Word, then there is little reason to see homosexuality as immoral, after all, it is an act between two consenting adults. On the other hand, if you believe in the authority of the Bible as God's Word, then there is little reason to see homosexuality as an amoral issue.
I do not believe in the authority of the Bible as God's word. I desparately wish I had ample time to elaborate extensively on why, but the short version is that the Bible was written by men, collected by men, books were chosen and excluded by men, and later translated multiple times by many different men, whose understanding of the text can only be taken with a grain of salt that includes an understanding of the cultural background that they inevitably carried with them as they undertook this task.
That being said, I disagree with any statement indicating that there is one possible Biblical interpretation regarding homosexuality. In just a few minutes, I found an example that addresses some of the same passages that Kevin wrote about is here: http://members.cox.net/paulmcc/mcc/samegen.html#Rom7
In my mind, the bottom line is that a modern understanding of the world is incompatible with a fundamentalist interpretation of scripture. In light of this fact, Christians are left with a constant struggle to understand a text outside of its own time and culture. In my mind, this must include development of the understanding that homosexuals were created by God as homosexuals, and should be welcomed into the fold and accepted as readily as any other person who seeks Christ.
I read the webpage and reread it, then went back and read it again. There are so many things I would like to point out, but don't have the energy to.
Many of the objections they present can be cast right back. They argue Bible misrepresentation, then proceed to do the very same thing. They claim homosexual bias in translation, but are themselves homosexuals and cite homosexual authors as evidence to their points. They claim translators had a cultural agenda against them, well what is their agenda? They make it seem as if the entire Old Testament has been cancelled, even the moral law.
Their overall message is half right. Certainly, God does love all mankind. I haven't deviated from that since the beggining. Certainly, homosexuals should be welcomed into churched. I haven't deviated from that, either. But God does not approve of any and all behaviors. They play up God's grace to mean that God loves and approves of all people and practices. Simply not true. No matter what you have done in the past, you can receive forgiveness, but it must be coupled with a denial of sinful behaviors.
They are right, heterosexuals are no better than homosexuals for we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but through repentence, we cast off our sinful ways. I believe there is ample Biblical evidence that homosexuality is a sin.
There are many different topics to comment upon, especially the view that culture decides what is moral and immoral, but I already spent way too many hours writing and erasing and reading for this short of a comment that I'm not entirely happy with.
For the record, I wasn't trying to espouse that link as my own opinion. Like I said, I don't hold the Bible to be the foundation of my faith, so I don't have to try and make it fit into my worldview as these people apparently were. You certainly spent more time reading it (the Bible and that link) than I did, which I appreciate. I just wanted to make the point that people, even well intetioned people who work really hard at getting at the true meaning of scripture, come to conclusions that are necesarily confined to their own worldview. I don't mean to point out that culture decides what is moral and immoral, but that one's interpretation of divine message (which is presumably unchanging) on topics like homosexuality is complicated, and easily (I would argue necesarily) reflects the culture and era of the person doing the interpreting.
So ... to review, you're anti-homo, anti-gun control, pro bible, pro life, pro flat tax, anti-government-supported social programs ...
... and you're surprised to be registering as a republican?
You have a heart but not the guts to use it, which is why you are a young Repuplican, a truly horrible thing (see the end of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"). I had written more but it was all very mean without enough time to back it up with things like facts; I think it was essentially true, but pointlessly so without the facts b/c it would hurt you but not change you. I can only say that I respect you enough to wish very strongly that you were not Republican, although Ron Paul was the highest of the Republicans on my list when I took the quiz.
Post a Comment
<< Home