My stance on gay marriage and why I am a hypocrite

[jessehove]

While I disagree with gay marriage in my theological head, my head tends to be influenced by its secular liberation:

Here is an article I wrote on why I am against gay marriage but that also makes me a hypocrite:
http://mercyandmessiah.blogspot.ca/2014 ... -i-am.html

[jessehove]

Kuan:

While Jesus does not address homosexuality specifically but he does reaffirm marriage between one man and one women for procreation. This isn't enough to suggest that homosexuality is sinful, but is enough to disclude homosexuality from the act of marriage. As a Christian who believes in the whole of canonical Scripture, Passages like Romans 1 still have to be considered in the conversation. Even if we put Romans 1 in a historical context where Paul is mostly addressing sexual abuse, the universal power and intention of Scripture for all times and places should leave us with at least a moderate level of concern at Romans 1:27. At the very least this passage should tell us something about God's biological intention for sex within marriage. Paul was not aware that his letters would become the canonical Word of God 300 years after he wrote Romans, and yet God chose this letter in the Canon. Therefore we have to believe that historical critical reasoning alone cannot be enough to dismiss the plain reasoning of any one passage of Scripture. Though I still believe historical critical arguments should be considered in relation to the whole of the Bible and taken to account when building our thought for or against certain arguments. Not enough though to say that Romans 1 is simply telling us nothing about God's intention for sexuality though.

Romans 1:27: In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[Kuan]

Kuan:

While Jesus does not address homosexuality specifically but he does reaffirm marriage between one man and one women for procreation.

Please expound. Jesus seems to mostly speak on forgiveness and loving thy neighbor. The latter books by the apostles cover marriage. What verses are you referring to? I dont have a bible present to look the verses up, im on a phone.

This isn't enough to suggest that homosexuality is sinful, but is enough to disclude homosexuality from the act of marriage.

Possibly. I would argue that it was directed to only members of the church and also that it was the cultural norm. We have no way to tell if in todays time whether it should be allowed or not. It definetley is not enough to classify it as a sin.

As a Christian who believes in the whole of canonical Scripture, Passages like Romans 1 still have to be considered in the conversation. Even if we put Romans 1 in a historical context where Paul is mostly addressing sexual abuse, the universal power and intention of Scripture for all times and places should leave us with at least a moderate level of concern at Romans 1:27.

Verse 27 is about pederasty. Which I would never argue for and is immoral. Thats why we need to look at the historical contexts. Pederasty was a common practice, especially among the "heathens" in Greece and the shrine prostitution that was happening.

At the very least this passage should tell us something about God's biological intention for sex within marriage.

Not really, the bible translates fornication from the Greek word 'pornia' or unlawful sexual conduct. So whenever you read the bible and it is talking about fornication, it is not referring to sex outside marriage but unlawful sexual conduct. So what exactly does unlawful sexual conduct mean anyways? Thats the question.

Paul was not aware that his letters would become the canonical Word of God 300 years after he wrote Romans, and yet God chose this letter in the Canon.

Assuming that Paul can be proven to be the actual writer and there have been additions or subtractions...but i don't want this to turn into another one of those discussions.

I must also point out that the Canon as not slected by god but a bunch of christian scholars and priests who debated and discussed what should be part of the gospel and what sould not. I bet there where other writings of Pauls that where not selected. Why would any of those other writings be excluded and why were these ones included? It just smells like a bunch of rotten picked cherries.

Therefore we have to believe that historical critical reasoning alone cannot be enough to dismiss the plain reasoning of any one passage of Scripture. Though I still believe historical critical arguments should be considered in relation to the whole of the Bible and taken to account when building our thought for or against certain arguments. Not enough though to say that Romans 1 is simply telling us nothing about God's intention for sexuality though.

So we can cherry pick the contexts that work for us and ignore the ones that dont? I disagree, context is everything.

[jessehove]

[jessehove]

P.S. 2: There is another version of Matthew 19 in Mark 10 as well. The fact that it is repeated in another Gospel makes it all the more important as a canonical reader.

[Kuan]

[jessehove]

I think your question on the confusion that can come from how to read a text is a good one.

1 Corinthians 3:12-4:12 suggests that a veil obscures the whole of Scripture from the ultimate lens by which it should be used, that being Jesus Christ. Within the Old Testament this veil is removed only in Christ himself through a process a sanctification that itself mirrors the form of Jesus death (4:10). We see this hermenutic reapplied time and time again throughout the New Testament. Peter compares the Flood to death and Resurrection with Christ in Baptism (1 Peter 3:21). The Gospels endlessly allude to Jesus as the messianic hope of the Prophets. And Jesus himself declares that he is the fulfillment of the law and the prophets in Matthew 5:17-18. Paul suggests that the Hebraic marking of circumcision which was such a key right of passage to Jewish membership in the OT is now fulfilled in that very same baptism Peter speaks of (Colossians 2:11-13). Hebrews 11 puts all kinds of impositions on classic Old Testament story arches for the purpose of showing the central characters of the story were actually placing their faith in Christ and persevering because of this (this really bugged me during my deconstructionist phase). I find the more I dig into a historical examinations of text, the more I find that those with skills and ability to do the research envitably have their own bias, which really makes it no more reliable then any other lens.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't use historical critical tools in our search for God, but it does mean that often they operate outside the meta-narrative of the Bible for which God intended throughout time and space. For me personally I see historical critical examinations of the text as a way to see the suffering of a people, and how a Christological hope in the text really forces us to acknowledge our sin and see our hope in Christ. Sometimes Christological readings of the text have been used to numb us into imperial acceptance and acknowledging the earthly humanness of the text can sometimes pull us out of that trap. But this can also be used to make us think the text is centrally about us and not about God's work in the world. Here is a balance I tried to strike in a recent blog post I wrote on it:

http://mercyandmessiah.blogspot.ca/2013 ... rical.html

[Kuan]

[Replying to post 16 by jessehove]
I think a better phrasing of my question would be, Why does god have to be so vague?

The symbolism in the bible is interesting and noticeable. However, so was the symbolism in Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.

the more I find that those with skills and ability to do the research envitably have their own bias, which really makes it no more reliable then any other lens.

If our own bias renders that lens unreliable, whats the point? Our own bias is what we believe.

This is off topic now though, I want to pose an ethical dilemma to you. Since we both agreed that homosexuality is not condemned as a sin in the bible, why do Christians fight so hard against it?

[jessehove]

I never agreed with you on that

[Kuan]

[Replying to post 18 by jessehove]
Can you provide a case that shows homosexuality as being condemned by the bible as a sin?

I apologize, I misread the context, ironically, of this sentence.

This isn't enough to suggest that homosexuality is sinful. . .

When you said this you were referring only to Jesus' stance on the issue and not the bible altogether, correct?

[jessehove]