A Public Invitation

On his website, 4Simpsons Blog, I have been having a rather intense debate with Neil Simpson, a conservative Christian, on the issue of marriage. Neil first came to me and posted a comment on my blog inviting my readers to check out his blog that was in general protest of some of the content of the Jack Black Proposition 8 Video. I previously posted. Both sides of this argument have integrated personal attacks, which have solved nothing, and I apologized to him for my end of this. 

However, in the interest of debate, I have asked him (and the at-large conservative Christian community) to provide a few bits of information as it relates to their protest of gay marriage and clinging to Levitical Law on this one issue. I feel as if he has continually dodged these questions at worse, or mishandled them at best. Tiring of a circular argument, he has told me he will be moderating my posts. That’s fine, it’s his blog and I respect that. But to that end, I offered him one last chance to directly address my quest for answers. In an effort to keep the conversation moving and to avoid my quest for answers being ended by hitting the ‘delete’ button (by a man who claims to have these answers) my last comment to him was a request to directly answer my questions with applicable scripture references, while informing him that I would be posting this request, and links back to his site, on my blog. If he can do this, I will publically admit I am wrong. If he can’t, or refuses, then my claims about him and the Christian Right will have been validated. Let’s see. 

My last comment on his post: 

Neil, I too, am growing weary of you avoiding the facts in many of posts… My original post to you was informing you that my copy of Strong’s Concordance refers to ‘abomination’ being the same word (and same meaning) in the Hebrew … a direct conflict of what you stated in your original post. I asked you to provide the reference you were using, you have not done this. In numerous posts, I have asked you to tell me exactly where in the Bible marriage is defined as you claim it to be. I told you I knew of some examples of unions in the Bible being this way. What you and your friend provided were examples. But examples are not definitions. My most recent post on my blog uses websters to define ‘definition’ and ‘example.’ They are not the same. You have not done this. You claim, in your second to most recent response, that I will see this definition if I read further. So here, I am sincerely asking for your help – so me the definition (again, not example) of where Christ says this, and I will happily post a comment here and a post on my blog announcing that I was wrong. This isn’t a challenge, this is a sincere request for assistance – I do not want to be a person who does the opposite of what I’m accusing you of: claiming that something is not in the Bible when it is. Can you do me this one favor? I am fearful that in your most recent response, you are illogical again: “Jesus is God and Leviticus is his word.” Jesus claims to have come to abolish the law, does He not? So how is applying (in this day and age) the rules of Levitical law to Christians even at all relevant? The whole word-origin issue of “abomination” aside, why would Christians even attempt to discuss Levitical law when Christ came to abolish it? Please advise. In addition, Levitical Law does advise of many other things (pointing out that the video says “The Bible says alot of things” was one of your beefs, if I recall). Say that you’re right and the word “abomination” around the shellfish argument does not mean what we mean it to mean. You want to apply the verse regarding men laying with men, but what about the other Levitical verses about being unclean after men’s semen ejaculations? About women’s menstruation cycles? Sincerely, I am in all seriousness asking you … do you apply this to your life? If not, why? Do you feel that modern hygenics has overruled the scriptures? How do you feel that this relates to Jack Black’s claim that Christians “pick and choose” what they want to believe from Levitical Law? These are all honest, sincere questions, not sarcasm or personal attacks. I do invite you to my blog to engage in discussion when I post religious-oriented content. To that end, I do acknowledge that I have been harsh with the personal attacks and I apologize for any offense. I invite you to my site and offer the apology in hopes that we can continue this discussion and have future discussions … it is clear we will not agree on many things, but that is the purpose of discussion, to work things out, no? The only conditions of this (and your response, even on your own blog) is that you, too, will avoid the personal attacks or any semblance of them, as I will. If you are up for this, please directly (not indirectly) response to my questions with definitions and the requested scripture references. If not, then you can choose to delete this comment, obviously, and you will have to forgive me if at that point I lose any respect for you or your word. Regardless of the outcome, I will be posting this response as a new post on my blog with a link back to your site and this post. This is your chance to prove me wrong and validate your claims in a fashion where we both act mature and logical … are you up for it? 

And it begins.

Defining Marriage As One Man and One Woman: Biblical?

For the last day or so, I’ve been involved in a discussion with an evangelical Christian gentleman, Neil, regarding this post (read the comments for the full debate). The debate has turned into a discussion about what many Christians say: “The Bible clearly defines marriage as one man and one woman.” This is oft used in protests of homosexuals, and as it pertains to our discussion, the passing of California’s Prop 8 legislation. Putting aside the emotions and numerous side-debates that this discussion can produce, I am after one claim: Does the Bible define marriage in this way? I want to know, because many Christians outright claim that the Bible clearly defines this. 

My argument is this: While the Bible most certainly provides examples of a union between one man and one woman, the Bible does not clearly “define” marriage in this sense. To be clear, I would have NO issue with people saying that “the Bible provides examples of unions between one man and one woman. That would be legit to say. My biggest issue is with Christians misquoting the Bible on ANY subject. And since many Christians have a desire to get technical when opposing combating viewpoints, fine, let’s get technical:

The verses that Christians have pointed out to me are these two passages, one from Genesis and one from Christ himself: 

Genesis 2:23-25 (from blueletterbible.com)

“And Adam said, this now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

Matthew 19:4-6 (same source):

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore hath God joined together, let not man put asunder.” 

So this is an example of a union, both physical and spirtual, of man and women. This is a beautiful passage. However, where in this passage does it say “Marriage is between one man and one woman exlusively”? It does not. Now, emotions aside, let me state the following: In this post, I am not making the claim that God approves of gay marriage, I’m not making the claim that it was designed to be that way. I am making the claim that Christians are purposely misrepresenting the Bible and the words of Christ by citing this passage to say somethng it does not. 

These passages are beautiful examples, but are not definitions of the topic at hand (if you want to get technical, the topic at hand in the second passage was divorce). If Christians want to claim to what IS in this passage, they should (with equal or greater passion) claim that any man that does NOT leave “father and mother” and marry is sinning against the Lord. Still single? That could be, if you wanted, a case for not doing God’s will. 

So while I do appreciate Neil and the others for attempting to use the Bible as a reference, I fail to see how it clearly defines marriage. At best, it provides an example. 

Let’s turn to Websters, and examine the difference between the words “definition” and “example.” 

The definition of, um, definition: 

“1. The act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.”

The definition of example: 

“1. One of a number of things, or a part of something, taken to show the character of the whole; an instance serving for illustration.” 

Providing the example of a union in the Bible is not the same thing as defining exactly what that union is. Let’s look at other, um, examples, of what the difference is between definition and example:

Definition of Worship:

“1. The reverant honor or homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.”

Examples of worship: 

1. Bowing in prayer at a Luthern church.
2. Taking communion at a Baptist church.
3. Native Americans dancing in honor of a spirit. 
4. Wiccans casting a circle to thank the earth at Harvest moon.

Definition of work:

“1. Exertion or effort dedicated to produce or accomplish something; labor, toil.”

Examples of work:

1. Laboring in construction in the hot Arizona day to build a house.
2. Acting as a server at a restaurant. 
3. Making telemarketing calls to sell a product or service.
4. Me sitting at a coffee shop doing copywriting. 

There are some people, usually narrow-minded individuals, who claim that you aren’t “really worshipping” unless you attend a church of an organized religion; house churches and individual Bible study don’t count. There are some people who claim that you aren’t “doing real work” unless it’s back-breaking and sweat-inducing. Sitting at a coffee house typing doesn’t count. To that end, there are some people whom claim that “real marriage” is only between a man and a woman. Gay marriage doesn’t count. 

You know what? If any of these people believe any of these things, that’s just fine with me. But just because their personal viewpoint doesn’t hold it as valid doesn’t mean that it is so. My friend Brandon works as a web and software developer; I consider his day of work at the office and in meetings to be just as valid as the day of work that my friend Steve, who works construction, puts in. I am not claiming everything to be relative, but I am claiming that examples fit into the broader catagory of definitions, regardless of your personal preference. 

Again, I am not claiming that my view is supreme, I am not claiming that gay marriage is approved by God, I am not trying to convert anyone to my viewpoints. I am merely stating that is dangerous and incorrect to state something as clearly defined fact when it is not a clearly defined fact. When only examples are provided, you cannot deduce a logical, all-inclusive definition from the examples. 

There are many other facets of this to discuss, such as the separation of church and state – and religious freedom – that this country was founded on. We could discuss the idea that many literal-interpretation believers like to hit people over the head for not recognizing the authority of the Bible or God when, in reality, these people never claimed to subscribe to that authority. Criticizing someone who does not believe exactly like you do – and who never even claimed to subscribe to those same beliefs – would be the same as getting angry at some random dude on the street because he doesn’t know how to perform brain surgery, when in fact he never claimed to have this knowledge. I do have faith, but I take a very logical approach to that faith, and I realize that there is some room for error and interpretation, especially in a text that’s been handled by hundreds of special-interest groups over the last 2,000 years and interpreted by said groups many times. That’s why they call it faith – if everything about it was provable and logical and written outright with exact definitions, it wouldn’t be “faith.” It would be called “science.” If you are a believer, you have to work on how you view that faith and come to your own conclusions on it – and while you may hold truly to what conclusions you’ve come to (and I hope you do), you still have to recognize that this faith contains variables, and you can’t argue logic and absolutes when accompanied only by examples, ideas, and interpretations as your backbone defense.