Is Christianity due for a government-imposed Reformation?

[Cerebrum123]

Nothing at all -- generally speaking. But in this specific text, if that is supposed to be an accurate metaphor for how God and believers are supposed to relate, well -- clearly I've been going to the wrong church.

Actually, I would have to agree that Song of Solomon isn't depicting a relationship with God, but that between a husband and wife. I once had a Muslim try to say that it was all about Mohammed' and Allah's relationship.

[Ansgar Seraph]

I'd heard -- and I'm interested in more info on this -- that this was at least in part due to the fact that many of the Pagan beliefs that early Christianity was competing with at the time were very (for lack of a better term) "sex-positive" -- that is, they considered sexuality to be a vital part of their worship. So, in order to set Christianity apart, if the Pagans were for something, the Christians were against it.

Anything to that, or am I hearing it wrong?

I haven't heard or read anything that would indicate such a contrast. A number of the ECFs (early Christian Fathers) did write polemically against various pagan and heretical groups for their sexual deviance but, as far as I can tell, Christian sexuality remained largely moored to Jewish sexuality in the early days. Given the apocalyptic assumptions of Paul (and, some would argue, of Jesus), it's a wonder that NT isn't even more forceful in devaluing sex!

I suppose that's something to remember, too. Both Christ and Paul were clear that marriage is an "escape hatch" to be used only by those who can't manage the willpower to be chaste. That's definitely not a value we promote highly in today's society.

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

To cover even half of what he got wrong, (yes I read the article) I would need to write a book(he claimed that things like prostitution were deemed as ok in the Bible, but apparently doesn't understand that just because something is recorded in the Bible doesn't mean that it is CONDONED by the Bible). About the only thing he seems to have gotten right, are a few things Christians see today as wrong(like birth control for Catholics), and that the Bible does unequivocally denounce homosexual acts as wrong(but he doesn't seem to believe that the Bible should be trusted on this issue, and that should tell any Christian more than enough about the article). If you would like to discuss his article in depth, then make a thread about it, and send me a pm, otherwise there is just way too much material to cover for this thread, and is a bit off topic.

It's pretty much on-topic. OtherCheek is worried that the government is going to impose a "reformation" on the Christian Church regarding the acceptability of homosexual unions. Wink is proposing a reformation inside the Christian Church regarding how we deal with the topic, including whether acceptance of homosexual unions is even necessarily evil.

Let's look at the list Wink makes:

"Homosexuality and the Bible." Wink, Walter

For example; virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:

* incest
* rape
* adultery
* intercourse with animals

But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:

* intercourse during menstruation
* celibacy
* exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)
* naming sexual organs
* nudity (under certain conditions)
* masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)
* birth control (some Christians still forbid this)
* And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not

Likewise, the bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn:

* prostitution
* polygamy
* levirate marriage
* sex with slaves
* concubinage
* treatment of women as property
* very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13)

© source where applicable

Your argument is that these were not necessarily condoned acts just because they were recorded. Winks point, however, is that sexual mores are unreflective behaviors in a given culture. These things, where they are positively recorded in the Bible, are not condemned because they were not questioned in the culture. You couldn't say that concubines were disallowed throughout the entire span of the Bible, nor could you argue that early marriage and polygamy were even implicitly condemned. The Bible quite clearly condemns, at certain times, acts of nudity, non-vaginal intercourse and sex during menstruation — sexual mores that are unfamiliar to modern culture.

Where the OT speaks out against prostitution, it limits its condemnation to A) forced prostitution, B) prostitution of a would-be bride and C) cultic prostitution. Apart from that, early (and quite probably late) OT Hebrew cultures tolerated and permitted prostitution as an economic necessity.

It's an exercise in futility to claim that sexual mores today even closely resemble NT and OT cultural behavior. The problem that Wink poses, therefore, is not what the Bible records but how we interpret sexual behavior, both within the Bible and in our modern society, by the love ethic of Christ.

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

You make the same mistake about Onan that the guy wrote the article you linked to does(unfortunately many people do). It wasn't the act that got him killed, it was the REASON he did the act. He was purposely trying avoid giving his brother an heir(likely so he could inherit his brother's share of what would be passed on). This is very many errors that your article made, and you apparently have misunderstood that same set of verses in the same way(hopefully that's the case, I would hope you wouldn't have just swallowed what he said whole simply because he was in agreement with your position).

Yes, we can interpret that Onan was destroyed by God for an act of willful disobedience. That doesn't change the historical fact that "wasting" semen was considered irresponsible, if not downright sinful. That's the point: we do not, today, have such a visceral reaction against "wasted seed." The sexual culture has changed and very few Christians today will refer to what biblical cultures thought about the importance of semen while many Christians today will hang an argument on what biblical cultures thought about homosexuality.

—Sam

[Cerebrum123]

It's pretty much on-topic. OtherCheek is worried that the government is going to impose a "reformation" on the Christian Church regarding the acceptability of homosexual unions. Wink is proposing a reformation inside the Christian Church regarding how we deal with the topic, including whether acceptance of homosexual unions is even necessarily evil.

Let's look at the list Wink makes:

"Homosexuality and the Bible." Wink, Walter

For example; virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting:

* incest
* rape
* adultery
* intercourse with animals

But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow:

* intercourse during menstruation
* celibacy
* exogamy (marriage with non-Jews)
* naming sexual organs
* nudity (under certain conditions)
* masturbation (some Christians still condemn this)
* birth control (some Christians still forbid this)
* And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not

Likewise, the bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn:

* prostitution
* polygamy
* levirate marriage
* sex with slaves
* concubinage
* treatment of women as property
* very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13)

© source where applicable

Your argument is that these were not necessarily condoned acts just because they were recorded. Winks point, however, is that sexual mores are unreflective behaviors in a given culture. These things, where they are positively recorded in the Bible, are not condemned because they were not questioned in the culture. You couldn't say that concubines were disallowed throughout the entire span of the Bible, nor could you argue that early marriage and polygamy were even implicitly condemned. The Bible quite clearly condemns, at certain times, acts of nudity, non-vaginal intercourse and sex during menstruation — sexual mores that are unfamiliar to modern culture.

Where the OT speaks out against prostitution, it limits its condemnation to A) forced prostitution, B) prostitution of a would-be bride and C) cultic prostitution. Apart from that, early (and quite probably late) OT Hebrew cultures tolerated and permitted prostitution as an economic necessity.

It's an exercise in futility to claim that sexual mores today even closely resemble NT and OT cultural behavior. The problem that Wink poses, therefore, is not what the Bible records but how we interpret sexual behavior, both within the Bible and in our modern society, by the love ethic of Christ.

—Sam

What the OT culture DID, and what the Bible TEACHES, are two entirely different things. Here, let me go by the things on the list you showed, and how he got them wrong.

List #1. We don't need to deal with.

List #2.
#1. Intercourse during menstruation. There are both health, and ritual reasons for this law. They didn't have the kind of hygiene products we have today, and there are many diseases that can spread through the blood. Besides, being ritually "clean" is very different from what we today consider "clean".
#2. Celibacy. This was at a time when following God's command to "go forth and multiply" was much more necessary, for individual and national survival. They didn't have the kinds of social serviced we do today, and the best way to make sure that you were taken care of in old age was to have kids. This one I wouldn't say he is too far off on, except in maybe how he deals with Paul's words concerning staying celibate if you have the will to do so.
#3. Exogamy. This is again another OT ritual purity deal, and a way to keep the bloodline of Israel pure in preparation for the coming Messiah. OT purity laws are not under the New Covenant, and aren't necessary for a Christian to follow(we have no need to make ourselves clean to enter the Temple or offer sacrifices as Jesus was the last sacrifice).
#4. Naming sexual organs. People even today rarely use the "technical" terms for genitalia(at least in my experience), and instead often opt to use different euphemisms even today(not saying that no one ever uses the "technical" terms, but most people I deal with just don't use those specific terms). Plus there is no command that no one could ever use a specific term for these organs(did ancient Hebrew even have a specific medical term for these organs? if not that kind of undercuts his whole argument against this one.).
#5. Nudity. Only the nudity under certain circumstances were forbidden in the Bible (like not seeing your father, mother, sister, etc naked). There is no command in the Bible that one can never be naked. Considering the way Song of Solomon portrays the woman, you can easily see that some forms of nudity are a GOOD thing.
#6. Masturbation. No Biblical condemnation of this act, only an individual who used this act in direct defiance of God(what the culture thought, and what the Bible actually teaches are worlds apart, just look at the Talmud).
#7. No where in the Bible is it condemned, but you do have the command to "go forth and multiply", and to "replenish(which actually means fill, and not to refill, because English was very different at the time of the KJV) the earth". These would go against birth control, but I think we have done a pretty good job of "multiplying", and many people just don't have the means to support children. Also Christians are under the New Covenant, and procreation isn't one of the commands.
#8 Menstrual blood unclean. See above answer to #1.

List #3.
#1. Prostitution. Any sex outside of marriage (which the Bible defines as one man and one woman) is inherently sinful. This guy obviously doesn't understand much of what the Bible teaches against if he doesn't know that sex outside of marriage of ANY kind if inherently sinful.
#2. Polygamy. No polygamy isn't explicitly condemned, but it certainly is IMPLIED. Everything from all of the problems that those who engaged in it had, to Jesus saying that marriage was all about one man and one woman becoming one "flesh". Not to mention that Adam had only one wife(please tell me that you don't buy into the legend of "Lillith"?).
#3. Levirate Marriage. We have another example of something allowed that was helpful during it's time. Here's a vid that does a good description on WHY it was done http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo6E4IjdJJc&feature=plcp
#4. Sex with slaves. Other than Sarah having Hagar have be a surrogate mother, I don't really remember any other instances of this. Also, in today's world we have our own ways of having surrogate mothers, we have in vitro fertilization.The process has changed, but the purpose has not.
#5. Concubinage. Wow. this guy really doesn't know a whole lot about WHY these things were allowed, does he(they didn't have the kind of social services we did, and this vid explains a lot about the context of the era)? Here's a vid that explains it( I would recommend going to tektonics.org for more information). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qERQNk_-W8&feature=plcp
#6. Treatment of women as property. This one is blatantly false, I would expect a fundy atheist to put up something like this, but not someone who is supposed to be a Christian theologian. Women were not property, and the rules were actually way ahead of their time as far as women's rights. This topic is WAY too big to be addressed in one post, but I can give you a link to a site that shows how women were ACTUALLY treated during Biblical times(of course there would have been people who did this in ancient Israel, but they wouldn't have been consistent with what Scripture teaches on the matter.
#7.Very early marriage. This isn't a case of pedophilia, and is still common in certain places in the world. People in the US, not only have much more freedom, but much longer, and healthier lives. Back in the ANE, you would have needed to find a way to to have kids about as soon as you were capable of doing so, and thereby increasing your chances of survival.

The problem with the above lists, is 1, they show ignorance of the things talked about 2, one of these things was simply false(and others were very misleading, or very bad scholarship to say the least) 3, some of these things while not explicitly commanded against were IMPLICITLY commanded against (like prostitution). Not only that he recognizes that homosexuality IS explicitly taught against, but then makes up excuses about how people like Paul were too ignorant about the subject, and therefore we should come up with out own rules(that is basically what he was saying). I'm guessing he doesn't hold to inerrancy, or he never would have questioned something he KNEW was EXPLICITLY taught against. To say that there isn't a Biblical sexual ethic, is intellectually dishonest, and it's because of people like him that our country is as bad off as it is(compromising the Bible's teachings in favor of the opinions of men is always disastrous).

The "sexual culture" may have changed, but God's word has not, and that is one of the HUGE issues in this whole debate. Also relying on what some of the people in Biblical times thought, that wasn't explicitly or even implicitly taught in the Bible isn't a good way to judge what the Bible ACTUALLY TEACHES. Also as far as "wasting seed" there are ritual laws for what to do in case of emission of semen, and it was only considered a ritual impurity. Those that put it in a category like murder, weren't studying the Bible very carefully, otherwise they would have known better.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Regarding List #2, you reference five of the eight only to explain why the sexual culture was different then than it was now. But Wink's point is that the sexual culture was different then than it is now! He is taking issue with the people who cite the Bible as authoritative concerning homosexuality but not authoritative concerning these other changes. Of course you can examine the cultural reasons for these behaviors and determine whether or not they're relevant today. Wink's argument is that it is hypocritical to examine and determine some sexual mores and not others. What we have to do, then, is examine customs regarding homosexuality inside the biblical cultures and determine whether those customs are still relevant.

You completely missed Wink's argument.

Please elaborate on how any sex outside marriage was universally condemned in biblical literature.

You argue that polygamy is implicitly condemned in biblical cultures? Really? Jacob, David, Solomon — where was the condemnation of these individuals polygamy even implied?

Regarding levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage and very early marriage, you once again fail to grasp Wink's argument, which is that sexual mores have changed from biblical culture to modern day and instead give reasons for why we accept the changes. There is a gap in logic here: Wink's point is, again, that these sexual ethics have been replaced with different or contradictory ethics. It is hypocritical, therefore, to pretend that whatever sexual ethic is recorded in the Bible is automatically the correct position. We don't treat many of the Bible's sexual ethics with such deference and it's hypocritical to do so with homosexuality.

Wink doesn't make the ethical argument for homosexual behavior. What he notes, and what you have completely missed, is that the metric people often use to condemn homosexuality is not universally applied to all biblical sex ethics — not remotely. If we are to discuss the ethics of homosexual behavior, therefore, we would do well to be honest in our treatment of biblical authority. Homosexual behavior might still be wrong in a Christian paradigm but you can't get there just by pointing to proof-text verses.

—Sam

[Cow Poke]

I used to prefer Dutch Chocolate Ice Cream, but now seem to enjoy Homemade Vanilla Bean.

[Cerebrum123]

Regarding List #2, you reference five of the eight only to explain why the sexual culture was different then than it was now. But Wink's point is that the sexual culture was different then than it is now! He is taking issue with the people who cite the Bible as authoritative concerning homosexuality but not authoritative concerning these other changes. Of course you can examine the cultural reasons for these behaviors and determine whether or not they're relevant today. Wink's argument is that it is hypocritical to examine and determine some sexual mores and not others. What we have to do, then, is examine customs regarding homosexuality inside the biblical cultures and determine whether those customs are still relevant.

You completely missed Wink's argument.

Please elaborate on how any sex outside marriage was universally condemned in biblical literature.

You argue that polygamy is implicitly condemned in biblical cultures? Really? Jacob, David, Solomon — where was the condemnation of these individuals polygamy even implied?

Regarding levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage and very early marriage, you once again fail to grasp Wink's argument, which is that sexual mores have changed from biblical culture to modern day and instead give reasons for why we accept the changes. There is a gap in logic here: Wink's point is, again, that these sexual ethics have been replaced with different or contradictory ethics. It is hypocritical, therefore, to pretend that whatever sexual ethic is recorded in the Bible is automatically the correct position. We don't treat many of the Bible's sexual ethics with such deference and it's hypocritical to do so with homosexuality.

Wink doesn't make the ethical argument for homosexual behavior. What he notes, and what you have completely missed, is that the metric people often use to condemn homosexuality is not universally applied to all biblical sex ethics — not remotely. If we are to discuss the ethics of homosexual behavior, therefore, we would do well to be honest in our treatment of biblical authority. Homosexual behavior might still be wrong in a Christian paradigm but you can't get there just by pointing to proof-text verses.

—Sam

Sam, I see the point he's trying to make, but it doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny. The Bible has DIFFERENT things to say about DIFFERENT sexual behavior, and not caring that homosexuality is explicitly condemned in BOTH the OT and NT is just dumb. The "metric" being used for these activities is still the Bible, and since it has different things to say about different aspects seems to be ignored. The Bible repeatedly is against any form of sex outside of marriage. Deuteronomy 22 goes into details on what to do when a woman is found not be a virgin after her marriage, and the punishment is death(quoting all of the verses would most likely be longer than the post limit, so I am going to give the verse numbers and a short explanation that you can check for yourself). Exodus 22:16-17 talks about what is to be done when a man seduces a virgin(some translations mistakenly translate this as "rape", but it is not, and a separate verse covers that topic), she must marry him, and he has to pay the full bride price(note that this was consented to, and was outside of marriage). There are rules to follow if the father is unwilling to let the daughter marry said man. Matthew 5:27-30 has Jesus saying that simply lusting after a woman is sinful, and is just as bad as adultery itself. In Matthew 19, you have Jesus say that divorce is evil except for the example of marital unfaithfulness, and that the way that marriage was intended by God was different in the beginning. Here Jesus defines marriage as one man and one woman as one "flesh"(in this verse it is explicit that divorce is not how God intended things, and IMPLIED that polygamy wasn't that intention either). Acts 15:20 says to abstain from "sexual immorality", and the Greek word porneia is used. This word refers to things such as prostitution, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, and bestiality.
You do know all of the problems that occurred due to the multiple marriages of Jacob, David, and Solomon, right? Their polygamy led to very horrible consequences for them, and their families, and even the entire nation of Israel(Solomon's wives tempted him to follow other gods, and this had bad consequences on Israel as a nation). Also, I didn't say that polygamy was implicitly condemned in the cultures, but in the BIBLE, and that is what we need to be using as our "metric", and not whether or not the "culture" considered it ok(just like the "culture" of Israel considered it "ok" to worship other gods' even though it is explicitly condemned in the Bible).
Quick question, was Jesus' condemnation of divorce count as "contradictory" to the previous set of ethics? The issue of homosexuality being a sin was set in stone a long time ago, if you have issue with that, take it up with God.

[Darth Executor]

You're getting bent out of shape over nothing. I think it was clear from the context that I was talking about groups of an undefined number. People, for example, can mean all people or a group of people.

That sounds an awful lot like racists who say "I don't mean ALL black people" when they say black people are thieves. Probably because it's pretty much the same thing. I'm starting to understand why so many progressives have such dramatic reactions to the idea of racism: they see themselves in it and you really don't like looking in the mirror.

Furthermore, the things you list are not solely the domain of whites. There are blacks and especially women who would scoff at your far left views on racism and sexism. The idea that the left holds a monopoly on what blacks or women should think is merely an extension of the plantation owner mentality that has defined the Democratic party over the ages and further metastasised into the global left (though to a lesser extent).

[Darth Executor]

A bigot is someone prejudiced against people different than they are.

And prejudice implies you do so without any thought or reason, which is hardly the case. Even if Christians are wrong about homosexuality holding an unfavourable opinion does not automatically make it prejudice. If prejudice (and by extension, bigot) had the broad meaning you wish to attribute to it then disliking NAZIs would also make one a bigot.

[Nathan Poe]

Actually, I would have to agree that Song of Solomon isn't depicting a relationship with God, but that between a husband and wife. I once had a Muslim try to say that it was all about Mohammed' and Allah's relationship.

It's always heartwarming to see that such nuttiness isn't exclusive to any one religious belief.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Sam, I see the point he's trying to make, but it doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny. The Bible has DIFFERENT things to say about DIFFERENT sexual behavior, and not caring that homosexuality is explicitly condemned in BOTH the OT and NT is just dumb. The "metric" being used for these activities is still the Bible, and since it has different things to say about different aspects seems to be ignored.

No, the metric being used for many of the topics you chose was not the Bible. If it were, in Sola Scriptura fashion, you would not be able to simply explain that the culture was different then than it is now and that, in itself, is justification for changing the sexual ethic present in a given verse. What is being done is claiming Sola Scriptura for one sexual ethic while ignoring it for others.

The Bible repeatedly is against any form of sex outside of marriage. Deuteronomy 22 goes into details on what to do when a woman is found not be a virgin after her marriage, and the punishment is death(quoting all of the verses would most likely be longer than the post limit, so I am going to give the verse numbers and a short explanation that you can check for yourself). Exodus 22:16-17 talks about what is to be done when a man seduces a virgin(some translations mistakenly translate this as "rape", but it is not, and a separate verse covers that topic), she must marry him, and he has to pay the full bride price(note that this was consented to, and was outside of marriage). There are rules to follow if the father is unwilling to let the daughter marry said man.

These are all property laws; note that there was no capital offence for an unmarried man deflowering an un-betrothed woman. Deuteronomy 22:24 does call for the death of man who deflowers an engaged woman — but the reason given is "because he has violated his neighbor's wife." A man who slept with an un-betrothed woman is to pay a bride price and marry the woman — but note that the father can still refuse this marriage and the only punishment to the man is economic punishment. In these situations, the woman's chastity is not primarily her own value but rather the value of her father; to the point where the father could sell his daughter as a slave wife (Exodus 21:7-11).

What is possibly striking in biblical literature is how nonchalant biblical authors were about prostitution in the OT. We find verses indicating the prostitution was "incompatible with ritual purity," as Michael Coogan writes in "God and Sex, What the Bible Really Says" but was regarded by OT ethicists as more foolish than sinful. There simply is not a full-throated anathema placed on prostitution in the OT.

There is no logical connection drawn in these verses leading someone to conclude that the Bible is "repeatedly against any form of sex outside of marriage."

Matthew 5:27-30 has Jesus saying that simply lusting after a woman is sinful, and is just as bad as adultery itself. In Matthew 19, you have Jesus say that divorce is evil except for the example of marital unfaithfulness, and that the way that marriage was intended by God was different in the beginning. Here Jesus defines marriage as one man and one woman as one "flesh"(in this verse it is explicit that divorce is not how God intended things, and IMPLIED that polygamy wasn't that intention either). Acts 15:20 says to abstain from "sexual immorality", and the Greek word porneia is used. This word refers to things such as prostitution, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, and bestiality.

While I don't disagree that NT sexual ethics were different from OT sexual ethics, that doesn't change the problem: sexual ethics change, even across the span of biblical literature, and we have to examine those changes and make determinations about proper behavior. Many sexual restrictions that were normative to Jesus and Paul are not considered restrictions today. We have to examine the verses dealing with homosexuality the same way that we deal with verses and traditions dealing with polygamy, early marriage, divorce and other sexual ethics — we have to find the rationale behind the strictures and determine whether it is still applicable.

You do know all of the problems that occurred due to the multiple marriages of Jacob, David, and Solomon, right? Their polygamy led to very horrible consequences for them, and their families, and even the entire nation of Israel(Solomon's wives tempted him to follow other gods, and this had bad consequences on Israel as a nation).

Solomon's polygamy could be seen as destructive but it wasn't because he practiced polygamy — it was because he practiced exogamy, something that was often reviled in OT culture. Neither David's polygamy nor Jacob's polygamy were considered abnormal or negative inside the culture. And even if they were, the point isn't that polygamy is troublesome; the point is that it was entirely acceptable within many OT cultures, from the earliest writings throughout the time of the great kings.

Also, I didn't say that polygamy was implicitly condemned in the cultures, but in the BIBLE, and that is what we need to be using as our "metric", and not whether or not the "culture" considered it ok(just like the "culture" of Israel considered it "ok" to worship other gods' even though it is explicitly condemned in the Bible).

But you haven't shown where polygamy was implicitly and universally condemned in the Bible!

Quick question, was Jesus' condemnation of divorce count as "contradictory" to the previous set of ethics?

Christ's prohibition regarding divorce was a narrowing of terms; what was loosely defined and even more loosely interpreted in Levitical law, Christ made narrowly defined and singularly interpreted.

The issue of homosexuality being a sin was set in stone a long time ago, if you have issue with that, take it up with God.

A useful question to ask would be whether there is any conception of monogamous sexuality between two same-sex partners in biblical literature or whether the only homosexuality publicly known was promiscuous, cultic sex. If the latter, then it becomes an actual duty to examine our theology to determine whether monogamous homosexuality is qualitatively different than those things prohibited in the Bible.

Contrary to your assumptions, neither Wink nor I have declared homosexual behavior acceptable Christian practice. What we are both doing, and what you have a reflexive reaction towards, is opening the question for rational, fact-based thinking. It's clear, given the numerous sexual behaviors of modern day that are divergent from the Bible's precepts, that we cannot simply try to proof-text homosexuality without an unhealthy dose of intellectual amnesia.

—Sam

[Darth Executor]

Walter Wink, a Christian theologian, penned this article, wherein he wrote:

[cite=Homosexuality and the Bible. Wink, Walter.]There is no biblical sex ethic.

Yes there is. I don't think this gentleman knows what an ethic is:

eth·ic   [eth-ik] Show IPA
noun
1. the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group: the Christian ethic; the tribal ethic of the Zuni.
2. a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual: a personal ethic.

The bible very much has rules of conduct and principles governing sex.

Instead it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand-year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community.

Neurotic tripe. Mores and ethic are synonyms.

Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

The Bible only knows a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, culture, or period. . . .

His fallacious argument can be applied to his love ethic as well. I hold as example all the liberal anti-torture Christians who conveniently ignore God had people tortured as punishment for crimes.

Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus' love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn't mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus' love commandment.

Translation: "If you think gay sex is a sin you are not really loving your neighbour."

Wink goes on to ponder whether sexual mores against homosexuality are relevant today to Christ's ethic of love and concludes that a change in dialogue is needed within the Church, regardless of which side of the debate ends up being correct.

The change in perspective from a circumstantial sexual ethic to a universal love ethic is a necessary change, I think.

—Sam

If by "circumstantial" he means "different from ancient cultures" then both biblical sex and love ethics are "circumstantial".

[Nathan Poe]

And prejudice implies you do so without any thought or reason

Not true -- prejudice can have thought and reason behind it -- misguided though it usually is.

For example -- a soldier serves in Iraq comes back with a prejudice against Muslims. Now, he may have seen any number of his friends injured or killed by Muslims, but his distrust of anyone Muslim (or even of Middle Eastern appearance) is still prejudice.

[Darth Executor]

These are all property laws;

Labour laws is a more accurate term.