Bigotry, Gay Marriage, Michael Sam & Tony Dungy

[molson]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is the kind of argument all too often made by people who(usually) don't really know the Bible much at all. Not that a non-Christian should required to be a biblical theologian of course, but it would be a nice step in the direction of civility if a basic effort to understand the core beliefs of one's rhetorical opponents were to be engaged in. In this case, some of the ceremonial OT laws were specifically rendered obsolete in the NT by Jesus himself, so it's not necessarily -- though certainly it can be for individuals -- a case of cherrypicking, self-justification, or cafeteria Christianity to not concern oneself with them anymore. The 'bacon and
shellfish' example is specifically on point here.

There are other examples in the thread, but I really don't get the above lines of thinking. Based on what can individuals defining their beliefs in such situations be defined as 'Christian'? It seems to me to be a tortured and twisted definition of the term such that 'Christian' need not be associated with what the man known in the Bible as Jesus the Christ actually taught. I could with equal credibility in my mind call myself an orangutan. Regardless of how convinced I might be of it, it would most certainly not be true .

Inasmuch as Jesus specifically validated all of the OT(and did so at the beginning of his most well-known address, in the most unambiguous terms possible), someone who isn't really interested in 'the old jewish law' isn't really interested in Jesus either, by definition. Furthermore, Jesus was rather repeatedly emphatic that those who love and follow him are those who obey him, so if someone is willing to 'massage' his teachings to fit modern culture/sensibilities or they simply have found the hard teachings therein incompatible with their desire to live in convenience, well, Jesus rather specifically addressed that as well and his words for that idea and concept were not welcoming, to put it mildly.

Such people may be things that many consider noble. They might be religious, spiritual, great neighbors and family men, moral in many ways, but it's an absurd bastardization of the term to refer to them as 'Christian' -- and a great distortion of and insult to Jesus to do so as well.

So we need to obey all those rants Jesus made against homesexuality. Could you tell me where those were again?

[molson]

[ISiddiqui]

Well, let's be fair, Jesus encapsulated His teachings into loving God and loving your neighbors. I think there is wiggle room there.

In addition, what is the point for sending the Holy Spirit to help us, if it was all said back then?

One may, if one wanted to, say that ending slavery is 'massag[ing]' His (or at least, St. Paul's) teachings to fit in modern culture, no?

[Desnudo]

I strongly believe Tony Dungy and Michael Sam should be allowed to marry.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Jesus encapsulated His teachings into loving God and loving your neighbors. I think there is wiggle room there.

He certainly did. If someone wants to make an argument that their application of those concepts is better or more accurate than mine, I'm all for that and there are certainly people who better understand what he taught than me. The key thing though is they need to base it on everything he said, not just the parts they like. The statements my last post responded to were instead dismissing parts they don't like(such as the entire OT). that's something else entirely.

For example ...

Originally Posted by Molson

we need to obey all those rants Jesus made against homesexuality. Could you tell me where those were again?

There aren't any, but he did specifically affirm the marriage institution as described in Genesis and the OT itself, both of which bear significantly on the subject. Those need to be dealt with, as well as the statements of Paul who was Jesus' hand-picked missionary to deliver his gospel to the broader Gentile world.

I've seen the picture you posted before, and I'll just say that it raises some questions. I know how I'd answer them, but as mentioned above I'm open to different answers. If someone is a Christian, they need to answer them in some way though. A couple of those questions:

** Shortly after saying 'judge not, lest you be judged', Jesus told the crowd to 'judge with righteous judgement'. Was he contradicting himself? If not, what did he mean?

** How does telling the Pharisees that they are 'sons of hell', a 'brood of vipers', and 'sons of their father the devil', calling them out publicly for things that they had merely thought but not said, etc. fit into the concept of what Jesus meant when he commanded that we are to love others? Is our concept of love and the one he defined in his biblical teachings the same, or does it differ in significant respects?

Originally Posted by Issidiqui

ending slavery is 'massag[ing]' His (or at least, St. Paul's) teachings to fit in modern culture, no?

Rather than get into a long discussion of this nuanced issue, I'll just say that in any such issue, when someone reaches the point of deciding what the Bible should say or shoehorning in their own meaning to unsupporting texts/ignoring those texts, the religion is no longer Christianity but Humanism. Erecting ourselves as our own God, defining our one moral compass as right and using whatever support from sacred teachings we can find to support it is one thing: allowing the Bible to sit in judgement of our opinions, behaviors, beliefs, and lifestyle is another.

[Blackadar]

Stephen Eric Bronner’s The Bigot: Why Prejudice Persists, reviewed.

If you’ve spent much time debating LGBTQ issues with conservatives—especially deeply religious ones—this may ring a bell. The rise of marriage equality has thrust traditionalists, especially Southern Baptists and orthodox Catholics, into a panicky tailspin composed of equal parts anger and confusion. Their protean case against gay marriage shifts to fit the needs of each new stage of battle. Increasingly barred by basic decency from labeling gays immoral or disgusting, they now obsess over the institution of marriage itself. It’s not the tradition of anti-gay animus that they’re defending; it’s simply the tradition of opposite-sex marriage. No matter that those who attack gay marriage today attacked gay people yesterday.

Resisting bigotry involves clarifying the prejudices and privileges masked in policy debates so that everyday people can evaluate them appropriately. It also means holding those who disadvantage [minorities] and serve the bigot’s interests morally accountable. Too much hand-wringing has taken place over whether this or that person is really a bigot deep in his heart.

[ISiddiqui]

I actually took a bunch of classes under Professor Bronner at Rutgers. He was quite a friendly and brilliant man (He know I was a Republican and never, ever gave me any gruff for it, though he was a Socialist). Although he was fairly pompous as well - I liked him anyways.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Rather than get into a long discussion of this nuanced issue, I'll just say that in any such issue, when someone reaches the point of deciding what the Bible should say or shoehorning in their own meaning to unsupporting texts/ignoring those texts, the religion is no longer Christianity but Humanism. Erecting ourselves as our own God, defining our one moral compass as right and using whatever support from sacred teachings we can find to support it is one thing: allowing the Bible to sit in judgement of our opinions, behaviors, beliefs, and lifestyle is another.

My argument is this: that like in slavery, you had people saying that the new school (abolition) was deciding what the Bible should say based on modern morality, when the Bible was "clear" that slavery was ok and that there was definitely ignoring of those texts by the abolition folks.

FWIW, Humanism was actually created under Christianity - Erasmus and all that.

I believe in gay marriage not because the culture has told me that's moral, but because I believe that GOD has told me that it is moral and just. I didn't believe in gay marriage until I became a Christian and I became convicted following that.

[timmae]

Been lurking and just wanted to say thanks to all for trying to provide definition as to why they believe certain things... it has helped me define my stance on the issues as well. Bravo..

[molson]

I wonder if Professor Bronner finds whatever he would identify as "moral bigotry" regarding the opposition of gay marriage as better, worse, or the same as other more failings like committing violent crimes, or stealing.

Because "holding people accountable" is not usually a liberal and/or socialist talking point, at least in the mainstream. It's generally something that is much concern to a more conservative way of thinking. The general liberal mindset is more likely to see those thieves and violent criminals as products of an unjust system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but from a criminal justice perspective, that's a common tension - between those who want punishment, who see the perpetrators as flawed people who need to be punished v. those who see many criminals as economic victims who are mistreated by the system, etc. It's a good tension, because it keeps either side from going too far. It's just interesting to me that when it comes to "bigotry", suddenly, for that left way of thinking, it's more a black/white good and evil thing. That's what the bigot label is all about, it minimizes people into these caricatures.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I became convicted following that.

Tell me more.

[ISiddiqui]

Christian jargon

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Because "holding people accountable" is not usually a liberal and/or socialist talking point, at least in the mainstream.

You have not met many socialists . They want to hold EVERYONE who contributes to the crimes of capitalism accountable it seems.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You have not met many socialists . They want to hold EVERYONE who contributes to the crimes of capitalism accountable it seems.

Fair enough, I'm more familiar with the "liberal" mindset in the criminal justice system. I'm not sure what socialists generally think about crime.

[ISiddiqui]

You have heard the half-joking "They'll be first up against the wall", right?

[flere-imsaho]

So, non-mainstream socialists hold people accountable (per ISiddiqui), but mainstream socialists don't (per molson)?

Who are the mainstream socialists, btw?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Because "holding people accountable" is not usually a liberal and/or socialist talking point, at least in the mainstream. It's generally something that is much concern to a more conservative way of thinking. The general liberal mindset is more likely to see those thieves and violent criminals as products of an unjust system. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but from a criminal justice perspective, that's a common tension - between those who want punishment, who see the perpetrators as flawed people who need to be punished v. those who see many criminals as economic victims who are mistreated by the system, etc. It's a good tension, because it keeps either side from going too far. It's just interesting to me that when it comes to "bigotry", suddenly, for that left way of thinking, it's more a black/white good and evil thing. That's what the bigot label is all about, it minimizes people into these caricatures.

Put more simply, you'd assert there's essentially a sliding scale for bigotry, correct?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, non-mainstream socialists hold people accountable (per ISiddiqui), but mainstream socialists don't (per molson)?

Who are the mainstream socialists, btw?

Shall I include a list of (D) member of Congress or can we just stipulate?

[molson]

I don't even know if the term "socialist" is relevant in a criminal justice context. I just know that police and prosecutors and state governments are often attacked by people I perceive to be on the "left", who have much sympathy for those who commit crimes and see many of them as victims of an unjust system, and also attacked by people I perceive to be on the "right", who think those entities are too soft on crime, and that criminals are broken people that we need to be protected from. When it comes to "bigotry" though, particularly in the context of opposing gay marriage - you don't get that same kind of tone from the left. Like, Professor Bronner said, the attitude seems more to be just about a desire to judge and minimize, and that we actively should not see these individuals as people.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Put more simply, you'd assert there's essentially a sliding scale for bigotry, correct?

Nope. I'm just wondering why someone, let's take a specific friend of mine who is high up in the ACLU here, would see a violent criminal as someone who is a product of economic injustice who is being railroaded by the system, but that someone who opposes gay marriage is a nonredeemable bigot who is simply evil to the core and needs to minimized from society.

This is what I and Arles were talking about earlier, in trying to promote and encourage moderation, a move away from the extremes. I think there's people that really like the idea of a black and white world, some like to see crime that way, and some like to see morals and bigotry that way. My view of "Christianity" (which was shot down a few posts ago as being un-Christian) would be having compassion for and trying understand both.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Shall I include a list of (D) member of Congress or can we just stipulate?

If you think you can shed your normal biases and identify members of Congress who are a) actually socialist and b) "mainstream" (however we want to define that), I'd certainly be willing to listen.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Nope. I'm just wondering why someone, let's take a specific friend of mine who is high up in the ACLU here, would see a violent criminal as someone who is a product of economic injustice who is being railroaded by the system, but that someone who opposes gay marriage is a nonredeemable bigot who is simply evil to the core and needs to minimized from society.

Is this an actual example, or one you're making up?

If it's an actual example, then I'd contend a person with such a stark black-and-white view of the world is likely an outlier, and by extrapolating such a caricature (albeit a self-made one) to a group of people as a whole, you minimize that group (in this case "liberals" or "socialists") as, again, a caricature. Which is what I thought you were trying to avoid.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Is this an actual example, or one you're making up?

If it's an actual example, then I'd contend a person with such a stark black-and-white view of the world is likely an outlier, and by extrapolating such a caricature (albeit a self-made one) to a group of people as a whole, you minimize that group (in this case "liberals" or "socialists") as, again, a caricature. Which is what I thought you were trying to avoid.

I tried, desperately, to avoid this same old attack from you by specifically saying that I didn't think either side was wrong in that tension, and in fact, it was great that that tension existed, because it kept either side from going to far.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

When it comes to "bigotry" though, particularly in the context of opposing gay marriage - you don't get that same kind of tone from the left. Like, Professor Bronner said, the attitude seems more to be just about a desire to judge and minimize, and that we actively should not see these individuals as people.

The same could be said for various closely-held beliefs of the right, would you not agree?

[NobodyHere]

I'll go with senator Bernie Sanders, probably not as mainstream as you're looking for but he did get 71% of the vote in 2012 as an Independent.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I tried, desperately, to avoid this same old attack from you by specifically saying that I didn't think either side was wrong in that tension, and in fact, it was great that that tension existed, because it kept either side from going to far.

You don't find it interesting that in the examples you habitually use, the actor you choose to describe in detail, to use as illustrative of your argument, tends to be a caricature from the left?

BTW, I'm fine with your description of the "tension on both sides" and am in agreement with your conclusion. I just continue to be curious about your predilection for calling out liberal caricatures in your arguments. In this case, for instance, it didn't even seem necessary.

If it annoys you, just ignore my line of questioning.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'll go with senator Bernie Sanders, probably not as mainstream as you're looking for but he did get 71% of the vote in 2012 as an Independent.

Sanders would be the obvious candidate, of course, although I rather doubt he'd be considered "mainstream" to the U.S. as a whole and him getting 71% is likely more a factor of longtime incumbency, though I wouldn't argue the point that he's "mainstream" for Vermont.

So, with those caveats. That's one "mainstream" socialists.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

Nope. I'm just wondering why someone, let's take a specific friend of mine who is high up in the ACLU here, would see a violent criminal as someone who is a product of economic injustice who is being railroaded by the system, but that someone who opposes gay marriage is a nonredeemable bigot who is simply evil to the core and needs to minimized from society.

This is what I and Arles were talking about earlier, in trying to promote and encourage moderation, a move away from the extremes. I think there's people that really like the idea of a black and white world, some like to see crime that way, and some like to see morals and bigotry that way. My view of "Christianity" (which was shot down a few posts ago as being un-Christian) would be having compassion for and trying understand both.

There could be some cognitive bias going on with your ACLU friend?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You don't find it interesting that in the examples you habitually use, the actor you choose to describe in detail, to use as illustrative of your argument, tends to be a caricature from the left?

BTW, I'm fine with your description of the "tension on both sides" and am in agreement with your conclusion. I just continue to be curious about your predilection for calling out liberal caricatures in your arguments. In this case, for instance, it didn't even seem necessary.

If it annoys you, just ignore my line of questioning.

I don't think its a caricature, it's a real tension. I don't find the "left" or the "right" inherently superior. I just find it interesting where those pure political philosophies fall when applied to real-life things, especially where they seem to go in different directions when you switch around the topics. I don't think that's hypocritical, I don't think that's "wrong" in any way, I just find it interesting, and I think there's some understanding that can be gained by trying to sort that stuff out.

Edit: Are you different than my "caricature"? How do you see those who oppose gay marriage? As bigots? I know what you think of the hobby lobby. And where do you stand on say, the strength of the 4th amendment when it comes to prosecuting crimes? About the harshness of criminal penalties generally? Where am I so off base with the general observations about tensions?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I know what you think of the hobby lobby.

I would be interested in how you would articulate what I think of the Hobby Lobby ruling, without looking at my previous posts.

[flere-imsaho]

Anyway, I think what people are looking at as a black-and-white stance (let's say on the use of the word "bigot") is the result rather than the intention of the person making that judgment call.

To me, the intention of people who end up calling anti-gay-rights people "bigots" is to have a particularly low bar for defining someone as a bigot. You seen this with many strongly-held beliefs across the spectrum. Take the right's view of the word "Patriot", for example, neatly encapsulated by Bush's "you're either with us or against us" announcement.

The word, then, in common usage, becomes shorthand as a pejorative for the "other side", even if the speaker fully understands there's still a sliding scale involved. Which is why, again, I caution against thinking that the use of the word alone connotes a black-and-white worldview on a particular topic.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder if Professor Bronner finds whatever he would identify as "moral bigotry" regarding the opposition of gay marriage as better, worse, or the same as other more failings like committing violent crimes, or stealing.

Every one of the acts you described is not voluntary between consenting adults where the activity endangers no one.

[molson]

Well, what do you think. Would you call them bigots, and what does that word mean to you?

Do you think the Giants should have hired David Tyree? Some didn't.

New York Giants drop the ball with David Tyree hire - ESPN

Human Rights Campaign blasts New York Giants' hiring of David Tyree - ESPN New York

So he gets hired, and is now, at least outwardly, trying to proclaim his tolerance. He says he's changed his mind about a lot of things over the years. He says he'd have no issue with a gay player on the team. Great. I'm sure he had to make those kind of assurances to the Giants, at least on the last part. Still though, once he was labeled as anti-gay, there are some that just wanted him minimized and to never get hired.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Every one of the acts you described is not voluntary between consenting adults where the activity endangers no one.

Agree, but that has nothing to do with the point I made.

Edit: Actually it was a question rather than a point, because I really know nothing about socialism. I just imagined that professor to be like almost every college and law professor that I've ever had, that would see violent crime as a product of economic and racial injustice. He would rant against the government and the system and capitalism - not the individual. And he'd have a lot of great points. But when it comes to bigotry, clearly, he doesn't want any "hand-wringing over whether this or that person is really a bigot deep in his heart." We need to hold those people individually "morally accountable" (whatever that means - I think it's minimizing them ala not hiring David Tyree, etc.). When it comes to opposition to gay marriage, he would not blame any system, he would not blame someone's background, he would not blame broad societal injustice. If someone opposes gay marriage, it's the individual that's the problem. I'm not saying those things are hypocritical, or even inconsistent. But as I've said, being involved in a field that faces many attacks from college professors and others I perceive to be on the "left", to me, it really stands out to me when that "left" seems to go in a totally different direction.

[molson]

Dola, I think we should try to be welcoming and understanding, to see the reasons why people are the way they are, and especially, encourage people to become more moderate. I've seen lots of peoples' views on gay marriage and homosexuality soften just by being around gay people and realizing they're not that scary. When someone has the courage to come out of the closet to their family, sometimes the family casts them off, but sometimes the family gets the hell over it. When the latter happens, we get societal progress. That's harder to to if we label all these people as bigots and try to minimize them and deny them jobs, etc. (And I'm open to the idea that when people use the word "bigot", I hear it as more harsh than they intend it.)

And to tie things in with the last post, I definitely lean on the side of wanting to be more harsh on criminals, so I maybe just want to see all of that liberal feel-good stuff that opposes me in that sphere apply here, when it comes to this other moral failing of being ignorant when it comes to homosexuality. If we can "fix" most of those criminals, we sure as hell can "fix" at least some of this ignorance. (And I actually believe it's much easier to change the latter, just because I've seen it happen more often).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If you think you can shed your normal biases and identify members of Congress who are a) actually socialist and b) "mainstream" (however we want to define that), I'd certainly be willing to listen.

I was strictly going for humor there. Carry on.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

My argument is this: that like in slavery, you had people saying that the new school (abolition) was deciding what the Bible should say based on modern morality, when the Bible was "clear" that slavery was ok and that there was definitely ignoring of those texts by the abolition folks.

I understand that, I just don't think it's helpful to this discussion to get into who was right and wrong on the slavery issue. My view on the fundamental point(that the view of/approach to the Bible is what's paramount) stands.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

I believe in gay marriage not because the culture has told me that's moral, but because I believe that GOD has told me that it is moral and just. I didn't believe in gay marriage until I became a Christian and I became convicted following that.

At this point then I would simply have similar questions to those I asked Molson a bit ago. And as mentioned it's far more important that we have honest answers to these than we have the same answers, since we aren't talking about a non-essential pillar of the faith by any means.

** In what way did God tell you this?
** How does it square with OT teachings on homosexuality, or with those of Paul?
** What did Jesus mean when he affirmed the Genesis model of marriage, or is this irrelevant for some reason?

Etc.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I understand that, I just don't think it's helpful to this discussion to get into who was right and wrong on the slavery issue. My view on the fundamental point(that the view of/approach to the Bible is what's paramount) stands.

Au contraire - of course its helpful when people speak of adding or changing Scripture. Anti-Slavery readings of Scripture were attacked in the same ways. No wonder it makes the accusers of conforming Scripture to modern mores uncomfortable.

** In what way did God tell you this?
** How does it square with OT teachings on homosexuality, or with those of Paul?
** What did Jesus mean when he affirmed the Genesis model of marriage, or is this irrelevant for some reason?

The Old Testament and New Testament teachings on homosexuality are based upon a different era and understanding of the nature of homosexuality. In that era, it was assumed that homosexuality was simply a product of unchecked lust and in Greek culture, the dominant male was fully within his rights to make a subservient male, whether a boy or slave submit to his sexual lusts. There was absolutely no notion or concept of sexual orientation or monogamous same-sex loving couples based on equality in their relationship.

Secondly Jesus's "affirming of the Genesis model" is bogus. Jesus was speaking about divorce. And was answering a question asked about whether or not people of God could divorce. His referencing of Genesis was in that context and spoken to the people of Israel in a way they could understand why Jesus was not allowing of divorce. Nothing was indicated that this was marriage and people who use this example are doing the changing to Scriptures to conform to their own biases.

Furthermore, unless you are Catholic, I'm thinking that your church allows for divorced people to worship at the altar? Even though Jesus has forbidden it? Or could it be that He was speaking for a specific era? In the same way, Paul not directly challenging the institution of slavery? Or telling Corinthian women to be silent in Church? These things are based upon a certain context that we realize is not for all people forever (well, unless you are Catholic or some fundamentalist Protestants when it comes to the divorce and women preaching thing).

In God telling me or others moral things - have you never been convicted by the Spirit? Has your conscious not gripped you in prayer or worship? Have you never been pushed or shoved by God?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Au contraire - of course its helpful when people speak of adding or changing Scripture. Anti-Slavery readings of Scripture were attacked in the same ways. No wonder it makes the accusers of conforming Scripture to modern mores uncomfortable.

The only people I 'accused' of doing that were people who overtly stated that was their approach. I try to avoid accusing people of conforming Scripture based soley on what their doctrinal position is simply because due to our human frailties different people see the same text differently, and I'm not comfortable claiming I'm more pious or knowledgeable than someone else. Regardless I still fail to see how the debate over who was right or wrong in abolition has anything to do with the subject of this thread: people have made scriptural arguments back and forth on a variety of issues and will continue to do so, but whether the issue is slavery or indulgences or the papacy or whatever, one issue is not necessary related to the others.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Nothing was indicated that this was marriage and people who use this example are doing the changing to Scriptures to conform to their own biases.

I'm glad you've put a lot of consideration into these things. At this point you are overreaching however, and I'll just point out that I don't see any way Mark 10:6 fits into your description of this text, and Jesus' blanket endorsement of the OT including the Genesis model makes the specifics of Mark 10 merely redundant. Even if you think it does, you might want to consider the possibility that your description here of people taking a contrary view is inaccurate and unfair. I'll also mention briefly that re: homosexuality there are many other concepts complete contrary to culture that the Bible not only mentions but overtly teaches, so because of that I find that explanation of Paul's writings completely unconvincing.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

I'm thinking that your church allows for divorced people to worship at the altar?

We don't have an altar to worship at, but yes we do allow it. Those who divorce willfully without being willing to reconcile are removed from membership.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Or could it be that He was speaking for a specific era?

It could be, but I'd say the burden of proof decidedly is upon those claiming it's only era-specific, absent any biblical evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

In God telling me or others moral things - have you never been convicted by the Spirit? Has your conscious not gripped you in prayer or worship? Have you never been pushed or shoved by God?

Of course, but by definition he never does so by contradicting Scripture, so fidelity to the Bible is how we must test the spirits in this case. I have also been deceived in thinking I was being convicted by the Spirit on something when in fact I was merely being neurotic or emotional, and of course people over history have felt led in completely opposite directions. Diametrically opposed propositions cannot both simultaneously be true, revealing the need for a standard by which such things must be judged.

FWIW I have tried to get to the point of being pro-gay marriage etc. as I think there are times when it becomes an obstacle to the gospel, particularly in our cultural environment. I certainly don't want to add anything human into the way. I can't get there, I think the Bible is quite unambiguous on the subject, but I do view it as definitely a non-essential, so not something I wish to be contentious about in terms of saying someone is being unchristian simply because they believe differently than I do.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

one issue is not necessary related to the others.

I'll just point out that I don't see any way Mark 10:6 fits into your description of this text

I find this to be ironic.

FWIW, I also find it cherry picking a verse out from its context. The slavery discussion matters a great deal here. Because it is quite clearly a case where the interpretive viewpoint quite clearly indicated that slavery was ok under Biblical reading at some point. And then people decided, no, slavery was NOT ok to God. Interestingly, the first Christians who decided this were Catholics, who also had their Tradition to fall back upon. Protestants were the ones who rejected an anti-slavery reading to Scripture until forced to in the 1800s. And even then, you had Protestants vs. Protestants. And the ones dedicated to the status quo kept saying the abolitionists were conforming to the times rather than to what Scripture plainly says. How do you get around "slaves obey your masters" (the abolitionist retort, of course, was... interesting for this discussion... read further in the Epistle and think deeper about what that means)

In addition, no one is denying that God made men and women .

and Jesus' blanket endorsement of the OT including the Genesis model makes the specifics of Mark 10 merely redundant.

As indicated, you are cherry picking a verse out of its context. What, you thought that conservatives didn't do such things? I find Biblical conservatives to be some of the worst at cherry picking (even worse than Biblical liberals, who are fairly bad at it as well). As the famous quote goes: "I take the Bible too seriously to take it all literally" - the way to take the Bible to is to take it all seriously and struggle with all the passages and find out what God is trying to do - not say, ok, this jives with what I want and ignore what doesn't (which, once again both Biblical conservatives and liberals do in spades).

Also Jesus's "blanket endorsement" also included violating the Sabbath (at least under the view of the Pharisees) - a complete no-no under the Old Testament.

We don't have an altar to worship at, but yes we do allow it. Those who divorce willfully without being willing to reconcile are removed from membership.

Why do you allow something which is quite clearly against the words of Jesus?

It could be, but I'd say the burden of proof decidedly is upon those claiming it's only era-specific, absent any biblical evidence to the contrary.

The Scripture text was written 2000 years ago in a completely different time and era than we have at current. We need context for books written 100 years ago because they lived in a completely different time and took different things for granted. Why do Christians eat pork and shellfish? Is it because those proscriptions in the Law for a specific era, prior to the coming to the Messiah? Why is the NT, on only sex issues, so different?

Of course, but by definition he never does so by contradicting Scripture, so fidelity to the Bible is how we must test the spirits in this case.

Of course and my reading of the Bible tells me that loving others is the highest aim of being a disciple of Christ. That when people wanted to follow the Law to the letter, Jesus came and preached love. The Pharisees were CORRECT in their reading of the Law that an adulteress should be stoned to death (there is no other way to read the Torah on this matter). But Jesus said God's love and charity supersedes the Law's proscriptions.

There is plenty that was stated should be done in the Old Testament or even the New Testament that we believe was for that era - not eating pork, not eating shellfish, killing adulterers, mandating the rapists should marry their rapees (mandated for a very good reason in that time, mind), forbidden divorce except in cases of adultery, etc.

Not only am I sure that God's love and charity is for homosexual men and women to be embraced by the Church, but that His loving desire is for homosexual men and women to be able to be bound together in Holy matrimony in front of Him.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is the kind of argument all too often made by people who(usually) don't really know the Bible much at all. Not that a non-Christian should required to be a biblical theologian of course, but it would be a nice step in the direction of civility if a basic effort to understand the core beliefs of one's rhetorical opponents were to be engaged in. In this case, some of the ceremonial OT laws were specifically rendered obsolete in the NT by Jesus himself, so it's not necessarily -- though certainly it can be for individuals -- a case of cherrypicking, self-justification, or cafeteria Christianity to not concern oneself with them anymore. The 'bacon and
shellfish' example is specifically on point here.

There are specific passages in the NT that seem to say the OT still applies. Matthew 5:17 being one of many.

And a few of the things I listed were from the NT. Adultery and pre-marital sex being just two. That's why it feels like cherry-picking to me. The pre-martial stuff is much more prominent in the NT than homosexuality and yet there is little focus on it. I think even drunkeness is talked about more. So from an outside observer, it seems like people turn a blind eye to the stuff they like but stuff they don't like, well the Bible says it's bad!

[ISiddiqui]

Don't forget that revilers won't inherit the Kingdom as well . Seems to me a lot of anti-homosexual Christians do a whole lot of reviling...

[RainMaker]

How many young Christian men would turn down a 3-some because orgies are specifically mentioned in the NT?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

from an outside observer, it seems like people turn a blind eye to the stuff they like but stuff they don't like, well the Bible says it's bad!

There's multiple things going on here. One is that there are hypocrites. Another is that people object more to certain beliefs, those on homosexuality being among them. For example, in my experience the unbelievers that I know personally don't particularly object to drunkenness or premarital sex being called a sin. Sex for marriage only? They obviously don't agree but don't object to us calling it wrong. Homosexuality is different(as are things like abortion). I've experienced this within my own family, people at work, pretty much everywhere I've had occasion to discuss the biblically informed worldview. Suffice to say I think the controversy is due at least as much to the reaction of those outside the church to the doctrine as it is to those inside the church putting improper focus on it, but there certainly is more than enough blame to go around.

As for the OT it applies generally but some matters were clearly fulfilled/superseded by Jesus. An obvious one is the blood sacrifice system, other elements of the ceremonial law were specifically stated to be superseded by Jesus himself in the gospels, in Acts, there's a lot of discussion in Hebrews -- in general I'd just say it's a mistake to presume a hypocritical approach without knowing the person in question.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

FWIW, I also find it cherry picking a verse out from its context.

That's very presumptive of you, and inaccurate. I'll note that this accusation, made twice in your post, has zero foundation. One can disagree with you on a passage without doing so from ulterior motives.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

The slavery discussion matters a great deal here. Because it is quite clearly a case where the interpretive viewpoint quite clearly indicated that slavery was ok under Biblical reading at some point. And then people decided, no, slavery was NOT ok to God.

First, I still think slavery is ok to God in some forms. No, you didn't misread that. Go ahead and reread it as many times as is necessary to be properly offended -- and hopefully be willing to read the explanation. Personal autonomy/freedom/independence is a lie, a false hope, as demonstrated by Paul in Romans 6. There are two kinds of people: slaves to sin and slaves to righteousness. There is no third category. And of course the NT constantly uses the word doulos to refer to believers, and there's no other meaning for the word than slave. This is why my facebook profile lists my religion not as a denomination but simply as 'slave of Jesus Christ'. It would be good to reflect on the fact that this language was not significantly more acceptable in that day, considered a great insult -- but it was taught anyway.

This does not mean that Christians should not argue for more just and loving societal institutions(indeed we must, let justice roll down as the prophets declared). I would say both sides has flaws in their arguments in the abolition debate. The fact that Paul instructed slaves to obey their masters has nothing to do with whether God is ok with the institution of slavery. I still see no relevance at all.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

As the famous quote goes: "I take the Bible too seriously to take it all literally"

There is no-one I've ever read or heard of -- completely literally -- who takes everything in the Bible literally. Moreover, I'm not a 'biblical conservative' in many ways.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Why do you allow something which is quite clearly against the words of Jesus?]

I'm not on the board, nor should I be, ergo it's not my decision to make but the decision of those the Lord appointed to lead our congregation. What is this line of questioning all about? Do I need to somehow establish bonafides somehow by defending what my church does even when(as I do on a fair number of issues) I disagree with it? I'm a 'big-tent' guy, I don't have to agree with people on everything to fellowship or I'd be worshiping alone. All that matters are the core tenets of the faith, what the gospel is, etc.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

The Scripture text was written 2000 years ago in a completely different time and era than we have at current. We need context for books written 100 years ago because they lived in a completely different time and took different things for granted.

There's a difference between 'we need context' and 'the moral law has changed'.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Why do Christians eat pork and shellfish?

Because Jesus specifically declared it to be ok.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Why is the NT, on only sex issues, so different?

First, it's not on only sex issues. It's on things you've mentioned, like women in leadership. It's on things you haven't, like the sacraments of baptism and communion. It's on every aspect of the Christian life basically where we don't have clear revelation of a new command.

The NT is so different because it is the testimony of both Jesus and the early church that with it the canon closed. And to repeat, most of the OT is still in force.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

The Pharisees were CORRECT in their reading of the Law that an adulteress should be stoned to death (there is no other way to read the Torah on this matter). But Jesus said God's love and charity supersedes the Law's proscriptions.

I really think this is a very, very bad example. To begin with, that passage is not in the best and earliest manuscripts: the best evidence indicates it was added after the fact. But on the general point, I would simply ask again for you to contrast your definition of love and that defined by Jesus. Jesus did love everyone. He did offer grace to everyone, but always with clarity on the cost involved -- indeed he urged that the cost be considered! It has been said, accurately, that Jesus would fail personal evangelism in virtually every seminary in America. He told would-be followers to be willing to die and deny themselves. He told them to 'let the dead bury their own dead'. He loved the rich young ruler but didn't say 'your materialism is ok and accepted in the kingdom'. In other words, love to Jesus means obedience: those who love obey, and if you don't obey you don't love, as he stated repeatedly in gospel of John. His love was not universal acceptance of any and all behavior. If we follow his behavior, ours cannot be either -- we must love everyone but not everything they do, ourselves included. .

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Not only am I sure that God's love and charity is for homosexual men and women to be embraced by the Church

This part I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly agree with. They absolutely must be embraced(and it might surprise you that I've invited gay people to attend the fairly conservative church I attend, and bothered some of the members when they did come, and enjoyed themselves there). But they must be embraced in the same way we all are -- with the understanding that as children of God, we are to put to death those sins, those deeds of the flesh, that trouble us. Homosexual relations being among them.

Hopefully these words will be received in the graceful spirit they are intended.

[Glengoyne]

A couple of things I'll note as I'm regretfully very late to the thread.

I don't have a problem with what Dungy said. He didn't comment on Sam himself, he just pointed out that from the perspective of a football organization there was a lot of baggage associated with selecting him. I think it is a valid perspective to say "My team doesn't need that media circus as a distraction". I could say that as a GM, and it wouldn't have any reflection of my personal point of view on the subject. So it doesn't necessarily follow that Dungy is a bigot.

I'll also add that I have more than a few problems with the church's cherry picking of homosexuality as the sin to end all sin. My understanding is that sin is sin. One is not greater than another. All sin is separation from God. So there is no difference in God's eye between a devout virgin Sunday school teacher and your run of the mill homosexual. Sin is sin. There is no sliding scale. So Christians that target homosexuality appear to me to be just as correct and upstanding as the pharisees that Jesus referred to as white washed tombs. One can point at scripture all they want to, but none of us are equipped to throw that first stone.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's very presumptive of you, and inaccurate. I'll note that this accusation, made twice in your post, has zero foundation. One can disagree with you on a passage without doing so from ulterior motives.

You LITERALLY cherry picked a verse from its context. It's 100% accurate.

First, I still think slavery is ok to God in some forms. No, you didn't misread that. Go ahead and reread it as many times as is necessary to be properly offended -- and hopefully be willing to read the explanation. Personal autonomy/freedom/independence is a lie, a false hope, as demonstrated by Paul in Romans 6. There are two kinds of people: slaves to sin and slaves to righteousness. There is no third category. And of course the NT constantly uses the word doulos to refer to believers, and there's no other meaning for the word than slave. This is why my facebook profile lists my religion not as a denomination but simply as 'slave of Jesus Christ'. It would be good to reflect on the fact that this language was not significantly more acceptable in that day, considered a great insult -- but it was taught anyway.

So, word games meant to try to offend, but you really mean you have chosen to submit to the Lord?

Furthermore, there aren't two people - slaves to sin and slaves to righteousness. We are both, as Martin Luther says, simultaneously sinners and saints - therefore we are slaves to both. But, we are forgiven for the sin part. While we may say sin has no hold over us, we still sin - all except for Christ Jesus.

The fact that Paul instructed slaves to obey their masters has nothing to do with whether God is ok with the institution of slavery. I still see no relevance at all.

Yet, you can't see how you are doing the exact thing with homosexuality by cherry picking verses on abortion to declare the God is anti-homosexuality?

I'm not on the board, nor should I be, ergo it's not my decision to make but the decision of those the Lord appointed to lead our congregation. What is this line of questioning all about? Do I need to somehow establish bonafides somehow by defending what my church does even when(as I do on a fair number of issues) I disagree with it? I'm a 'big-tent' guy, I don't have to agree with people on everything to fellowship or I'd be worshiping alone. All that matters are the core tenets of the faith, what the gospel is, etc.

This is pure evasion. What is your view on divorce? If you are against, why do you go to a church that allows for remarried people to attend worship when they did something directly against God's own word?

There's a difference between 'we need context' and 'the moral law has changed'.

Not nearly as much you think there is. The moral law of 2000 years will not nearly apply to now, because society is vastly different.

Because Jesus specifically declared it to be ok.

Not quite - God the Father did, in a dream to Peter. Interestingly enough, I'd like to point out what God said to Peter:

"Do not call anything impure that God has made clean"

Right after that Peter went to eat with Gentiles, implying that it applies not just to food, but to people as well. This applies quite interestingly to the homosexuality debate, considering what we know of genetic sexual orientation.

First, it's not on only sex issues. It's on things you've mentioned, like women in leadership. It's on things you haven't, like the sacraments of baptism and communion. It's on every aspect of the Christian life basically where we don't have clear revelation of a new command.

You mean things that have changed? Women in leadership, the sacraments being baptism and communion rather than the 7 in the Catholic Church - all have changed. But sex issues apparently must remain static for all time? Why the difference?

Regardless, this is going to be like one of those things like miscegenation. There were definitely more than a handful of people who thumped the Bible and said marrying people of different races was against Scripture (stuff like Curse of Ham). This is seen as a hopelessly antiquated and embarrassing position by churches today. Homosexuality will be the same. His truth is marching on (as the song says) on this issue as more and more churches embrace homosexuals into the community.

I really think this is a very, very bad example. To begin with, that passage is not in the best and earliest manuscripts: the best evidence indicates it was added after the fact. But on the general point, I would simply ask again for you to contrast your definition of love and that defined by Jesus. Jesus did love everyone. He did offer grace to everyone, but always with clarity on the cost involved -- indeed he urged that the cost be considered! It has been said, accurately, that Jesus would fail personal evangelism in virtually every seminary in America. He told would-be followers to be willing to die and deny themselves. He told them to 'let the dead bury their own dead'. He loved the rich young ruler but didn't say 'your materialism is ok and accepted in the kingdom'. In other words, love to Jesus means obedience: those who love obey, and if you don't obey you don't love, as he stated repeatedly in gospel of John. His love was not universal acceptance of any and all behavior. If we follow his behavior, ours cannot be either -- we must love everyone but not everything they do, ourselves included. .

Did He love those who will killing him? Did He yell to forgive them because they were unaware of what they were doing? What obedience were they offering?

As for the adulterae pericope was added later charge, the story was referenced as early as 125 AD (by Papius) and other early references before the Codex Bezae.

This part I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly agree with. They absolutely must be embraced(and it might surprise you that I've invited gay people to attend the fairly conservative church I attend, and bothered some of the members when they did come, and enjoyed themselves there). But they must be embraced in the same way we all are -- with the understanding that as children of God, we are to put to death those sins, those deeds of the flesh, that trouble us. Homosexual relations being among them.

I reject the idea that old notions of lustful homosexual relationships have any application to modern knowledge of homosexual orientation and loving monogamous relationships. Sin is a turning away from God - God does not merely say random crazy stuff just to see if we are being obedient (well, in the OT is may seemed like He did at times). He is not Simon Says. Obedience to God is found in the self-giving love and charity to our neighbors and our constant struggle to break our selfishness to help others. This is not merely social gospel - it goes far beyond that.

[larrymcg421]

I know Dungy has tried to walk back his statement and make it more benign by saying he was talking about media distractions, but I'm not buying it. His earlier comment of "things will happen" is not talking about a reality show or extra attention from the media.

You can always find reasons to do the wrong thing. What really disappoints me about Dungy (a coach I've always liked in the past) is that he found reasons to do the wrong thing instead of finding reasons to do the right thing. When I think about character and values, the person who does the latter wins out in my book.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

You LITERALLY cherry picked a verse from its context. It's 100% accurate.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

This is pure evasion.

No I didn't -- the context in my opinion supports my opinion of what the verse means, as I stated when I first brought it up.

Aside from that, go in peace. These comments make it clear to me that further discussion can serve no productive purpose.

[ISiddiqui]

The context is about divorce. Of course he's going to use Genesis language to try to convince His listeners that this supersedes what Moses allowed (there are very few things that would trump Moses to the ancient Israelites). It makes no further statement as to what is the only true form of marriage forever and ever. Not to mention that Jesus, as God, probably knows that the Creation narrative (well, Creation narrative #2) was a mythopoetic explanation of how humans evolved, through God's plan, to current state. He is doing a Jesus thing - using a story to illustrate a point and only using it for that point.

[stevew]

NFL made deal with Rams over selecting Sam

Hmm. Yet another Roger bungle