Blather, amusing musings, and the occasional coherent thought from one of the finest 40-something writers in Evangelical Christendom.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Holly's Thoughts on Proposition 8 (THIS POST TEMPORARILY NOT AVAILABLE)
Portions of this blog post will be published on the website of Today's Christian Woman magazine. Per my contract with them, I've temporarily removed this post. I will post the link to the TCW piece here in three weeks. -H
Dear Holly, I admire the honesty of your post; I agree that the only real argument against gay marriage is faith-based. No phony data about the unsustainability of families anchored by gay couples or such makes this a refreshingly honest view.
However, your musings generally undermine the strength of your argument... you say you must vote to make your state better recognize the authority of God, but point out cases where just such a position would be not only a cause of "sadness" but in fact, extensive state-sponsored bloodshed. Yes the Bible does actually proscribe death for adultery. Are you in favor of a proposition banning all promiscuity? Wouldn't that be superior? It would be the proposition to end 'em all... and most people, too.
And no, we don't have to wonder how many people would go missing from the pews if that sentence were enforced... good social science data puts the rate of pre-marital sex (between to-be-marrieds) at about 96%- this has been normative behavior for over 40 years. So, if we conservatively estimate the 4% of abstainers to ALL be churchgoers, and about 30% of folks visit church regularly, then about 85% of those pews would still go empty- more, if you more-reasonably assume churchgoers behave about like everybody else.
If you're going to enforce God's law selectively, then the only reason to target gays (~4% of the population, ironically the same # of folks who abstain til the wedding day) is because they are a convenient target, or because it doesn't affect you. You may feel "sad" about your vote, but I bet you feel better that you did what God said. But that was too easy. How about making the 10 Commandments law? Close all stores on the Sabbath, fine people who are attracted to people other than their own spouse (remember- it's not just the activity- even 'coveting' is banned)... I could go on forever. Strict interpretation of the Bible is no way to run a democracy, especially one that establishes no State religion and is in fact, highly pluralistic.
I just hope you'll think about why you want to enforce this 'one' of God's many banned activities, and not others. -J. Spagna
This issue has caused a lot of division and changed people's opinions of others whom they have known for a long time. It has done this for me. Someone I knew and respected has stunned me.
God sent His only Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins. And I just read an egregious sin of hypocrisy and intolerance. No matter how well "justified" it is. That for every good Christian written about in the bible someone can give you a sinner Jesus reached out to in love.
While you're busy guessing which translation of the bible is the one that makes you feel a little less like clubbing, sleeping around and getting drunk why don't you let God be the judge of these homosexuals Holly.
Blindness isn't just a physical problem, Ms. Vicente Robaina. Since this intolerance is killing us all and delaying God's return, I'll pray for you.
Anonymous, I can't imagine we're good friends because: 1) You didn't sign your name, which shows a lack of respect for this relationship you say we have, and 2) If you knew me well, you wouldn't be surprised about my post.
Jesus was able to balance truth (contrasting God's holiness with man's sinfulness) with love. Yes, Jesus reached out to repentant sinners in love. And he told them, "Go and sin no more." Additionally, Jesus was blunt with the unrepentant sinner. He called the Pharisees white-washed tombs, among other things.
If you'd like to present evidence to the contrary, please point out a passage where Jesus indicated it was OK for a person to continue on in their sin. Part of true repentance is a desire to stop sinning.
I don't dig emotional responses, which is what you've written here. To clarify, an "emotional response" is one that focuses on me, rather than the issue at hand. If you'd like to post reasoned thoughts, go for it. But I won't post your emotional responses again.
Portions of this blog post will be published on the website of Today's Christian Woman magazine. Per my contract with them, I've temporarily removed this post. I will post the link to the TCW piece here in three weeks. 
4 comments:
This bums me out.
Dear Holly,
I admire the honesty of your post; I agree that the only real argument against gay marriage is faith-based. No phony data about the unsustainability of families anchored by gay couples or such makes this a refreshingly honest view.
However, your musings generally undermine the strength of your argument... you say you must vote to make your state better recognize the authority of God, but point out cases where just such a position would be not only a cause of "sadness" but in fact, extensive state-sponsored bloodshed. Yes the Bible does actually proscribe death for adultery. Are you in favor of a proposition banning all promiscuity? Wouldn't that be superior? It would be the proposition to end 'em all... and most people, too.
And no, we don't have to wonder how many people would go missing from the pews if that sentence were enforced... good social science data puts the rate of pre-marital sex (between to-be-marrieds) at about 96%- this has been normative behavior for over 40 years. So, if we conservatively estimate the 4% of abstainers to ALL be churchgoers, and about 30% of folks visit church regularly, then about 85% of those pews would still go empty- more, if you more-reasonably assume churchgoers behave about like everybody else.
If you're going to enforce God's law selectively, then the only reason to target gays (~4% of the population, ironically the same # of folks who abstain til the wedding day) is because they are a convenient target, or because it doesn't affect you. You may feel "sad" about your vote, but I bet you feel better that you did what God said. But that was too easy. How about making the 10 Commandments law? Close all stores on the Sabbath, fine people who are attracted to people other than their own spouse (remember- it's not just the activity- even 'coveting' is banned)... I could go on forever. Strict interpretation of the Bible is no way to run a democracy, especially one that establishes no State religion and is in fact, highly pluralistic.
I just hope you'll think about why you want to enforce this 'one' of God's many banned activities, and not others.
-J. Spagna
This issue has caused a lot of division and changed people's opinions of others whom they have known for a long time. It has done this for me. Someone I knew and respected has stunned me.
God sent His only Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins. And I just read an egregious sin of hypocrisy and intolerance. No matter how well "justified" it is.
That for every good Christian written about in the bible someone can give you a sinner Jesus reached out to in love.
While you're busy guessing which translation of the bible is the one that makes you feel a little less like clubbing, sleeping around and getting drunk why don't you let God be the judge of these homosexuals Holly.
Blindness isn't just a physical problem, Ms. Vicente Robaina. Since this intolerance is killing us all and delaying God's return, I'll pray for you.
Anonymous, I can't imagine we're good friends because: 1) You didn't sign your name, which shows a lack of respect for this relationship you say we have, and 2) If you knew me well, you wouldn't be surprised about my post.
Jesus was able to balance truth (contrasting God's holiness with man's sinfulness) with love. Yes, Jesus reached out to repentant sinners in love. And he told them, "Go and sin no more." Additionally, Jesus was blunt with the unrepentant sinner. He called the Pharisees white-washed tombs, among other things.
If you'd like to present evidence to the contrary, please point out a passage where Jesus indicated it was OK for a person to continue on in their sin. Part of true repentance is a desire to stop sinning.
I don't dig emotional responses, which is what you've written here. To clarify, an "emotional response" is one that focuses on me, rather than the issue at hand. If you'd like to post reasoned thoughts, go for it. But I won't post your emotional responses again.
Post a Comment