Is Christianity due for a government-imposed Reformation?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Well, given that neither you nor Darth have yet managed to grasp Wink's argument or even understood the neutral position that he took on the subject and given that both you tried to shoot holes in the article prior to even reading it, I can't be much bothered that you think it stinks and Darth can't contain his too-ever-present derision. When either of you actually address the points that Wink actually makes and detail (not just assert) how his argument (not just your mischaracterization) demonstrates ignorance, we might be able to have an actual discussion about the article. Until then, this is empty rhetoric, not discussion.

—Sam

[JimL]

Other than so called christians like the Westboro baptist church, I don't know of any Christian denominations that are bigoted against homosexuals as people. We don't consider homosexuals less than human, or second class citizens, or any way inferior to ourselves or other people. Christians just consider homosexual practices to be a sin, just like we do adultery or sex out of wedlock. We are opposed to gay marriage. But we are also opposed to incestuous marriages, marriages to animals, furniture, or any other erosion of the institution of marriage. And we are joined by most other religions in the world in these convictions.

We don't use religion as an "excuse." We believe that God instituted marriage and created mankind. He sets the rules and we follow them. We do so out of loyalty to God. If someone doesn't want to follow our God and our practices, they are free not to. We don't force them to. But we don't want to be forced to follow secular rules regarding what is essentially a religious area either. If governments want to make gay marriage legal, then they will do so. But they should not force a religious group to have to marry people against their beliefs. The people can always get married by a justice of the peace or by some church that has no objection.

Government has no constitutional right to interfere with religious practices.

If that is what you believe, then practice what you believe, the government isn't stopping you, just don't try to force others to practice what you believe,or what they don't believe.

[Darth Executor]

Well, given that neither you nor Darth have yet managed to grasp Wink's argument or even understood the neutral position that he took on the subject and given that both you tried to shoot holes in the article prior to even reading it,

Actually not only did I read the entire article but got about one third of the way through a detailed rebuttal when I figured my time would be better spent doing more productive things than attempting a good faith response to what is clearly a dishonest piece written by a passive-aggressive pathological liar.

When either of you actually address the points that Wink actually makes

I already have addressed one such point: the one about executing homosexuals. Even though I really shouldn't need to explain why we are not, in fact, required to carry out the punishment for breaking a law in a state that hasn't existed in thousands of years to remain consistent with the view that the OT correctly identifies timeless sins. I have addressed another: his claim that biblical love ethic has been consistent from OT to today in contrast to sexual mores. I actually wanted to go in more detail on that since it's central to his thesis but you never bothered to continue along those lines. I've also indirectly addressed several of his claims that sexual mores changed by pointing out those things changed because the way ritual purity is treated changed, not because sexual ethics changed. You've not even acknowledged any of these points, let alone attempted to respond to them. It is easy to pretend all that has been said so far is empty rhetoric when you dismiss all the substance of what was said. Which is about what I would expect from someone who would link to this drivel in the first place.

[Sparko]

If that is what you believe, then practice what you believe, the government isn't stopping you, just don't try to force others to practice what you believe,or what they don't believe.

But as an American it is my duty to be a good citizen and to support the moral code that I believe is the best and most valuable. Thus I fight for initiatives that support those morals and fight against those initiatives that seek to degrade them.

Using your argument, it is OK for you to be against such things as thievery, murder, pedophilia, etc, but you shouldn't force others to practice what you believe. That would lead to complete anarchy.

[Cerebrum123]

Well, given that neither you nor Darth have yet managed to grasp Wink's argument or even understood the neutral position that he took on the subject and given that both you tried to shoot holes in the article prior to even reading it, I can't be much bothered that you think it stinks and Darth can't contain his too-ever-present derision. When either of you actually address the points that Wink actually makes and detail (not just assert) how his argument (not just your mischaracterization) demonstrates ignorance, we might be able to have an actual discussion about the article. Until then, this is empty rhetoric, not discussion.

—Sam

I did read the article after my first response to it, I admit I jumped the gun a little(I will be more careful about judging the contents of an article beforehand, and I apologize for doing this), but after reading it I found ti to be worse than I imagined. Also, I did give explanations of why he was wrong on such things, and so did Darth. Darth, like I said, is more articulate than I am, and I expect he could to a better job of refuting it. He has declined to do so, and has given his reasons for doing so. Also, I grasp his argument, and I have seen others rather similar. Vivian gave something along the same lines, and it was wrong for the same reasons. They both have an agenda, and haven't looked at the information in full. His claim that this issue is anything like slavery shows his agenda for what it is, and that alone would be enough for me to dismiss him, but I read the article anyway, and found many faults. Like I said earlier, it would take a book sized response to show everything he got wrong, and why he got it wrong. You also neglected all the points I made about how ALL sex outside of marriage is immoral, and that shows that you aren't paying very close attention to the Bible either.
I also explained several details on WHY the "sexual mores" changed. But you pretty much ignored everything I said. You don't even seem to understand that the story of Onan was NOT an implicit, nor explicit condemnation of masturbation, even though the CULTURE may have believed so at one time. The Bible doesn't change, but they way people view it does. What we need to do, is find the right way to interpret the Bible, and then evaluate the homosexuality issue based on that. And you know what? Even those that are for gay marriage admit that the Bible in both OT and NT unequivocally condemns homosexual activity. So, if you have a problem with Christians condemning homosexual activity, take it up with God.
I am going to "lurk" on this thread for a while, if I see something I feel I need to respond to, I will act, but otherwise I think I will just see how things play out.

[Ansgar Seraph]

They both have an agenda, and haven't looked at the information in full. His claim that this issue is anything like slavery shows his agenda for what it is, and that alone would be enough for me to dismiss him, but I read the article anyway, and found many faults.

Not everyone who disagrees with you has an agenda. That seems to be a common misconception around these parts. Have you read any of Wink's work, other than what I've linked? Do you have any genuine basis to say he has an agenda? It's amazing how the very thesis of the article, an appeal to tolerance in dialog, seems to have been lost.

Like I said earlier, it would take a book sized response to show everything he got wrong, and why he got it wrong. You also neglected all the points I made about how ALL sex outside of marriage is immoral, and that shows that you aren't paying very close attention to the Bible either.

Yes, I addressed your points; Post #117. It was a lengthy reply so claiming that I didn't address your arguments is pretty obviously false. And, again, you and I could disagree on the statement "The Bible considers all sex outside marriage immoral" even while we're both paying attention to the texts. By George, there have been books (plural) written about sexuality in the Bible with all sorts of biblical citations and footnotes.

Launching "obviously, you're not paying attention the Bible" swipes is just plain lazy thought.

I also explained several details on WHY the "sexual mores" changed. But you pretty much ignored everything I said.

No, I replied to it. I noted that explaining why sexual mores changed doesn't negate Wink's argument that they did and have changed. Which leads to the conclusion that explanation, not proof-texts, is often what is needed.

You don't even seem to understand that the story of Onan was NOT an implicit, nor explicit condemnation of masturbation, even though the CULTURE may have believed so at one time. The Bible doesn't change, but they way people view it does. What we need to do, is find the right way to interpret the Bible, and then evaluate the homosexuality issue based on that.

Amazingly, that's what Wink argued in his article, too! Good to know that you agree with his actual thesis.

And you know what? Even those that are for gay marriage admit that the Bible in both OT and NT unequivocally condemns homosexual activity. So, if you have a problem with Christians condemning homosexual activity, take it up with God.

It's amazing to me that, no matter how many times it's laid out that both Wink, in his article, and I, in this thread, are theologically neutral to the question of homosexuality, it just doesn't sink in. I don't personally believe, based on what I can reason, that homosexual behavior is condoned within a Christian paradigm. I personally can't see the wiggle-room that would allow for that.

But that doesn't mean that it's not clearly an important topic or that others who disagree with my personal opinion make some very compelling points. It doesn't mean that I don't have to temper my personal condemnation of homosexual behavior, given differences in culture, family and knowledge. What needs to happen is that Christians need to base their strictures on sound reasoning, not just selective biblical proof-texting. The dismissive "take it up with God" is just another kind of authoritarian proof-texting.

I am going to "lurk" on this thread for a while, if I see something I feel I need to respond to, I will act, but otherwise I think I will just see how things play out.

Given our collective belief that the others aren't paying close enough attention to actual arguments being made, I imagine this thread, or at least this particular vein, is about to go dark.

—Sam

[Darth Executor]

It's amazing how the very thesis of the article, an appeal to tolerance in dialog, seems to have been lost.

Would be nice if he hadn't cratered his own thesis in the second sentence.

The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did one hundred and fifty years ago.

[ZackMartin]

Would be nice if he hadn't cratered his own thesis in the second sentence.

The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did one hundred and fifty years ago.

How does that statement crater his thesis, "an appeal to tolerance in dialog".

It's a true claim. The issue does threaten to fracture several whole denominations - in particular, the mainline Protestant ones. Anglicanism is already fracturing. Other mainline denominations are threatening to do the same. Of course, it's unlikely to fracture the Southern Baptist Convention any time soon (if ever), but he didn't claim it was going to fracture all denominations.

And it certainly has similarities with past church divisions over slavery - obviously they are different issues, and I don't think anyone is arguing that banning same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to slavery. Even those (such as myself) who strongly support same-sex marriage, I don't think anyone would seriously claim they are moral equivalents - obviously slavery is a lot worse. But if you look at church history in the US, the debate over slavery produced a major denominational realignment, and this issue clearly threatens to do the same thing in the US, and even produce such realignments in other countries that have less of a history of that phenomena than the US does. So that's true too.

This issue is likely to cause a number of church divisions and mergers. Several mainline churches are likely to split along liberal-conservative lines. Then, on both the liberal and conservative sides, mergers between what is left will be easier, so we may see the liberal branches of two or more historically distinct mainline denominations merging together; the conservatives might be more likely to merge in different ways, such as merging into more conservative denominations in the same tradition that already exist. (Or conservative Anglicans converting to Catholicism is an example of this too). Ecumenism becomes so much easier to negotiate when you get rid of half of your church.

So there is nothing intolerant in that sentence that I can see. Unless you are reading ideas into it that aren't actually there.

[Jaecp]

But as an American it is my duty to be a good citizen and to support the moral code that I believe is the best and most valuable. Thus I fight for initiatives that support those morals and fight against those initiatives that seek to degrade them.

Using your argument, it is OK for you to be against such things as thievery, murder, pedophilia, etc, but you shouldn't force others to practice what you believe. That would lead to complete anarchy.

It's about what we're basing stuff on. We don't legislate religious beliefs, laws that coincide with what is prescribed against by a specific religion need a secular basis as well to not violate the first amendment.

[Cerebrum123]

Not everyone who disagrees with you has an agenda. That seems to be a common misconception around these parts. Have you read any of Wink's work, other than what I've linked? Do you have any genuine basis to say he has an agenda? It's amazing how the very thesis of the article, an appeal to tolerance in dialog, seems to have been lost.



Yes, I addressed your points; Post #117. It was a lengthy reply so claiming that I didn't address your arguments is pretty obviously false. And, again, you and I could disagree on the statement "The Bible considers all sex outside marriage immoral" even while we're both paying attention to the texts. By George, there have been books (plural) written about sexuality in the Bible with all sorts of biblical citations and footnotes.

Launching "obviously, you're not paying attention the Bible" swipes is just plain lazy thought.




No, I replied to it. I noted that explaining why sexual mores changed doesn't negate Wink's argument that they did and have changed. Which leads to the conclusion that explanation, not proof-texts, is often what is needed.



Amazingly, that's what Wink argued in his article, too! Good to know that you agree with his actual thesis.




It's amazing to me that, no matter how many times it's laid out that both Wink, in his article, and I, in this thread, are theologically neutral to the question of homosexuality, it just doesn't sink in. I don't personally believe, based on what I can reason, that homosexual behavior is condoned within a Christian paradigm. I personally can't see the wiggle-room that would allow for that.

But that doesn't mean that it's not clearly an important topic or that others who disagree with my personal opinion make some very compelling points. It doesn't mean that I don't have to temper my personal condemnation of homosexual behavior, given differences in culture, family and knowledge. What needs to happen is that Christians need to base their strictures on sound reasoning, not just selective biblical proof-texting. The dismissive "take it up with God" is just another kind of authoritarian proof-texting.



Given our collective belief that the others aren't paying close enough attention to actual arguments being made, I imagine this thread, or at least this particular vein, is about to go dark.

—Sam

1. I said that Wink, and Vivian have an agenda, not everyone that disagrees with me. No, I haven't read any of Wink's other works, and if this one is any indication of what they contain, then I would rather not deal with the ignorance he has shown so far. He showed his bias, and agenda when he compared the homosexuality issue to the slavery issue 150 years ago.
2.You addressed some of the points I made about other topics, but when I showed that the NT condemned all sex outside of marriage, you didn't really give a good answer at all, and neglected the point I was making.about the use of porneia, and how it has the NT saying that ALL sex outside of marriage is sinful. I had already admitted that the culture had changed it's acceptance of certain sexual activities. I never said that you didn't address any of my arguments, just the points about all sexual activity outside of marriage being sinful in the Bible.
3.Your own sentence is rather confusing here, first you say that my explanation of why these things changed isn't important to Wink's argument that they have changed, then you go on to say that because they have changed, that an explanation is needed. Isn't that exactly what I was trying to do for you, you know, give the explanation of why they changed? Like I said, the way culture has accepted things has changed, but the Bible hasn't, and we need to look to the Bible as the ultimate authority on the issue. I was trying to show that his whole idea that an explanation is needed is dumb, since an explanation has ALREADY been given, and that it has been done so while using the Bible as an authority.
4. His thesis seems to be that since we don't go by some of the things in the OT anymore, that we should be able to get rid of other Biblical laws as well(that certainly seems to be the point he is trying to make), and I certainly don't agree with that. He doesn't even seem to be asking if there ARE any explanations for why these things have changed, only saying that they have before, so why not now. At least that seems to be every implication I get when reading the article.
5. Wow, do you actually believe that Wink's paper was "theologically neutral"? He starts off by saying how divisive this issue is(comparing it to slavery, which is a VERY bad example), then ends by asking all of us to be "civilized". His paper shows his obvious bias, and you would have to be blind to miss it(or just purposely ignoring it).
Sound reasoning for a Christian, comes FROM the Bible, and proper exegesis is needed in order to do this. Proper exegesis CLEARLY shows that homosexual activity is completely immoral, and an "abomination" in the eyes of God. This was made abundantly clear in both the OT and NT, and like I said, if someone has a problem with that, then they need to take it up with the one who made these laws, and that would be God. I wasn't trying to be dismissive about anything, you know, and I know, that homosexual activity is explicitly condemned in the Bible. With that knowledge, it comes down to this, do you have a problem with that condemnation? If you do, then you must ask yourself, who made that condemnation? I don't know the answer to that first question for you, but I certainly know the answer to the second one, and that is that God made that condemnation, and He made it abundantly clear.
6. You seem to have been paying attention better than others, but you still haven't been understanding the points being made, and you seem not to realize that Wink certainly wasn't neutral on the issue.

[Sparko]

It's about what we're basing stuff on. We don't legislate religious beliefs, laws that coincide with what is prescribed against by a specific religion need a secular basis as well to not violate the first amendment.

are you nuts? we might not legislate religious beliefs but we do legislate morality and ethics, which come from various worldviews, including religious ones. Nearly every basic law we have has a correspondence to the 10 commandments, for instance: Do not steal, don't murder, and so on.

So yes, my religious beliefs do influence my ethics, and I do want to promote those ethics in society and government. And as an American citizen, that is my right and duty.

And you might want to reread your first amendment. It keeps government out of religion and says that government can't interfere with our beliefs. It says nothing about keeping our beliefs out of government. Point in fact, there are official chaplains in the US Congress and each session of Congress is opened with a prayer.

[Darth Executor]

How does that statement crater his thesis, "an appeal to tolerance in dialog".

Insinuating some people are the equivalent of slavers tends to kill civility on the spot. Whether it's true or not is not really relevant.

[Jaecp]

are you nuts? we might not legislate religious beliefs but we do legislate morality and ethics, which come from various worldviews, including religious ones. Nearly every basic law we have has a correspondence to the 10 commandments, for instance: Do not steal, don't murder, and so on.

Precisely. We don't legislate religious belief. Laws against murder can be justified without appealing to religion.

These ones,

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

Don't lie, steal, cheat, or murder. Cool. Not exactly revolutionary, but cool.

These ones,

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

These are religious rules and nothing more

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

Not exactly a law and its universal application is flawed. Honor needs to be earned. My parents have. Their parents? Well, one of my uncle lives with brain damage because of child abuse. My mother, a pretty religious women, does not honor her father and with one exception, we do not interact with him.

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

No coveting? What law is based upon this thought crime? I thought we were a capitalist country.

____________


Anyway so it looks like we've got 4 out of 10 that can be reasonable said to have laws on the book that might have a chance at being enforced, and the odds of an actual conviction for adultery are, shall we say, unlikely at best

So, the 10 commandments get somewhere between a 30 and a 40, say 35% of the 10 commandments finds its way into American law. Thats kind of an F. Not to mention that all of those that we do have, murder, perjury and theft, are supported by the enlightenment views of the social contract, idea's that were quite popular amongst our founders.

So yes, my religious beliefs do influence my ethics, and I do want to promote those ethics in society and government. And as an American citizen, that is my right and duty.

Indeed,

So if you want to legislate something that is in your religion, find a reason for people outside of your religion to care.

And you might want to reread your first amendment. It keeps government out of religion and says that government can't interfere with our beliefs. It says nothing about keeping our beliefs out of government. Point in fact, there are official chaplains in the US Congress and each session of Congress is opened with a prayer.

You might want to bone up on constitutional law Sparko, though I'm pretty sure you already know separation of Church and State goes both ways.

[Sparko]

Precisely. We don't legislate religious belief. Laws against murder can be justified without appealing to religion.

These ones,



Don't lie, steal, cheat, or murder. Cool. Not exactly revolutionary, but cool.

These ones,



These are religious rules and nothing more



Not exactly a law and its universal application is flawed. Honor needs to be earned. My parents have. Their parents? Well, one of my uncle lives with brain damage because of child abuse. My mother, a pretty religious women, does not honor her father and with one exception, we do not interact with him.



No coveting? What law is based upon this thought crime? I thought we were a capitalist country.

____________


Anyway so it looks like we've got 4 out of 10 that can be reasonable said to have laws on the book that might have a chance at being enforced, and the odds of an actual conviction for adultery are, shall we say, unlikely at best

So, the 10 commandments get somewhere between a 30 and a 40, say 35% of the 10 commandments finds its way into American law. Thats kind of an F. Not to mention that all of those that we do have, murder, perjury and theft, are supported by the enlightenment views of the social contract, idea's that were quite popular amongst our founders.



Indeed,

So if you want to legislate something that is in your religion, find a reason for people outside of your religion to care.




You might want to bone up on constitutional law Sparko, though I'm pretty sure you already know separation of Church and State goes both ways.

way to miss the point. we were arguing whether it was right for me to want to promote my beliefs by exercising my right as an American Citizen. You have not shown that I shouldn't.

And as you show above we do legislate morality. And morality can come from many sources, INCLUDING religion. And the first amendment does nothing to prevent religion or the free exercise thereof. Even in government. and the phase "separation of Church and State" doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution or the first amendment. It just prevents the government from establishing its own religion or passing laws against the free exercise of religion.

wanna try again and tell me why I can't promote my moral views in government?

[Jaecp]

way to miss the point. we were arguing whether it was right for me to want to promote my beliefs by exercising my right as an American Citizen. You have not shown that I shouldn't.

I never said you couldn't promote your beliefs.

My point of contention is on whether it can become law.

And as you show above we do legislate morality. And morality can come from many sources, INCLUDING religion. And the first amendment does nothing to prevent religion or the free exercise thereof. Even in government. and the phase "separation of Church and State" doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution or the first amendment. It just prevents the government from establishing its own religion or passing laws against the free exercise of religion.

You argued that we've got "nearly every basic law" with a basis in the 10 commandments and we've got 3 that are represented and enforced with a 4th that is on the books in plenty of places, but not that I've ever heard of being enforced. Your statement is patently false, any way we look at it.

The ones that are in both your religion and in American law are ones that can be argued for without appealing to religion.

Regarding the rest, you really have no idea how constitutional law works do you? We aren't restricting your personal use of religion, but attempts to make others operate as you do in situations where the only justification is religious rules. You're only ever going to be convicted in an American court for 3 of the 10 commandments, the other seven are religious rules. If it simply was something the majority believed in, why do you think they aren't laws?

It's because we have more in our legal system than just "the majority of citizens think x" as a basis for doing stuff.

wanna try again and tell me why I can't promote my moral views in government?

Promote them all you want, I've never said you couldn't, but if all you have is "my religion says so" its going to get struck down as unconstitutional.

If you have a problem with that, dive deeper into how the law works.