Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Critique of Newsweek's biblical arguments on gay marriage

Expand Messages
  • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
    William, My initial post on this subject pointed readers to my blog, where I discuss the biblical teaching in some detail:
    Message 1 of 38 , Dec 18, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      My initial post on this subject pointed readers to my blog, where I
      discuss the biblical teaching in some detail:


      Heinz's problem is that he doesn't accept the Bible as a reliable
      moral guide. That's why we've been discussing some of his
      extrabiblical objections.

      In Christ's service,
      Rob Bowman

      --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, William Coles
      <coleswilliam@...> wrote:
      > i have read all these paragraphs and comments and suggestions on
      this gay topic. i have yet to read one verse of scripture that anyone
      uses as a back up of beliefs.
      > the world laughs at christians who dont quote scripture .the devil
      is having a hay day.some sripture study would be more enlightening
      ,some scriptures please on this topic .
      > yours william
    • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
      Heinz, I think we have both now stated our positions and presented our arguments on this issue, and I m ready to move on to other things. In Christ s service,
      Message 38 of 38 , Dec 23, 2008
      • 0 Attachment

        I think we have both now stated our positions and presented our
        arguments on this issue, and I'm ready to move on to other things.

        In Christ's service,
        Rob Bowman

        --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Heinz Schmitz"
        <christian_skeptic@...> wrote:
        > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Robert M. Bowman, Jr."
        > <faithhasitsreasons@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Heinz,
        > >
        > > I had written that "the New Testament everywhere assumes that a
        > > believer should be monogamous (e.g., Matt. 19:1-10; 22:23-28;
        > > 14:26; 1 Cor. 7:2-4; Eph. 5:23-33; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6)."
        > >
        > > You replied:
        > >
        > > << Even personally looking at the Scriptures you quote, I am
        > > left with the fact that there is not a single verse from the New
        > > Testament that prohibits polygamy. Jesus referred to the OT which
        > > allowed for polygamy. Simply because one man and one woman and
        > > single may have been preferred, this does not in itself mean
        > > was condemned. >>
        > >
        > > In the Pastoral Epistles, monogamy is one item in the lists of
        > > characteristics exemplifying general good character that is
        > > of church leaders. These are not extraordinary qualifications but
        > > rather the expected behavior of solid Christian persons (e.g.,
        not a
        > > drunkard, not violent, hospitable). The Jews by this time were
        > > entirely monogamous (there were isolated exceptions), which was
        > > widely and generally understood to be the norm, which is why
        > > always assumes monogamy in his comments on marriage. Paul found
        > > necessary to mention monogamy in reference to church leaders
        > > Timothy and Titus were pastoring churches with large contingents
        > > converts from paganism, where polygamy was more significant--but
        > > here, monogamy was the norm in the Greco-Roman, Hellenistic
        > >
        > Yes, the early Christians adopted the pagan practice of monogamy.
        > ancient pagans generally disapproved of polygamy, although they did
        > not actually consider it illegal, and it was unscriptural only for
        > church leaders.
        > > You had written:
        > >
        > > << I am only arguing in favor of gay marriage. >>
        > >
        > > Okay, I'm going to give in and ask: Is there some reason why
        > > so concerned about arguing in favor of gay marriage?
        > >
        > Reply: I suppose in the past Christians would ask what possible
        > anyone would argue in favor of equal rights for women, Jews and
        > as well. Denying marital rights for gays diminishes everyone and
        > a mockery of the statement "with liberty and justice for all."
        > > So I replied:
        > >
        > > "Fine and dandy. Please proceed, using only arguments that will
        > > support for gay marriage while not being equally useful for
        > > supporting incestuous marriage."
        > >
        > > You now reply:
        > >
        > > << I am not and will never argue in favor of incest, and it is my
        > > mistake to have allowed your use of the slippery slope fallacy
        > > this long. >>
        > >
        > > Huh? I never said that you were arguing in favor of incest. You
        > > agreed, however, that your libertarian principle implies that the
        > > government should not prohibit incest.
        > >
        > Rob, I am thru allowing you to use the slippery slope fallacy.
        > >
        > > I wrote: The fact is that Paul was no misogynist, and I dare say,
        > > since you used to study the Bible, you know it (Gal. 3:28; cf.
        > > 16:1-3, 6-7; Eph. 5:25-33). You replied:
        > >
        > > << Take the immediate verses in Ephesians and you have several
        > > that have been a bane in the side of women for millenia.
        > > "The goal in Paul's exegesis appears to be, without I hope being
        > > unduly harsh, greater conformity with the Jewish (or Palestinian)
        > > of subordination of women (1 Tim 2:11ff; 1 Cor 11:7ff, especially
        > > 10,12 {1 Cor 11})." Peter Richardson, "Paul Today: Jews, Slaves,
        > > Women," Crux 8 (1970): 37. >>
        > >
        > > The Internet is wonderful, isn't it? I'll bet you got this quote
        > > an article by Wayne House, in which House actually debunks
        > > Richardson's assessment:
        > >
        > > http://hwhouse.com/Current%20Articles%
        > >
        > > If you didn't, you should read it.
        > >
        > The internet is great Rob, and the Bible is still a misogynistic
        > (see http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/womenbible.htm ) and why
        > it was written by primitive savages and clearly reflects their
        > worldview. Yes, you can point to cutesy scriptures about women, but
        > none of this does away with the bad ones.
        > > It is therefore a complete misnomer to refer to polygamy as
        > > a "different form of marriage." It is not. It is a different form
        > > household, but not a different form of marriage. The concept of
        > > marriage is the same: a union between a man and a woman.
        > >
        > You're just arguing semantics here.
        > << In Tibet prior to the Chinese occupation, about a quarter of
        > marriages involved brothers sharing one wife. >>
        > >Everyone seems to agree that polyandry is extremely rare in the
        > >history of the human species and that Tibetan polyandry is notable
        > >precisely because it is so exceptional.
        > Reply: Yes, Rob, you have an explanation for any different form of
        > unions in the past so as to brush them all away, but the Ozzie and
        > Harriet "traditional" marriage is really only a late invention in
        > human history. My point stands that marriage has been an evolving
        > institution. Again, we are at a point in history where people can
        > actually marry for love and I say let them.
        > >
        > > << Stop the hate, let love in and make this a better world for
        > > EVERYONE. >>
        > >
        > > I fail to see how it is "hate" to dispute the validity of gay
        > > marriage.
        > >
        > Reply: And many bigots of the past felt they were even acting
        > altruistically. Those who committed cruel acts in the past in the
        > of religion probably felt they were working for the greater good.
        > Christianity has always been the enemy of social and moral progress
        > and when someone like you perpetuates the idea that others should
        > have the same rights as you, then you also create the notion that
        > others are inferior to you, making criminal acts against such ones
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.