Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-08-2008, 04:23 PM

This Newsweek article has Donald Wildmon and Albert Mohler up in arms. In the article, Lisa Miller goes through all the passages that must be familiar to most here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisa Miller

If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?

From Mohler's blog, after he points out that St. Paul does too condemn sex between women:

Quote:

All this comes together when Miller writes, "We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future." At this point the authority of the Bible is reduced to whatever "universal truths" we can distill from its (supposed) horrifyingly backward and oppressive texts.

Toto · 12-08-2008, 04:41 PM

Christianity Today on the history of Christian marriage

Quote:

Determining the purpose of marriage was one of the early church fathers' most daunting challenges. They discovered rich guidance in Jesus' teachings and Paul's writings but sometimes struggled to shed pagan preconceptions and interpret Old Testament models. Compounding their difficulties, some influential religious leaders offered unorthodox interpretations of Scripture. Tatian and Marcion rejected marriage completely, but Tertullian defended marriage despite preferring celibacy. Carpocrates and Epiphanes encouraged their followers to take common wives, as some Godly men had in the Old Testament. Clement countered by holding up for imitation Peter's monogamous devotion to his wife.

Where do we learn anything about Peter's wife?

Quote:

The church fathers expected a great deal from marriage, even though many of them, following Paul's example, remained celibate. Chrysostom, in fact, considered marriage suitable only for the spiritually weak and needy. Augustine of Hippo, who lived from 354 to 430 and left an indelible mark on the church, had spent his formative years indulging himself in sexual sin. But he abandoned his sensual lifestyle in the waters of baptism on Easter in 387. Like Chrysostom and Tertullian, he considered virginity a more admirable state than marriage.. . .

By the end of the early church period, the fathers recognized a threefold purpose of marriage—procreation, sanctification, and chastity (that is, fidelity to one partner, not abstinence). They treated marriage with utmost seriousness. Chrysostom even upbraided his fellow Christians for incorporating supposedly pagan marriage rituals like dancing into the ceremonies. "Is the wedding then a theater?" Chrysostom preached. "It is a sacrament, a mystery, and a model of the Church of Christ, and still you invite dissolute women to it! — But why is there any need of dancing at all? They dance at pagan ceremonies; but at ours, silence and decorum should prevail, respect and modesty. Here, a great mystery is accomplished; away with the dissolute women, away with the profane!"

Ben C Smith · 12-08-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

From Mohler's blog, after he points out that St. Paul does too condemn sex between women....

He writes:

She cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary as stating that "nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women." She would have done better to look to the Bible itself, where in Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes: "For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Again, this passage makes absolutely no sense unless it refers very straightforwardly to same-sex relations among both men and women -- with the women mentioned first.

But I personally think a better case can be made for bestiality as the thrust of the female half of Romans 1.26-27...:

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

...which seems to be recalling Leviticus 18.22-23, where both genders are prohibited from bestiality, but only the woman is singled out as such (the male being subsumed under the understood you):

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.

I think I recall reading somewhere that Queen Victoria passed a law against male homosexuality but, refusing to believe that female homosexuality even existed, did not pass an explicit law against it. (This is from my vague memory of a forgotten source, which may or may not have been accurate to begin with; correction welcome.)

At any rate, I think it is from the LXX of Leviticus 18.22 (και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος) that Paul (or some unknown person before him) gets his unusual term αρσενοκοιτης.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 12-08-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Where do we learn anything about Peter's wife?

That he had a wife, from Matthew 8.14-15 = Mark 1.29-31 = Luke 4.38-39 (and 1 Corinthians 9.5, assuming the identity of Cephas and Peter, but we actually have evidence that Clement of Alexandria did not assume this). That he would treat her well, from 1 Peter 3.7 (which we know that Clement of Alexandria knew; refer to Instructor 1.6; 3.11; 4.12; Miscellanies 3.11; 3.18; 4.7).

Ben.

ETA: There may be more to this, but I do not know offhand.

Alex MacDonald · 12-08-2008, 05:45 PM

I think the gay/lesbian people who desire to get married should be commended by the Christian community. Not because the Bible endorses it, it doesn't, but because marriage itself should be commended.

I don't agree with gay marriage, because it redefines the word marriage. And I have a problem with our society hastily redifining important sociological terms. I don't agree that marriage should be defined as involving two people of the same sex, or of involving more than two people (even though the latter is biblical).

diana · 12-08-2008, 05:54 PM

Alex, several European nations have already "redefined" marriage* to include same sex partnership, I believe. As always, as far as sociological experiments go, America is not in the lead.

* I have trouble with this argument, as marriage was "redefined" only a few decades back so people of different races/ethnicities could marry.

But, this is fodder for a different forum. Back to what the bible has to say about it....

d

Autonemesis · 12-08-2008, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex MacDonald

And I have a problem with our society hastily redefining important sociological terms.

Sounds like you've merely been caught off-guard. The gay marriage movement has been pursing this goal for decades, and marriage has seen constant revision for longer than that by heterosexuals. How hasty is too hasty? 20 years? 50? 100? 1000?

Toto · 12-08-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Where do we learn anything about Peter's wife?

That he had a wife, from Matthew 8.14-15 = Mark 1.29-31 = Luke 4.38-39 (and 1 Corinthians 9.5, assuming the identity of Cephas and Peter, but we actually have evidence that Clement of Alexandria did not assume this). That he would treat her well, from 1 Peter 3.7 (which we know that Clement of Alexandria knew; refer to Instructor 1.6; 3.11; 4.12; Miscellanies 3.11; 3.18; 4.7).

Ben.

ETA: There may be more to this, but I do not know offhand.

1 Peter 3:7 -

Quote:

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel,

:constern02:

Did Peter have a wife? - this essay seems to think that she must have died before the healing of the mother in law, or she would have been there. (The author also opines that 1 Cor 9 refers to a female fellow believer, not a wife.)

But I note that there are later traditions that Peter's wife died a martyr before him:

Quote:

There is a clear Orthodox tradition that St Peter dedicated himself completely (lived celibate from that time on) to Christ from the time of his call. This can be seen in the following words of St Clement of Alexandria:They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, 'Remember the Lord'. Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them. Thus also the Apostle says, 'That he who marries should be as though he married not', and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord. [p.541, Book 7, The Stromata, Clement of Alexandria, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2]

Ben C Smith · 12-08-2008, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

1 Peter 3:7 -

:constern02:

I should have said treat her well from an ancient point of view. :Cheeky:

Ben.

Johnny Skeptic · 12-09-2008, 07:04 AM

Is it true that the Bible does not promote monogamy for everyone?

12-08-2008, 05:45 PM	#5
Alex MacDonald Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Tucson, Arizona Posts: 158	Gay Marriage I think the gay/lesbian people who desire to get married should be commended by the Christian community. Not because the Bible endorses it, it doesn't, but because marriage itself should be commended. I don't agree with gay marriage, because it redefines the word marriage. And I have a problem with our society hastily redifining important sociological terms. I don't agree that marriage should be defined as involving two people of the same sex, or of involving more than two people (even though the latter is biblical).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-08-2008, 05:54 PM	#6
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	Alex, several European nations have already "redefined" marriage* to include same sex partnership, I believe. As always, as far as sociological experiments go, America is not in the lead. * I have trouble with this argument, as marriage was "redefined" only a few decades back so people of different races/ethnicities could marry. But, this is fodder for a different forum. Back to what the bible has to say about it.... d

12-09-2008, 07:04 AM	#10
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Is it true that the Bible does not promote monogamy for everyone?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.