Confusion Say
March 6th, 2007 by Nancy ClevelandListening to Maria’s show (Jared’s slot) on WGMD this morning I was fascinated listening to a couple of the callers regarding the gay issue she invoked. One offered the old saw, referring to Biblical ‘law‘. Another implied we were not bad, just “confusedâ€. ??? Both, frankly, were more than a little patronizing…not to mention (dare I say it?) wrong. Not in their own, personal beliefs, let me hasten to add, but in putting forth that they are ‘right’.
Wouldn’t logic tell you that if we are to be punished because of ONE aspect of the manner in which we live then so will all of us be so punished? Any hopes of anyone ‘getting to heaven’ while others may be excluded or punished, you might as well hang up because I don’t doubt for a second there’s not a one of us, gay/straight, white/red/blue, who has lived a life according to every word, each law adhered to in that book without falter….or exception. What makes anyone deny…or believe…that out of all the two testaments, hundreds of pages and a million verses less than ten (10) may refer to same-sex behavior in any way, shape or form. Based on that, we are unworthy, reviled and can expect retribution? Hmmm…so, I have to wonder about the majority of the straight society who, besides other, lesser, biblical laws they may take so lightly and break, there are these…….
DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
Â
And then there is the “confusionâ€. Myself, I spent forty years being ‘confused’, if you like, before I was blessed enough to become unconfused. Guess which life was the more confusing, guilt-creating or felt very much out of synch and dishonest? If you haven’t lived both I’m afraid I’d have to say you don’t know what confused is.
But, again, these are all bedroom-related arguments and I hate to repeat myself but what does the general revulsion, preaching and psycho-babble have to do with whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry or, at least, enjoy a legal union of some sort? It’s not for the bedroom activities…they will continue regardless, just as heterosexual will (despite what the above quoted verses say). Make two lists but exclude the bedroom. What do we do different from you? We work, pay taxes, take care of chores, bills. We care for the person with whom we share our life, in exactly the same fashion, worry how he/she will manage upon our demise or serious illness/injury, how we care for him/her should old age and infirmity be unkind. You can make much better provision for most of those eventualities than we can…at best, we can leave wills or health initiatives we can only hope will be honored by family members who…as it often happens…feels as the callers do, this morning. Many times, not.
We are not asking or seeking legality to intimacy…that’s no more necessary for us than two sixteen year olds in the back seat of a car or a married spouse having an affair. It may or may not be legal but for some reason merits a degree of “Oh…well!†The legality we seek…or at least many of us do…is when we share every other aspect of our lives there will be a legal protection against those who do not agree with, or simply fear, not HOW we live but with whom.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Eloquently spoken, Nancy!
How we live and with whom is a matter of personal choice that must be protected legally just as is the case for freedom of speech, for example, or any other freedom that we cherish and protect.
I have never been able to understand those who would harbor such fears, except that they are taught/inflamed by leaders who should know better. It’s a control issue actually.
Live and let live — “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Equal protection under the law for all — it’s even in our Constitution, Amendment XIV.
Isn’t your expectation a no-brainer for any American, Nancy?
March 7th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Nancy, you really need to think a little before you pull things out of context.
First of all, the Old Testament laws you cite are cultural. Everything had to be spelled out for the Israelites, or they would be full of “but what if”s.
Second, Mark 10: 1-12 is completed by Matthew 5: 31, 32:
31) It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Mark 12 was another out-of-context post.
As to the rest of your post, the only ones I ever hear stirring the pot are the XXXX (admin. edit) who want special laws to validate their behavior.
Keep trying!
March 7th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
“Isn’t your expectation a no-brainer for any American, Nancy?”
Pretty much, …P…with only one change, for any human being who understand the concept of fair and just.
Dev, the quotes were simply an example of laws written in the same books quoted to such as myself, continually. (Did you notice they were not so different from the Sharia laws cited so often?). Do you consider that, being cultural…and that culture has changed…it’s acceptable to disregard them? If so, since our culture has changed how is that different, to you. If not, how do you reconcile what you read with how your choose to interpret? No “special laws” Dev, only equal rights to the laws already on the books by which you get to live and I don’t.
Yup! You know I’ll “keep trying”!
March 8th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Now for the Biblical perspective. Devastation, you did a good job with the Biblical stuff so far. But I want to clear some more things up. This comment is only from a Biblical perspective, so if you don’t care about the Bible, you can skip over it.
#1 Old Testament Law. Not all OT law still carries over today since God was dealing with a specific nation while now he is dealing with a different kind of organization called the “Kingdom of Heaven.” The moral law still carries over to the NT because it is reiterated there. The punishments, however, do not carry over.
#2 OT punishments. Stoning was a common punishment in the Bible. Stoning is cultural and was not carried over to the NT. Deuter. 24:11-12 is the only case of punishment by mutilation in the OT.
#3 Divorce and remarriage is still hotly debated in the Church.
#4 Lev. 18:19 Not reiterated in the NT. Not moral law.
#5 Mark 12:18-27 She is to MARRY each man. Each man DIES after they marry. Was not passed on to the NT. Not moral law.
#6 Gays can go to Heaven. We are saved “by grace through faith” regardless of sexual orientation. The gospel is this. Christ Jesus, the son of God and member of the trinity, can to earth in human form, lived a life without any sin, and died on a cross to take the punishment for our sins. Now God is offering the free gift of forgiveness of sins. Receiving the gift involves repenting of your sins. You have to admit that you are a sinner in need of forgiveness. When you are saved, you are given the Holy Spirit, another member of the trinity that seals your forgiveness and enables you to live a life without sin. It is up to us, however, to live a holy life, and all of us at some point fail. That’s the gospel in a nutshell.
#7 Homosexuality is a sin. Romans 1:26-27 “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
Now let’s hope I don’t get arrested for hate speech!
BTW Nancy, there are plenty of differences between Sharia and OT law. To start with Sharia is still chopping off hands today. This is a very serious matter. I am not far removed from people who have lost their lives to Sharia. But of course, I can’t give details because I don’t want to put my fellow Christians at risk.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:08 am
1) For me, any Biblical law that’s coroborated by the teachings of Jesus is what I follow, hence the name “Christian.”
2) Our culture hasn’t changed to the point that everything is okay (not yet, anyway!); look at how child molesters are ostracised. Should they have “equal rights” as well? How about polygamists? Or what if I wanted to “marry” my pet Gila Monster, Julio? Should I cry “discrimination if Mr. Parrish won’t perform a Memorable Marriage” for us? (lol-you get my point)
3) Homosexuals already HAVE equal protection under the law, and they’re free to live any ol’ way they choose.
*snore!*
March 25th, 2007 at 1:44 am
“any ol’ way they choose”? Choose? CHOOSE?
What are you saying, homosexuals are into being abused, since they “choose” it.
Speaking of choice, if someone makes a decision only based on spiritual teachings (of any kind) then is that still using free will? Rhetorical, don’t bother.
How offensive to imply child molesters, polygamists or your marrying a reptile is anything like homosexuality. Now, as ridiculous as your comparison is, it can apply to homo or heterosexuals, because one is no better or worse than the other. (you get my point)
I am curious as to how many people that are so worried about defending the “sanctity” of marriage by specifing the gender of the persons getting married, have protested the televising of shows like “The Bachelor” or “Do You Want To Marry A Millionaire” ( I think that’s what it was called). Getting married for money! Picking your spouse from a set number of women and having it play out in front of millions of viewers for the sake of ratings!!
It’s become a joke to ask the question, cant we all just get along?, but I’m still going to keep hoping. (or praying)
April 28th, 2007 at 10:14 am
“How offensive to imply child molesters, polygamists or your marrying a reptile is anything like homosexuality. Now, as ridiculous as your comparison is, it can apply to homo or heterosexuals, because one is no better or worse than the other. (you get my point)”
1) It wasn’t an implication; it was an example.
2) Why did “admin” not edit the word “homo” out of your post like they did mine?
“I am curious as to how many people that are so worried about defending the “sanctity†of marriage by specifing the gender of the persons getting married, have protested the televising of shows like “The Bachelor†or “Do You Want To Marry A Millionaire†( I think that’s what it was called). Getting married for money! Picking your spouse from a set number of women and having it play out in front of millions of viewers for the sake of ratings!!”
I agree, but who takes tripe like that seriously? It’s all hype for viewership, nothing more. Do these perople actually marry?