Skip to main content

The day the argument against gay marriage died...again

This time it's a candidate for the Australian Prime Ministership who destroys the sad, tired "christian" argument against gay marriage. Also notable, in the video below you see a politician making an intelligent, informed statement about a position they really believe in. Weird, right? We should get some of that in the U.S.



My favorite part: bible ping pong, where the politician smashes it back at the pastor by quoting Paul from Ephesians on the topic of slavery, which Paul was down with given the social norms of the time (where "the time" was, ohhh, 2000 years ago).

Comments

J said…
Perhaps we can come to an understanding about slavery in the Bible. In the light of the bible saying, "Jesus Christ [God] is the same yesterday, today and forever" and instances where the constancy and unchanging nature of God is established, perhaps we can understand why Paul wrote.
First, we must start with the fact that contrary to popular "belief," God is not in control of everything that happens. God gave us free will out of love (i.e a husband and wife must choose to love each other). Bad things came into the world because Adam and Eve decided not to trust God. God had to allow it because of free will. Slavery came about as a result of the fallen human state.

To talk about Paul, we have to talk about the Greek language, because it’s awesome. Different meanings of a word had a different word. Such as slave. The word used in (Eph 6:5 is the word "doulos" which means "not a free man". There is a separate word for the type of slavery we are used to, it was "andrapodon" which means "one with the feet of a man" and was used as opposed to the word for quadruped (animal). So already we see the Paul was not endorsing "slavery" as we most commonly think of it today. In fact he was not endorsing slavery. Here he is talking to indentured-servants who have converted to Christianity What he was saying was, "When you do something, do it as unto the Lord." The part that trips people up is the part about "fear and trembling". Many Christians would quickly dismiss it with the usual "oh is reverential awe like they use when they say Fear the Lord". But here it does not mean that, it is the word phobos - "phobia", "Fear" like "Fear factor" or "Freddy Krueger's in my bedroom!" FEAR! Why?...Elsewhere the Bible says not to live in fear? What was Paul saying? The key is in the grammar. He is saying, "Obey your masters as unto the Lord." The middle part of that verse is actually telling you the different motivations for obeying. "Your master rules you with fear and trembling but you should obey out of a heart of humility as unto the Lord". This agrees with the passage, "Do everything as unto the Lord" (Col 3:23).

A few verses down, the big problem comes in with, "Masters don't threaten your slaves ... remember God is not a respecter of persons " (Eph 6:9 heavily paraphrased). People will say, "Why didn't Paul command them to release they're slaves." Well, I do not know. One factor may be the fact that it would be incredibly hard for a slave to go out and live as a freeman, he would have a more stable situation living in the home of his master. The relationship would be a modified one. They would live as equals in Christ and in respect for one another with the only difference being socioeconomic position. Some might say, well why not share and give him what he needs to survive. Let me turn that back with a question. If you are rich and have live in service, would you go to them and say, here is half of all I have GO and be free, send them out the door and think, I really helped them out? No. They work for you, you respect them, but this is what they do. We all have things that we do.
What Paul is say to the masters is "modify your relationship with your servants. Do not threaten them, treat them as people equal in worth to yourself."

The main point here for me is to point out that it is easy to rip bits and pieces out of the Bible and make them say whatever you want. I could prove to you that scientists believe the Sun burns wood by taking a single line out of an undergrad textbook. I could prove many things if I only take a small part. Context is important.

Another good post (not by me) http://goo.gl/CZtVqx
God Bless - J (not Johnson)
Thanks, J. That's a lot of information. I can tell that you are way into the bible.

I think the key part of what you wrote and the point the PM candidate was making is that you can't just pick stuff from the bible and base your nation's law on it because modern laws need to be based on modern life. And you certainly shouldn't pick stuff from the bible and use it to set policy discriminating against homosexuals. It takes more than a single book to make well-informed modern policy.

J said…
I would tend to agree with your statement, particularly as it applies to the United States. I am a firm believer in the First Amendment. From history, we can see the effect that attempting to legalize and forcefully impose Christendom on people has. Much of the issue comes from peoples individual morality. The Constitution does not create any definition of marriage, leaving law regarding it the domain of the state. While I may personally not agree with everything done in the US, I do believe that DOMA was unconstitutional as it was not a power given Congress.

Despite people's protests that DOMA should be upheld, I do believe that the Founding Father's were wise in creating a limited Federal government. At the same time I don't believe the Founder's ver imagined some of the things that are the subject of debate today, and that they might have structured government differently if they had seen what was coming. Being a "Fundamentalist Christian" I do hold to certain beliefs. However, the Bible does require us to love and respect our "neighbors" regardless of wether they agree with us or not.

There is no easy answer to the Church vs State issue. While it is true that the nation was founded by people who held God and the Bible sacred (evidenced in their writings and speeches), it is also true that they wanted to create a nation of religious freedom; where people could worship without harassment. It is also true that the Founder's believed firmly in the Bible's place in the national life. Unfortunately, with changing tastes in society (darwinian evolution) the very Constitution that was meant to protect religion, became a tool to attack religion (primarily Christians and now to a certain extent Muslims). Also, unfortunately, the Constitution is framed (legally) in such a way that it can't be used to protect certain religious groups. It is made to protect people and their rights. The Constitution may have Biblical principles in it, but it is not a religious document. I may wish it were, but it is not.

All of that to say, "John, you're correct; but only from a legal perspective because of the way our nation was crafted." I do believe the Bible can be used to make well-informed public policy. I really have to. If I believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, good for all instruction; and that God is well-informed about His creation -- then I have to believe we can live by the Bible on all scales. But God put his own caveat on theocracy. He said to love, to live peaceably with others. He also says that some people won't believe. All I can do, is vote my conscience and my morals. I disagree with discrimination, because God himself is not a respecter of persons. God loves everyone, and gives them all the same opportunity for salvation.

That was a lot just to say that I agree with you and am glad to see you are a man of deep thought, but only disagree with the last line (like I said, "Fundamentalist Christian so I sort of have too".)

God Bless,
J

Popular posts from this blog

An annual note to all the (NSF) haters

It's that time of year again: students have recently been notified about whether they received the prestigious NSF Graduate Student Research Fellowship. Known in the STEM community as "The NSF," the fellowship provides a student with three years of graduate school tuition and stipend, with the latter typically 5-10% above the standard institutional support for first- and second-year students. It's a sweet deal, and a real accellerant for young students to get their research career humming along smoothly because they don't need to restrict themselves to only advisors who have funding: the students fund themselves!
This is also the time of year that many a white dude executes what I call the "academic soccer flop." It looks kinda like this:


It typically sounds like this: "Congrats! Of course it's easier for you to win the NSF because you're, you know, the right demographic." Or worse: "She only won because she's Hispanic."…

Culture: Made Fresh Daily

There are two inspirations for this essay worth noting. The first is an impromptu talk I gave to the board of trustees at Thatcher School while I was visiting in October as an Anacapa Fellow. Spending time on this remarkable campus interacting with the students, faculty and staff helped solidify my notions about how culture can be intentionally created. The second source is Beam Times and Lifetimes by Sharon Tarweek, an in-depth exploration of the culture of particle physics told by an anthropologist embedded at SLAC for two decades. It's a fascinating look at the strange practices and norms that scientists take for granted.
One of the stories that scientists tell themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, is that science exists outside of and independent of society. A corollary of this notion is that if a scientific subfield has a culture, e.g. the culture of astronomy vs. the culture of chemistry, that culture is essential rather than constructed. That is to say, scientific c…

The Bright Line is not Monotonic

The anthology of myths commonly known as America rests upon the notion that history is linear. In the past people in this country ignorantly did bad things to other people. But thanks to the passage of time, we can now "let the past to be the past," because today we live in a time when things have gotten much better. Furthermore, any problem that our society faces in the present will inevitably be solved as "the old guard" dies off and a new generation of better people takes their place. 
Of course this story isn't told so simply or explicitly. But the assumption lurks beneath the other stories we, as Americans, tell ourselves and each other. The myth certainly undergirds the notion that racism is a thing of the past, and that today we inhabit a "post-racial" world in which all people, regardless of race have equal access to betterment, dignity and happiness. We are lulled into beliving that at some point in the mid to late 1960's, a wise reveren…