The Aristophrenium - Latest Comments

Re: Why Evangelicals Doubt Historical-Critical Theories About the Gospels (Pt. 1 – On Methodological Assumptions)

Fisher — Sun, 05 Jan 2014 02:12:21 -0000

I had some colleagues link me to his article and ask me for my thoughts on them. That is what led me to write this. Also, many of the arguments presented by Matthew Ferguson are not new, but are standard fare amongst many skeptics of the Bible, so I'm also writing this for future reference should similar arguments come up in the future.

Re: Why Evangelicals Doubt Historical-Critical Theories About the Gospels (Pt. 1 – On Methodological Assumptions)

RLG — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 20:09:41 -0000

Hey Fisher, thanks for the article challenging some of the current liberal Christian thinking in regard to the authorship of the gospels. I would imagine Ferguson would also challenge the authorship of other New Testament books. It seems obvious that he is coming from a totally different perspective than you concerning the Bible. He’s coming from completely different presuppositions, and with those presuppositions concerning Scripture, he can’t help but come to different conclusions. As to his claims of “mainstream” and “majority” scholarship, he’s talking of mainstream and majority “liberal” scholarship. He’s not talking about conservative Christian scholarship at all. He’s on such a different page from you and most conservatives, that it hardly bears interacting with. Just as there is little appreciation of conservatives among liberals, I would guess the same could be said of conservatives as they evaluate the views of liberals. I would imagine you, as well as other conservatives, would find little agreement with Ferguson as to the final character of the Christian religion. You might even question why such scholarship, as what Ferguson supports, is called Christian. And I suppose that’s part of the problem, that liberals, such as Ferguson, think of themselves as Christian and claim somehow to be arguing for the Christian faith. But from the little you have shared, he’s not just a little bit liberal, but radically liberal, so far so, that it seems pointless to even pick an argument with his views. You really have no common ground on which to argue from.

Liberals don’t buy into an inerrant Bible, because its difficult to buy into the miraculous nature of many Biblical events. At least, that seems to be one starting point for liberal disbelief. Liberals either look for a natural explanation to these events or discount the events altogether. Even many conservatives who accept the miracles of the Bible, will say the age of miracles is complete, and will discount miracles today. Many (maybe even most) conservatives will say that God works through natural laws today rather than through miracles. And just as conservatives discount miracles today, liberals discount the miracles of the Bible. To a liberal, it is more objective to suggest that if miracles are unlikely today, then they were just as unlikely in Bible times. I guess that is why many Christians would say the miracles of the Bible, including the incarnation of Jesus, have to be accepted as true by faith, and not on the basis of reason or scientific fact. But liberals would rather stick with reason based on scientific reality as we know it today, rather than say the Bible is inerrant.

And, of course, most liberals find many of the teachings of the Bible untenable. And now Ferguson is looking for just another reason to discount historic Christianity. So I wonder why you are even attempting to make a case against his thesis, in regard to the authorship of the gospels.

Re: Why Evangelicals Doubt Historical-Critical Theories About the Gospels (Pt. 1 – On Methodological Assumptions)

John — Sun, 29 Dec 2013 21:51:37 -0000

On the clearly ignorant thesis Ferguson has put forward (yawn!) I highly recommend 'The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ' byMartin Hengel

Re: Typhoon Haiyan and the Logic of Islamic Fundamentalism

caracticus — Sun, 08 Dec 2013 21:21:43 -0000

I CONCUR!.....I THINK??

Re: It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it

Mathew — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:22:10 -0000

You're likely seeing the cached pages that the server has created - your posts do not actually exist in the database. If you log into Wordpress you won't be able to find those posts.

Comments reside on the Disqus server. So people can still respond to the cached posts. Though once we republish missing content I think it unlikely that we will be able reconnect the comments with their corresponding articles - which means we may stand to lose some great discussions, too, unfortunately.

Re: It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it

Duane — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:13:15 -0000

It's strange, Matthew.
For example, when I click on Posts by Author in the right side bar, it displays more recent posts and with the new theme to boot.
I'm pretty sure all of my posts are in there somewhere, but I have my own back-ups anyway because I use LiveWriter.
Not sure about comments though. Haven't looked that deep into it atm.

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

Mathew — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 02:31:22 -0000

Lev 25 can refer to both indentured servitude of Israelites and foreigners/sojourners, as well as direct purchase from slave traders in surrounding nations - to be bought by an Israelite meant many liberties not afforded to the enslaved in his own country. In Mosaic law, kidnapping others to make slaves was punishable by death (Ex 21:16), and any injury caused to the slave by his Israelite master required that the slave be released from the latter's authority (Ex 21:26,27). If a slave escaped, it was illegal to return him (Deut 23:15,16). This doesn't sound like Western slavery, but as you haven't stated why you cite these examples, I'm only second guessing as to what your point is.

Jesus preached the release of captives and the oppressed (cf. Lk 4:18). I think you are incorrectly ascribing to Jesus the passage in Eph 6:5-9, which is an exhortation for Christian slaves to live their lives for God, despite their predicament.

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

Mathew — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 23:22:43 -0000

I don't think the central issue is homosexuality at all. The question firmly in my mind is "What is marriage?". Is it an adult-centred institution or is it a family-centred institution? Is it something that can be defined or something that is described? On both counts, you argue the former; I argue the latter. The topic of homosexuality presents only one facet of the overall discussion, but I don't consider it the central question. Frankly, on my point of view, heterosexuals did far more to erode the high ideal of marriage than what homosexuals are - arguably starting with no fault-divorce some 40-odd years ago.

If I had misrepresented your point of view, I am only too glad to be corrected. Any such misrepresentations are unintended and I do make an effort to understand another's view before responding to it.

I must object to your characterisation of Christians as holding an anti-homosexual mentality. While there are undoubtedly Christians who hold such views, it is not due to what we find in scripture. People can (and do) bring and read into Christianity their own prejudices and have done so, regrettably, right throughout history on many matters. Ironically, such attitudes reinforce the Bible's proclaimation of man's falleness and sinful state. Further, while Christians hold that homosexuality is a sin, it is no more immorally so than many other sins, including some sins that even I commit or have committed. Christians are not perfect. If they were, there would be no need for Christ and if there were no need for Christ, you would have no Christians. But since we do have a Saviour in Christ, the homosexual, the liar, the murderer, the adulterer, the thief, and the like, are admissable into glory. All saints are sinners, but not all sinners are saints, however. And the difference between them is Christ Jesus.

You keep inferring that the marital institution is influenced by religious bias. But the best arguement you've offered is only one of speculation. (Do they not have marriage in secular states? What of that?) In contrast, I argue that both the state and religion have merely described a relationship that occurs ordinarily in how humans organise themselves. You may call that speculative on my part, though I contend that my reasons for thinking so are more sound. As such, defending marriage as being between one man and one woman is not testing the notion of separation of church and state because neither church nor state could ever have logically been in a position to create and define such an institution.

That children fare best when raised by their married, biological parents* when compared to all other family configurations is not a matter of my reading into the marital insitution what I want, but is the conclusion of disciplined and rigorous social science studies. Additionally, to argue that marriages, as a group, as a rule and by nature, produce children is not at all unreasonable to conclude - if you surveyed many married households I've no doubt that the majority of them contain children. Heterosexual sex has a habit of producing children, after all. While some heterosexual couples cannot or will not have children is the exception to the rule and does not at all nullify the principle of what I argue marriage is. Books are made to be open and read, irrespective if they remain on the bookshelf collecting dust. In contrast, homosexual unions cannot produce children. This is a basic point of obvious difference and one that biology determines, not ideology or religion or the state.

(*This fact is the reason why cultures ought promote marriage between heterosexuals - because it is to the benefit of all within society (for both straights and gays) that we encourage for children to born from within marital unions, especially when the evidence supports that kids do best when they are.)

I'm somewhat bemused that you find it curious that I, as a Christian, on a Christian blog, argue for marriage to remain as a heterosexual union without appeal to scripture. The question, I think, betrays your ignorance (I don't mean that in a pejorative sense) of how Christians see their roles in the world at large. There is nothing I argue on this issue that is contrary to scripture (insofar as I'm aware); that I am not referring to scripture when arguing my points has little bearing on my argument - what it should do, however, is convey to you that I have no interest in forcing my religious worldview onto an unbelieving, secular populace. If you professed to be a Christian, my arguments would not really change, unless you as a fellow believer held that homosexuality is not biblically immoral or that marriage is not biblically the union between the sexes only. What I do hold, though, is that the God of all creation is a rational being who created man in his image with the ability to rationalise. Further, that as God created the natural world, he ordered things such that behaviours that match his intended design stand to benefit the creation at large. Marriage is part of his design. It has real-world consequences that come to bear on society - when it is practiced as per God's design, benefits ensue for Christians and non-Christians alike. As scripture does say, the rain falls on both the righteous and the unrighteous.

What is perhaps tripping you up is that you do not agree that marriage is good for society because it is good for the children who are reared by their biological parents. So you suspect that my motives must be strictly religious in nature. Yet I would be very surprised if you said that the wellbeing of children is of no importance to you. If we share that same concern, our personal convictions are irrelevant to the discussion; it is the premises and evidences that should come to bear as to whether or not there should be a change of public policy with regards to marriage. And on that score, I contend that there's a greater volume of evidence and sound arguments in my corner to retain the mix-gendered requirement in marriage than there is in yours to justify it's removal.

What say you?

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

RLG — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 21:01:00 -0000

Thank you, Michael, for that tidbit, that would seem to confirm God’s approval of slavery in the Old Testament. And of course this is the same God that we see in the New Testament, at least according to Christians (a Jewish audience might not agree). And of course, God is immutable.

Yes, Matthew, our responses seem to be getting longer and longer. I imagine, you, like me, feel compelled to follow every thread of the spiders web, because they all lead back to the center, or the central issue of homosexuality. That’s really the core issue. Do we really want to allow gays the civil and legal classification of being married? And why or why not?

You realize, Matthew, you misrepresented me again in this latest response. You state that one of my three main points by which to redefine marriage is, “ We live in a democracy. Law should reflect what the democracy wants.” That’s not what I argued at all. In fact it is quite the opposite. If a law was to reflect what a democracy wants, then I would imagine both your country and mine would still be a long way from changing marital regulations to include same sex marriage. Most Western populations, and perhaps particularly Australia, Canada, and the U.S. still have a Christian bias and are thought of loosely, as being Christian nations. Part of that Christian bias is an anti-homosexual mentality. Christians, in particular, believe that a homosexual lifestyle is a gross sin and such people will not be welcomed into heaven. I will admit that the mind set of our countries is changing, but the Christian mind set (as to moral issues) is still a dominant part our longstanding national bias. So if put to a vote, homosexuals would lose badly. That’s why it seems natural that such decisions should be decided by the judicial branch of the government and not by popular vote, as you suggest.

What I did say, is that in a democracy, law should not be determined by any particular religious bias. Citizens should not be governed by any particular religious bias. That’s why most democracies would claim a separation of church and state. And that’s why a homosexual couple should not be treated differently than a heterosexual couple applying for a marriage license.4

I would think that as to a separation of church and state, you would more than “tolerate” such a legal position, but would “accept,” perhaps even “endorse” it, as this positions protects all citizens from being governed by the religious beliefs of other religions that a person does not adhere to. It’s for your protection, as well as the Muslim’s and the aetheist’s. I think the problem comes for some people when it’s their own bias that is threatened. And that is the case with homosexual marriages. It may be true that I will not “endorse” or maybe even “accept” the Muslim, Christian, atheistic religion or world and life view, but I will “endorse” a democracy that separates church and state and gives every citizen the right to worship and believe as they wish.

You argue that governments support and regulate marriage to promote the greater good, namely, spawning families. I suggested that this idea doesn’t ring true, because I have heard no support of such an idea from any government or from any legal perspective. I think this is something that you have made up to support your position of denying homosexuals from attaining a marriage license. When applying for a marriage license there are no questions or suggestions about having a family. There are no written marriage mandates suggesting that children is what the government hopes to attain through marriage. Many heterosexuals applying for marriage licenses have no intention on having children. They could openly confess no interest in having children and the license bureau would be only be too happy to issue them a license. How would such a couple’s application be different from a homosexual couple not planning on raising children? And since when is marriage a requirement for having children or the only arena in which children are born? I recently read that Australia has a very high rate of children born outside of marriage. Today many singles raise families, why not a homosexual married couple? You are really making a long stretch to suggest that the government is trying to promote some greater good. If they are going to allow heterosexuals who have no interest in having children to get a marriage license, why not also allow homosexuals the same right?

That governments issue marriage licenses to track and record the status of its citizens, make perfect sense, just as governments track births and deaths. All civilized nations have a bureau of vital statistics or some such government agency to keep an ongoing record of its citizens. Why that wouldn’t make sense to you is beyond me. Otherwise, why does the government track the births and deaths of its citizens, as well as the marital status. If this recording of births, marriages, and deaths doesn’t make sense, perhaps you should push for the abolition of such agencies.

Here’s the thing Matthew, and this is a big question in my mind. I don’t quite understand what you are doing in your basic argument against issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. This is a Christian blog site. According to your mission statement, you are committed to the gospel of Christ, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the glory of God, against the erosion of human values. But you are not arguing from a Christian platform in your responses. I perceive you are against a homosexual lifestyle because of your Christian stand. That’s understandable, seeing as you take the Bible seriously. But you don’t argue against such a lifestyle from within your Christian arena or from a Christian perspective. You argue from logic or reason, apart from Christianity. I think that has weakened your argument. It also makes me wonder if the Christian argument is too weak to push or advocate.

Maybe you think the Bible is normative only for Christians and therefore doesn’t speak to those outside of the Christian community. Do you really think that the Biblical claims for morality are only for Christians, and not all humans? I’m quite sure you would say that God’s law is written on the heart of everyone, not just Christians. Does God have a different standard for non Christians? You appear to be sympathetic to the homosexual movement in some regard and claim you are not anti-gay. I don’t quite understand your logic. Doesn’t the Christian believe that God is going to rain down his wrath on those who practice a homosexual lifestyle? How, as a Christian, can you take a stand different from your God?

I would think you would argue from a sola scriptura perspective. The Arisostaff’s statement of faith suggests such a perspective. If Scripture is the ultimate source of authority, why slip over it and rely on reason apart from Scripture, which you seem to be doing. I don’t want to read too much into your comment to Ryan’s earlier response. But you seem willing to give homosexuals everything they want, except for the classification of being married in the eyes of the law. Why give them anything? The God of the Bible doesn’t. He hates evil doers according to the Psalms. And David, a man after God’s own heart, also hates God’s enemies (Ps. 139:2). Wouldn’t you want to follow David’s lead?

As a Christian, I would think you would have a kingdom perspective by which the kingdom of God is to be increasingly established here on earth. You know: the kingdom realized but not yet finalized. Doesn’t such a Christian strive to establish God’s kingdom in the here and now? Aren’t Christians to strive for God’s dominion over the earth in the present, the kingdom perspective? Aren’t Christians to pray, “thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven?” Your arguments against same sex marriage seem to be a half hearted attempt at kingdom building here on earth. Why not just say, homosexuals are completely wrong because God says so? Every square inch of the universe belongs to God; why give up territory that belongs to God?

It might make more Christian sense to say that according to the Bible, God does not condone homosexual conduct in any way, and as those who are trying to establish God’s kingdom on earth we cannot sympathize with homosexual demands. But of course, for those who don’t have the same view of the Bible or of God as do Christians, such a Christian perspective makes little sense anyway. And in a democracy the views of more than Christians have to be respected and taken into consideration when making law. In a democracy, a person doesn’t want to (and shouldn’t) be governed by a religious persuasion that does not represent him/her. Ideally in a democratic legal system, all religions should be set aside in the legal process, a separation of church and state. Of course, that doesn’t dismiss a basic morality for the good of all.

As to Mr. Rudd and his comments in regard to same sex marriage, I think his understanding of the Bible was not far off. But I think he used a weak argument in applying his understanding to same sex marriage. In replying to Rev. Matt Prater, he would have been wise to say his own personal feelings or beliefs (even as a Christian) cannot determine public policy. He is governing in behalf of people of many different religious persuasions or no religion at all. In a democracy, he cannot lead simply as a Christian and by biblical principles. According to the Bible, that day is still to come in the future. Because, you live in a democracy like Australia, Matthew, maybe you would be wise to also take such a stand, in which you recognize the rights of others, and get less concerned if everything doesn’t go the Christian way. Get busy and build God’s kingdom in other ways. And be concerned about the “church” and its stand on such things as homosexuality; that’s the place where the church has authority and can discipline its own members. That’s the place where the members of the Christian kingdom hold their membership. The church has more than its own share of immorality without going outside of its own boundaries to correct the world. Once again, I’m confused as to why, on this Christian website, you make your argument from reason and logic, and seem to ignore a Christian perspective.

Once again, I’m sorry for the length of this response. And realize, I didn’t cover all the threads of this spider web that we have uncovered. There’s more I’d like to say, but you may accuse me of trying to rewrite your original article. At any rate, I have enjoyed discussing this issue with you. Maybe this is what the author of Proverbs 27 meant when he said, “Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” Keep sharp and be blessed.

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

Mathew — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 07:40:00 -0000

... you realise our latest responses are now longer than the original article that spawned them? Anyhoo ... :)

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

Mathew — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 07:38:41 -0000

Obviously, we are still at odds over the degree to which Mr Rudd characterised what the bible teaches and how he used his understanding (or misunderstanding, as I've argued) to preach a line pleasing to a pro-left crowd, that was not biblically sound, days out from a federal election, and that he used this particular opportunity to publicly berate a sincere Christian pastor who plucked up enough nerve to ask such a question. All to the audience's delight. He deserves little slack, if any.

It's occurred to me that our discussion has revolved around the acute differences between NT times slavery and American slavery - the key differences I noted between them was the greater degree of liberties afforded in the former, and that the latter was based purely on racial enslavement. Both could be equally as cruel. One thing for certain, the Bible does not condone such slavery - which Mr Rudd charged that it did, and that is my main gripe with him as he used this mistaken belief to jusfity his "informed Christian conscience" to support same-sex marriage. I will consider updating my article to emphasise this as I think, given the turns of our discussion, I clearly did not articulate this aspect well enough.

Your arguments in favour of redefining marriage seem to hinge on three main points. As I understand them, these are:

1. Governments issue marriage licenses in order to "maintain or record the status of a country's population"
2. Homosexual families do not fare as well as heterosexual families because the former are not accepted by society. Greater acceptance would come if marriage is altered to allow for same-sex recognition
3. We live in a democracy. Law should reflect what the democracy wants

Why do you believe point #1? I would have thought a government census is more capable of recording the status of country’s population, and much more diversely so than issuing marriage licenses. This seems to me to be mere speculation on your part.

Neither do I buy into the line of argument of #2. In fact, there are studies (the findings of which I dispute) that would contradict this, stating that children do best when raised by lesbian mothers. Again, I would say such a point of view as this is mere speculation, that all homosexual households with children need in order to fare better is a piece of paper from the government that labels their relationship a marriage.

On #3, well … you’ll be aware that the state of California took the issue to the people and the people democratically voted to retain marriage as the exclusive union of one man to one woman. And such was the case in many other states (where a vote of the people was enacted) in the US until only at the last US federal election. Frankly, it is my position that the definition of marriage is not something that can be voted on, regardless. And if we make it so that it is, then marriage can ultimately end up meaning anything that the people want and if that happens it will cease to have any meaning whatsoever. Sort of like the meaningless of insisting that a circle be defined as a shape with four sides of equal length. And then, further still, if it can mean anything, there is absolutely no reason for marriage to exist, let alone for the government to have any interest in it.

At any rate, of the reasons we’ve discussed that government regulates marriage, acceptance by society does not appear to be one of them. I’ve attempted to argue that the only reason government regulates marriage is to further the wider public good. Changing marriage is no guarantee to further the public good, and I’ve seen no convincing arguments to say that it would.

(A word on "acceptance", since you seem to be interjecting your responses with the term. “Acceptance” is not the same thing as “tolerance". After all, if someone accepts something, they have no need to tolerate that same thing. Classical tolerance is the attitude that you co-exist with those who have differing views than yours and that you peaceably go about day to day life irrespective. Acceptance goes further; it is synomous with approval. Acceptance requires that you must change your attitude so that you no longer disagree with differing views, but approve of them. Out of the two - tolerance and acceptance - it is clear to me which one harbours a more free and equitable society and which promotes tyranny and suppression.

I would like a tolerant society, as I'm sure you would, too. And I argue that, by and large, is precisely what we have - even with respect towards homosexuals.)

On the notion of public good, you call my position as “not ringing true” because you are unable to find anything “official from any government stating such a position”. I never said you would; and my argument is not based on whether there is or not. From the restrictions government places on marriage, it seems implicit that they are in the interests of the public good. As it stands, marriage law encourages the life long union of one man to one woman. Yet this in and of itself does little to further the public good. It is what this type of relationship typically brings about that directly facilitates the furthering of the public good: chiefly that heterosexual unions, as a group, as a rule, and by nature, create children. And no society can survive without the rearing of the next generation. If that is not the most basic societal good there is, I do not know what is. In contrast, homosexual unions, as a group, as a rule and by nature, cannot create children. Period. The two types of relationships are fundamentally different with respect to this natural, biological fact. This is the premise on which I argue that government has an interest in regulating marriage. I further argue that each of the restrictions on marriage work to: 1) recognise and describe what naturally occurs, and; 2) serve to protect and promote such relationships. Homosexual relationships just don’t factor into this, and it is not due to any hidden prejudice as some might claim.

I’ll reiterate that marriage existed before governments and before religion. Governments came along and regulated it; religion came along and understood it’s design. Neither defined it. In Ancient Rome and Greece, homosexual practice was widespread, but the natural understanding of marriage remained.

I’ll finish for now by addressing one other statement you made. You said: “Homosexual marriage does not contribute to unhealthy results any more than do heterosexual marriages, so [the gendered] requirement can legitimately be removed.” It’s a nice sounding statement. But, to borrow your phrase, it does not ring true. The social sciences abound with studies providing strong indications as to what sorts of relationships best benefit society with respects to raising children. By far, households headed up by intact, married, biological parents provide the best environment for children. Second to that comes families in which the adoptive mother and father are married. Then there’s unmarried, biological parent households. Followed by single parent households, which are somewhat on par with same-sex parented households. If such studies are anything to go by, children who are raised by married parents of each gender do better than those who are not and we ought to be doing everything we can as a society to be promoting the first - and current legislation, by default, does. Redefining legislation creates unnecessary risk and can be considered nothing more than a mere social experiment. It’s not a risk I believe our society should take.

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

M Reese — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:16:54 -0000

In Leviticus 25, The Lord gives concise instruction on buying and selling human beings as permanent property that can be handed down to children and how a slave can be beaten as long as he/she does not die within a couple days. Jesus clearly stated that slaves should have a deep fear of their masters.

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

RLG — Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:43:53 -0000

I have come to realize that the staff of the Aristophrenium, never or seldom concede any error on their views. Least wise, I haven’t seen it. Talk about inerrancy: the Bible and the Aristophrenium staff. Whether Mr. Rudd was “totally” off base when mentioning the cultural context (slavery) of the Bible or whether the main theme of the New Testament is about love, many Christians would agree with his basic assumptions. Not all Christians look at Scripture from the same perspective as you. Your latest comment suggested that Mr. Rudd was claiming to know better than others. Is that like you, who seem to make the same claim? There are a host of denominations that would differ with you. Are you always right? All I wanted to see you do, was to give him some slack. His answers were not way out in left field. The Bible was written within a cultural context (slavery) that often doesn’t carry weight today. And “love” is a fundamental theme of the New Testament (God’s love for sinners and human responsibility to love others as themselves).

As to this whole same sex marriage argument, this is not really a critical issue for me. There is a lot about the homosexual persuasion that I don’t understand and haven’t gotten into it in the past. But I do have some sympathy for committed gay couples, and feel they don’t always get a fair shake.

Countries like the U.S., Canada, and Australia have strong Christians roots, and those roots have had a very big impact in regard to the majority thought of these countries on a lot of social issues, homosexuality being one of them. Even if one does not claim to be a Christian, Christianity has still left its bias on popular thinking. Homosexuals have some big walls to climb to gain acceptance in our societies. They may have come some distance in the last decade or two, but they have a long way to go before they feel they are on an even playing field. That plays a big part in why homosexual families (parents and children) still don’t do as well as families with heterosexual parents. It’s not in the distance past that homosexual young people could count on being beat up regularly and shunned by most. That mind set or bias is still around and has a big psychological effect on the children of homosexual parents. Until homosexual couples/families gain acceptance within our societies, they will still have difficulty experiencing a so called normal family life. But I believe that that time will eventually come. In a democracy it is imperative. And that is why homosexual couples want to be labeled by the government as being married. That would go a long distance toward their acceptance in our societies. Even the government would recognize them as being on the same playing field. And hopefully society would follow the government’s lead. And, of course, that would lead to the strengthening of our democratic societies and countries, by promoting a healthy family life for all our citizens. That’s the socially redeeming quality for including committed gay couples under the umbrella of marriage. This would, as you suggest, promote the “public good” and would not only promote the interests of a particular group (which, by the way, your perspective does).

You said, you agreed with most of the reasons I suggested for why the government is involved in marriage. But then you go on to say, “Absolutely, the only reason government is involved is because there is some wide-reaching social good that marriage, on the whole, performs. If marriage achieves these goods, society at large stands to benefit. Government promotes the realisation of this good by regulating marriage; and the regulations stipulate what restrictions everyone desiring to enter into marriage must equally abide by.” Realize that this quote is from you and not my perspective. I simply maintain that the purpose of giving marriage licenses is to maintain or record the status of a country’s population. The “regulations” are meant to prevent marriages that would reap unhealthy results on individuals and society. Your idea that the government’s involvement is because it wants to promote a wide-reaching social good does not wring true. That may be your own personal perspective, but I’ve seen nothing official from any government stating such a position. The government simply wants to know the status of its citizens and is not promoting anything. The bureau of statistics wants an official record of births, marriages, and deaths, in other words the status of its citizens. Are you going to tell me that the government is involved in officially recording deaths to promote some social good? I don’t think so, and the same is true of recording marriages. Homosexual marriage does not contribute to unhealthy results any more than do heterosexual marriages, so that requirement can legitimately be removed.

As to your question of, what should a government do if society changes it's mind on homosexual relationships in fifty years? You should know better than to ask such a question. Government doesn’t legislate law based on what could and could not happen in thirty, fifty, or a hundred years. Legislation and laws are made on the basis of the present circumstances. Acceptance of homosexuals has grown over the course of time, so it’s not likely to change any time soon.

Your comment about anti-miscegenation laws answers the last question of what happens if society changes it’s mind on same sex marriage. Then change the law again, as with anti-mixed race marriage laws. A law doesn’t have to be seen as lasting forever, especially if a societal perspective changes it’s direction, or if a particular past bias doesn’t hold the influence it once had.

In your last paragraph of your latest comment you say, “marriages as a group, as a rule and by nature create the next generation. And the overriding implication is that marriages best do this over and above all other family configurations.” That’s just the point, as to why homosexual married couples want to be considered as officially married couples. They don’t want to be seen as anything less than a married couple, because that is what best contributes to the well being of society and family life. Whether they have adopted or surrogate children, they want to be regarded as an officially recognized marriage and not some “other family configuration.”

I’m still waiting for your big guns. I have a feeling they may be coming soon. Sorry for the length of this response.

Re: Book Review: “Jesus > Religion” by Jefferson Bethke

Mathew — Thu, 17 Oct 2013 02:29:32 -0000

Great review, Luis. Well done. It sounds like a book that I would also enjoy reading. I particularly like the point you mention where he laments that if you can replace God's name with your girlfriend's in a song, that the song's content is somewhat suspect. I couldn't agree more.

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

Mathew — Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:15:53 -0000

If anyone purports to have an informed Christian worldview and conscience, one does not require to be a trained seminarian; you can be a mere layperson and have an accurate understanding of both scripture and how that is to be lived out. Mr Rudd was not claiming to be a layperson; he was claiming to know better. Moreover, he was claiming that the bible stated something that it does not and used that as the justification for his view on the subject of same-sex marriage and homosexuality. The fact that he was PM at the time is irrelevant to the charges I raised. While I don't expect our political leaders to be expert apologists (no pun intended) I do expect a certain degree of competence from those who claim to (or present as though they do) have a robust Christian understanding of scripture. I stand by my criticisms of Mr Rudd.

Most of what you speculate as to the reasons why government is involved in marriage I am in agreeance with. Absolutely, the only reason government is involved is because there is some wide-reaching social good that marriage, on the whole, performs. If marriage achieves these goods, society at large stands to benefit. Government promotes the realisation of this good by regulating marriage; and the regulations stipulate what restrictions everyone desiring to enter into marriage must equally abide by.

There are essentially four restrictions by which marriage is regulated. All individuals looking to enter marriage must:

<ol>
<li>Be an adult</li>
<li>Not currently be married</li>
<li>Not marry a close blood relative</li>
<li>Marry a member of the opposite sex</li>
</ol>

I've little doubt that you and agree that the first three of these restrictions make sense and that it is easy to see how they protect the interests of societal good. But you conjecture that the fourth restriction is only in place due to tradition, implying that such a restriction does little to contribute to protecting the interests of societal good. You then argue that as society is more accepting of homosexual relationships, that it then makes sense to drop this as a restriction on marriage. (This also prompts me to ask: If, in 50 years time, society becomes un-accepting of these relationships, can they redefine marriage yet again to exclude them? I think on your view you would have to reply in the affirmative. As you would have to do so with the anti-miscegenation laws in the US.)

Firstly, I think it strange that we should change public policy because there seems to be an increasing acceptance of something. It opens us up to legislating things into law that may not promote the public good or may even be injurious towards it. Surely we should only consider matters of policy that do promote a wider good and not just the interests of any particular group?

Secondly, this is not the first period in history where there has been wide acceptance of homosexual practice. Predating Christianity, Ancient Rome and Greece were very permissive about such activity - yet they never considered (to my un-scholarly learning, at least) changing marriage to be anything other than between the sexes.

As to the striking down of the anti-miscegenation laws in the US, to be technically correct, removing the racial requirement was not the redefinition. It was the inclusion of the racial requirement to begin with that was the redefinition. Stripping it out returned the definition to what it was and removed what was nothing more than an attempt to further cement white supremacy rule. This is not analogous to the current debate on marriage.

Marriage has always been something particular. It predates the state and it predates religion. Marriages logically create families and many families form the basis of societies, which in turn give rise to the state. The legislation we have in place merely describes what marriages are and promotes them for this one simple reason: marriages as a group, as a rule and by nature create the next generation. And the overriding implication is that marriages best do this over and above all other family configurations.

I have much more to say on this issue, but I realise this response so far will raise further challenges from you, so I'll hold my tongue for the moment. And, besides, I've written a lot and perhaps am needing a break!

Thank you so far for what has been an enjoyable dialogue.

Re: Book Review: “Jesus > Religion” by Jefferson Bethke

Fern — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 01:33:32 -0000

Amazing! Thank you for taking the time to do this. I should buy the book soon.

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

RLG — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:52:39 -0000

Where to begin. First, as to my opposition to your article above. In this latest response to me, you said, “You only seemed intent to grill me as to why I oppose redefining marriage.” I actually grilled you because I thought you were unfair to your Prime Minister. You said, your Prime Minister demonstrated “a remarkable display of biblical ignorance” in answering Matt Prater. I thought that for a Prime Minister whose expertise is not in Biblical knowledge, he didn’t do so terribly bad. His biblical knowledge wasn’t way out in left field as you implied.

As to your two questions. First, what is marriage that the government should be concerned with it? I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at here, but it seems as though issuing marriage licenses is a means of record keeping as to the status of a country’s population. Perhaps it contributes to an updated census, as censuses happen only every ten years or so.

As to who can get married (the regulation part) the license seems to be a means by which to prevent marriages that would reap unhealthy results and be a burden, not only on the couple, but also on society. The marriage license also prevents underaged citizens from getting married, which could also be harmful to the individuals intending to marry, as well as society. So perhaps the government’s concern is to insure the well being of its citizens and society. As you suggest, there are a host of private reasons that a couple may have for getting married that the government is not concerned with, such as love, companionship, having children, getting away from family, and on and on. For such reasons it would seem the government isn’t concerned or shouldn’t be (answer to question 2). Otherwise the marriage requirements could become unending.

So it seems logical that the government may be concerned if some obvious burden might be placed on the couple or society. For the most part the government is concerned with marriage in order to know the status of its country’s population. Of course, this is a guess, as I could find no official statement, as to why the government should be concerned with marriage.

As to the requirement that only a man and woman may marry, this seems to stem from long standing norms and tradition. As cultural norms are changing, and homosexual relations are being accepted within a society as acceptable, then it would seem logical to drop this requirement for limiting marriage to a man and woman. That would not require changing the definition of marriage, but only the requirements of who may marry. That would be similar to dropping the requirement that those marrying must be of the same race which changed in1967, in the U.S. As marrying outside of one’s race was once considered unacceptable, so also with homosexual marriages. And increasingly acceptance of homosexual marriage is happening in many states and being considered by others, as well as other countries such as Australia.

Are we done with 20 clues, and are you ready to reveal your hand? Please!!

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

Mathew — Mon, 07 Oct 2013 05:56:49 -0000

The two stock questions I often ask those who appear in favour of redefining marriage typically are: 1) What is marriage, that government ought to be concerned with it?, and; 2) Does it make sense for government to regulate marriage for the reasons people give? (Or variants thereof.)

These are clues, I guess, to my overall policy position on marriage. I had pressed you as to what you thought because, frankly, I have no idea. You only seemed intent to grill me as to why I oppose redefining marriage. You more or less replied that marriage is about love. I don't necessarily disagree, I just disagree that that is a reason why government regulates marriage.

Think of it this way: in our Western culture, people enter into marriage predominantly for private reasons (ie. love, companionship, religion, romance, to have 'a big day', get away from family, or some other such reason, whether silly or sublime). But the government has no interest in these private reasons . So there must be something else to marriage in order for government to regulate it. If there isn't, then perhaps government shouldn't regulate it at all.

Now, before I reveal my hand, as it were, are there any non-private reasons (that you can think of) for marriage that concern government enough to regulate it as they do?

(And my apologies for the lengthy delay in response. It's been a hectic week.)

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

RLG — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 13:38:18 -0000

Obviously, you and I are picking up our thoughts on Roman slavery from different sources. That’s ok. It still raises the question of whether Mr. Rudd was completely off base in his assessment of slavery in Roman times. According to you, he was far off base. You make slavery sound like a very tolerable state in Bible Times (especially NT times). Slaves had many rights and privileges. But that still doesn’t square with the Bible’s assessment of being enslaved to sin which no doubt had its analogy to the physical slavery that was prevalent in New Testament times (for instance Romans 6:6,7). Otherwise if physical slavery was very tolerable, as you suggest, then why wouldn’t spiritual slavery (to sin) also be very tolerable? Why would one need to be delivered from being enslaved to sin? So I still suggest that Mr. Rudd is not as ignorant as you make him out to be in regard to a basic Bible understanding. Does that mean his argument stands as he suggests?

Now, back to marriage. I feel like you are putting an imposition on me. You are rebuffing me without revealing your own position. I don’t know what your stand is on same sex marriage. I would guess your position would be that there is no legal or civil ground by which to define marriage or to suggest who may get married. The government should have no say in this. This should be left to churches and whatever other groups want to give their own definition and permissions. That way the church, such as yours, can have their own definition and marry those who fit that particular definition. That sounds like what you could be arguing for, but I really don’t know. So how can I argue with you, if I don’t know where you stand? Please give me a clue.

You were asking me, previously, to hazard a guess as to why homosexuals would want to change marriage laws to include them. I simply made a guess. I wasn’t going for a legal reason. So I was not trying to be overly precise. I suppose to include “love” as part of my answer was wrong as to a legal response. True, two people don’t have to love each other to legally enter into marriage. But how many marriage ceremonies have you witnessed in which love was not the foundation of the marriage being consummated? I would venture to guess that “love” is a large part or the primary requirement for consummating a marriage in Western society, at least as popularly understood. And so my guess, as to reasons to include homosexuals under the heading of “marriage” was a guess at a more popular understanding of marriage, not the legal. But I still don’t know where you stand, so how can I defend a position or contest yours? Help me out please.

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

Mathew — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 07:31:34 -0000

When we're talking about Roman slavery, we need to be careful to narrow it down to a very particular time - chiefly, the first half of the first century. Throughout the history of the ancient Roman Empire, conditions of slavery were different. The influence of the Stoics (and, in the first two centuries, of Christianity) gradually altered Rome's treatment of it's slaves: the Stoics held that all were equal. At about the time of Christ, this thinking was taking hold in Rome such that, by the end of the mid-first century, slaves abandoned by their masters because of illness who then recovered were granted freedom and, shortly thereafter, slaves were given the right to complain against their masters in court. Roman slaves who were freed were then permitted to become Roman citizens. It is not at all unreasonable to deduce that a mere 20 years earlier, attitudes had already been changing in Jesus' day, and it's in that environment that the Apostle Paul writes. In addition to these shifts on slavery, and as a further point of difference from American slavery, Romans did not enslave based on race, they enslaved on conquest (as you've already noted) or as bondservants (selling oneself into slavery to avoid calamity).

Back to marriage, you seem to define marriage as the "long term love and commitment" of a couple. I would put it you to that, from a legal standpoint, the Marriage Act (of either the US or Australia) does not require that participants desiring to enter marriage must love each other at all. Therefore, to say that homosexuals want governmental recognition of their love is to ask of government something it doesn't even do for heterosexual couples. Government doesn't care who you love; it cares who you marry. And the restrictions of who you can marry apply equally to all people, regardless of sexual identity. Further, I can't fathom why any couple would need a piece of paper from the government to acknowledge their love for each other. Is it impossible for couples to publicly declare their love for and commitment to each other without such a piece of paper from the government? No, for government to regulate marriage at all, it must be because of other reasons. So my question remains: why does government regulate marriage at all?

The advent of anti-miscegenation laws (to prohibit mixed-racial unions) was the only time marriage was redefined. Once that prohibition was (rightfully) removed, the law became blind to the race of either individual of a couple desiring to marry. This is not analogous to the debate on same-sex marriage for this simple reason: as the law is blind to an individual's race, it is also blind to an individual's sexual orientation.

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

RLG — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:23:24 -0000

Hi Matt. I don’t mean to be a pain in the neck. The truth is, I didn’t hear your Prime Minister’s forum first hand. I have only read the comments that you quoted him as saying and then your comments. And that doesn’t give a very full impression of a person, or the forum he was part of, or the audience reaction. So I have to admit, I may have been talking somewhat out of turn. But picking up only on the comments you made about him, I think you could have picked a different direction by which to approach the matter he was promoting.

Based on those few comments, it seemed ungracious of you, and your accusations seem somewhat unwarranted. You accuse him of Biblical ignorance, but do you really expect your politicians (Prime Minister) to have the Bible knowledge you have? Do you have the legal and political savvy of a Prime Minister?

As to giving your prime minister credit, you did say that love for your fellow man was “a part” of the New Testament message, not a “big part.” And then you went on to explain why he was missing the fundamental message of the New Testament. But one could make an argument that love for neighbor is the fundamental teaching of Jesus. Just look at the numerous parables Jesus uses to make that very point. I don’t think your prime minister was speaking as a theologian, but more as a person who knows, at least, that love for neighbor is a fundamental teaching of the Bible, and that love is important for today’s living.

As to slavery, I think you still fall short on your understanding of Roman slavery. I went back, and read several more articles on Roman slavery. The majority of slaves did not have the privileges you speak of. Slaves were most often populations that were conquered in war. If those conquered were from a more educated population, like the Greeks, they might be used by Romans as slaves in their area of expertise. This is like Daniel in captivity in Babylon (OT), used as a consultant to the king. Most others were used as gladiators, front line soldiers, menial laborers on building projects, plantations, and farm workers. But even house slaves, perhaps like Onesimus (Philemon’s runaway slave), only had the rights given by their owners. And most slaves were considered disposable property, like American slaves. Besides, many American slaves (house slaves) were also treated well. Roman slavery and American slavery pretty much come out of the same box. Slavery whether Roman or American was not a desirable state. Roman slavery (along with Jewish slavery to the Egyptians) was the enslavement that is compared spiritually to being enslaved to sin. But it was a practice that was accepted in both Roman and early American culture. It didn’t become a questionable practice until Christians and others who recognized the human rights of those enslaved rose up in protest. Paul did not protest the institution of slavery. Perhaps Paul believed he had no right to interfere with Roman cultural or legal norms. Give to Rome what is Rome’s. But Rudd is not entirely out of the park, as you portray him. The question still stands, if his comparison is at least (somewhat) valid, does he have a leg to stand on in regard to same sex marriage? Or is that why you are so intent to say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in regard to the Bible?

As to your first question in your last comment: Why would homosexuals in a committed relationship want to change marriage law if they already receive the benefits of a married couple? In the U.S. they don’t yet. Maybe so in Australia. But I’ll assume an Australian situation. Why would a gay or lesbian couple want to be legally considered married? I’ll hazard a guess (as you suggest). They probably feel that marriage best describes their relationship. You can use most any dictionary you please and you will find a definition of marriage that fits the situation of a committed heterosexual or a homosexual couple in a long term committed relationship. 1 Corinthians 13 is a Bible chapter that is often used in a marriage ceremony. It is a description of “agape” love at its best. It’s the kind of love that both heterosexual and homosexual couples want to define their relationship (or marriage). Neither marriage if it is based solely on an erotic (Eros) love will survive. The long term love and commitment is the same in both relationships, which both want defined by the term marriage. I can’t quite understand why you are so insistent on not allowing that change within a democracy where no single group or culture is given preference. It can’t be that you don’t want any change made to the marriage law. In the U.S., the government made changes to the marriage law (1967) to legalize interracial marriages. Why not make a change to accommodate same sex marriage?

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

Mathew — Sun, 29 Sep 2013 06:47:10 -0000

Unfortunately, I can't see anything that was mistakingly deleted in our moderation tool regarding your previous attempts at leaving a comment. I'm glad you took the time to resubmit it - as frustrating as that must have been to retype it.

Let me start with your last comment from the bottom up. Equality can be achieved without the need to redefine what marriage is - we have done so already in Australia (as they had done so in California (before the Prop 8 saga) and other states in the US) and, yet, a vocal gay lobby still seek to change marriage law, though it offers them no additional benefit, under law, to do so. I do wonder why. Could you hazard a guess, perhaps? On my point of view, for then PM Rudd to be belligerent about gay rights mystifies me when such equality under law does exist.

Here's something on which I think you and Royce and I do agree: none of us believe that Christians ought to expect non-Christians to live as Christians. To otherwise claim that I do (as I suspect you do, though feel free to correct me), citing my opposition to redefining marriage as evidence, prompts me to ask you: why is government involved in regulating marriage at all? My own response to that same question has little to do with my Christian faith.

As for giving Mr Rudd some credit for his biblical knowledge, you would notice in my article I did just that: I acknowledged that loving your neighbour is a large part of what the Bible is about. I stand by my comment, however, that that is not the fundamental message - it is not equal to the greatest commandment of loving God, for out of loving God it must follow that one also loves his neighbour.

Roman slavery was still unlike American slavery. Roman slaves could own property, they could run businesses and make profit, hold positions in public office, be educated and purchase their freedom. I am not certain that American slaves had the same possibilities.

Lastly, the Bible never purports that slavery is a natural condition for some. Mr Rudd seems to have imported some Aristotle, who did argue that some were born to be slaves, into his initial response to Pastor Prater. This may have been excusable if it weren't for the fact that he was using that assumption as the foundation to then dismiss clear biblical teaching on the issue of marriage. It definitely makes his retort one of absurdity that we should have fought for the Confederacy, and was nothing more than mere politicking and of being a crowd pleaser.

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

RLG — Thu, 26 Sep 2013 12:25:00 -0000

I don't know if my posts are getting to you, but it seems as though one didn't make it. So here's trying again.

I suppose you are quite happy, Matthew, with the turn of the election in Australia. Rudd will be out and Abbot in.

But I still think you may be doing your present Prime Minister (Rudd) a disservice. His understanding of Biblical slavery would naturally come from Israel’s slavery to the Egyptians. Beside such slavery being depicted in the Old Testament as dominant, it’s also the slavery that is dominant in the New. It’s the antitype that stands out as the shadow of a person’s slavery to sin in the New Testament and for which redemption was necessary. Such slavery is never depicted as a gracious form of slavery in which the enslaved are treated with kindness and respect, as you seem to be implying for Biblical slavery .

Beside that, the apostle Paul was not speaking to a Jewish audience in Ephesus (Ephesians 6:5) whose understanding of slavery would naturally be Jewish in character, but rather Roman in character. He was not implying a Jewish form of slavery, as though that was a form of slavery being practiced by the Romans. And Roman slaves whether home slaves or forced labor slaves were considered as mere property of the owner, who had no or few rights other than what the owner was willing to give. Overall they were mere “chattel,” as you say, of the owner. So although an owner of a slave in Ephesus had a legal right to treat his slaves as he pleased, Paul calls upon them to treat them with respect and kindness. Such was the case with Philemon and his runaway slave, Onesimus. Philemon was well within his legal rights to have Onesimus killed immediately with no trial at all. So it is a Roman slavery that is likely prominent in the New Testament. This is the slavery that is tolerated by the apostle Paul and other Christians. He didn’t condemn the institution of slavery itself. But Christians are called upon to go beyond the norm of their culture. So your Prime Minister was not so far off base in his thinking, as you implied, when he spoke of slavery in Bible times and likened it to early American slavery. You fault him, as though he knew nothing of the slavery recorded in Bible times, and for which he was sadly mistaken and foolish. You accused him of “Biblical ignorance.” It seems as though the faulty understanding may be as much or more so, yours.

As to Mr. Rudd’s understanding of the New Testament, can’t you give him a little credit? You treat him as though he has little or no understanding of the Bible. After all, Jesus himself said the greatest requirement of the Old Testament, and the implication is the New Testament as well, is that a person love God above all else and to love one’s neighbor as himself. You may say that love for neighbor is not “the” fundamental principle of the New Testament, but it is “a” fundamental principle in both the Old and New Testaments and is “the” fundamental requirement of the Bible. It seems a little generosity toward your Prime Minister is in order. You yourself said the New Testament is all about the Sunday School acronym Joy: Jesus first, others second, and yourself last. Isn’t that another way to say the fundamental principle is all about love, love toward God and neighbor?

I agree with Royce, that perhaps Christians should be more concerned with the Christian community than with those outside of the church. As Royce points out, maybe the better approach toward the world is evangelism rather than condemnation. But of course part of evangelism is condemnation. After all, all stand before God as condemned sinners. “None is righteous.” The Christian gospel cannot eliminate this recognition of the utter sinfulness of humankind, before presenting the solution in Christ. And I think, Matthew, you, and other Christians, want homosexuals to know that beyond any Biblical doubt they are sinners living in the gutter of humanity and condemned by God. But of course such an approach is not winning converts but doing the opposite.

I really think the Christian community (or Christian leadership) should be concerned with the members of God’s (so called) kingdom, or members of the church. There is more than enough policing right there within that needs to be done without going outside of its own doors. There has been such a world of moral slippage within the church that you don’t have to go outside before cleaning up what’s on the inside. There are so many areas. I’m told that the divorce rate (for marriage) within the church is no less than what is on the outside. And the grounds and consequences of divorce within shows that, in actuality, marriage is no more sacred within the church than it is outside. This could be multiplied by numerous areas where the church is no better than those outside. So why does the church become so concerned with putting non christians on a leash when they can’t contain their own members? It seems as though few Christians have any different ethic than those on the outside of the church. Is that what you call evangelism or letting your light shine? And Royce, where is this leading of the Holy Spirit for Christians that you talk about? Or is that just a sham too.

As to your final question, Matthew, in regard to equal rights. I’m American, so I don’t know Australian law. But here, there are many rights or benefits that an American married couple receive that a gay couple, even within a civil union, don’t receive. There are federal, as well as state rights. These include inheritance rights, taxation benefits, end of life decision making rights, insurance benefits and rights. And I’m sure there are others as well. Most gays in a life long relationship want their relationship to be seen as a marriage with all the benefits that a heterosexual married couple experience. After all, they pay taxes to the government, the same as a married couple; why not also receive the same benefits or have equal rights? Blessings to all.

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

Mathew — Thu, 26 Sep 2013 07:12:06 -0000

That Christians oughtn't expect non-Christians to live as Christians is something that I have no disagreement with, as far as it goes. However, given the way I've argued in opposition of redefining marriage on this blog and elsewhere, I think you would be hard pressed to find that I've argued solely based on my Christian worldview so one would have to call me out - with examples - of where I have crossed that line without reason.

Royce - could you clarify in what manner you think the church has made 'a tremendous error'? Do you think the church was not doing enough prior to the marriage debate to evangelise the gay community?

Re: PM’s faux pas fumble on the Bible, slavery and same-sex marriage

Royce — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:49:27 -0000

RLG - Matthew's question with regard is a sound and legitimate one and I'd be interested in your answer to it.

I do have to say, though, that I believe your over-all point on gay marriage is dead on and does in fact represent the biblical world view. In fact, I'll even up-the-ante for you. Christians are empowered by the in-dwelling holy spirit for the purpose of obedience to God's will such that when I live a life of obedience it is not I who live but Christ who live in me. Therefore, it is completely unjust for Christians to try and hold non-believing member of society to a Christian standard (being that they lack the Holy Spirit's presence they cannot conform to the standard even if they were inclined to... which they aren't).

Jesus gave instructions to this effect in Matthew 7:6 where He said, "...do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Here Jesus is speaking to His disciples (believers), making reference to His teachings (pearls) and non-believers (pigs). It's vitally important for me to point out here that Jesus was NOT stating that non-believers are pigs; He was simply illustrating that though Christians hold His teachings to be of great value, non-believers have about as much use for His teachings as swine have use for jewelry. Anyway... Jesus was basically instructing us to not even attempt to enforce Christian standards on a non-Christian society because the only result is going to be that the society tramples the standard underfoot and then turns to attack and malign the church. If you've been following the gay-marriage debate it's playing out exactly that way (Jesus was right... go figure).

Christians are not mandated by scripture to try and control other people's behavior by legislation. We are mandated to make disciples (which is a much more effective way of achieving the same end). Because it's true that a law is only relevant to those who seek to break it, once God changes a person's heart the law becomes unnecessary. In this case the church should be far more interested in reaching members of the gay community with the good news of the gospel. Salvation produces within a person the desire to please God at which point it becomes wholly irrelevant whether the law allows gay marriage or not.

In many ways I think that the church (myself included in that) have made a tremendous error. The entire debate surrounding gay marriage opened a door for us to connect with the gay community and, through those interactions (executed with grace, compassion and Christ's love), perhaps we could have won some souls. Instead the approach we took only really served to further alienate homosexuals from the God who loves them. I think we blew this one