Scalia the Prophet
James Taranto notes that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia basically predicted the ruling against Prop 8 in California. Judge Walker, in this decision, cited, among other things, Lawrence v. Texas which struck down state laws criminalizing consensual sodomy. "It’s just personal behavior", was the argument from those trying to get those laws overturned. The Supreme Court justices themselves, who wrote the opinion in Lawrence successfully overturning the state laws, said that the Lawrence case "does not involve" the issue of same-sex marriage.
Scalia essentially called that disingenuous in his dissent.
Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.
Same-sex marriage is not the first step on some slippery slope. It is, for some, the destination; the result of supposedly innocuous rulings that have come previously which laid a foundation that backers, including liberals on the Supreme Court, claimed had nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
This is how they remake society; by lying to you until such time as they’ve built up enough steam, by whatever means necessary, to force through what they ultimately want. This destination has been predicted for some time; Scalia’s prediction came in 1986. He (nor I) could believe that the liberals on the bench were that stupid as to not know what they were doing. It was, and is today, not so much about the law as it is about the politics for them.
Also, Scalia’s prediction was not "fear mongering"; it was an honest conclusion drawn based on an understanding of the law and its ramifications. Neither it is "fear mongering" to suggest that this destination is itself not final, but simply a stopping point on the way to who knows where else. One simply has to look at history, even just recent history, to know that. After same-sex marriage, the Netherlands began giving civil unions to unions of 3 or more in 2005. And in 2004:
Tucker Carlson, host of CNN’s "Crossfire", debated with Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques on the polygamy issue. Carlson asked her why shouldn’t polygamists be able to marry and all she could say was, "I don’t approve of that."
Jacque was pushing for same-sex marriage, but figured it would all just stop in its tracks right there, because she didn’t approve of it. I’ve got news for you: jokes about "boogetymen", trying to ignore this history and the considered opinions of law scholars much smarter than they or I, display an ignorance and dismissiveness that belie a facade of thoughtful consideration.
In 1986, few people who argued against sodomy laws thought that it was any more than a privacy matter. They were naive and/or misguided. Those who think today that the debate over what is marriage will be done once we have same-sex marriage are equally naive and misguided. But they will have less of a reason to claim, down the line, that they couldn’t have had an idea what would come of it. Willful blindness will be the only explanation.
Scalia was right. Remember that.
Filed under: Culture • Doug • Homosexuality • Judiciary • Marriage
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
This is how they remake society; by lying to you until such time as they’ve built up enough steam, by whatever means necessary, to force through what they ultimately want.
What exactly do you think “they” ultimately want? What is your evidence for this? Have you been sneaking in to the Secret Gay Planning meetings?
Seriously, what is it you fear?
I keep hearing these vague slippery slope arguments without anyone giving a solid sense of what it is they fear will happen. Forced gay marriage? Hetero sex slavery and gang rapes? Children removed from homes to gay indoctrination camps?
What?
Well, we’re beyond predicting a slippery slope; it’s already here. It’s not vague; it’s concrete.
The polygamy (and, related to that, the group marriage) issue spring to mind. Actually, I mentioned it in the post, so that should come as no surprise.
Protestations 25 years ago that these rulings had no connection at all with gay marriage were, as Scalia noted, just wrong. Your protestations that nothing else could possibly come of this is similarly wrong. Couple that with your silly bullet list of over-the-top suggestions indicates to me that you haven’t really thought this through.
One of my gripes about this whole thing is how false and disingenuous the people who have brought us to this position have been. If they believe so much in their cause, why not come right out and say what they intended. Instead, they use stealth to lay the groundwork, and then use those “innocent” rulings as the foundation to spring this.
I don’t know what “they” ultimately want, but a sober look at history shows that once marriage is redefined, there’s no reason to think that it won’t continue to degenerate. My mention of Cheryl Jacques was to point that out. “Oh, it’ll never go beyond same-sex marriage”, they protest, but have absolutely no way to even hint at why it won’t. She’s a rube and doesn’t even know it. (Well, I suppose that’s part of the definition of “rube”.)
Or perhaps, as Don Sensing has also said, same sex marriage will not cause marriage to degenerate; it’s the result of marriage degenerating. As it continues, who knows what we wind up with, but there is absolute no reason to believe that history will suddenly put on the brakes.
I don’t know what “they” ultimately want, but a sober look at history shows that once marriage is redefined, there’s no reason to think that it won’t continue to degenerate.
Well, having gay friends who’d like to be enjoy the same liberty their fellow citizens enjoy, I can tell you with some authority what “they” want: The same liberty their fellow citizens enjoy.
There are no secret meetings, no hidden plot. Just a desire for justice. Naught else.
It would be ridiculous for those who freely admit they don’t know where the “slippery slope” will end to make such claims with no evidence to support it and I hope you can understand that we’ll write such fear-mongering off as just that. No offense, but I know what’s involved here, just a desire for liberty and those who suggest secret plots to the contrary just sound a bit extreme and irrational.
As to the polygamy question: I think it is the one quasi-legitimate point you have. But that’s only because there is no great constitutional argument that I can think of in favor of banning polygamy.
You and I may disagree with the Biblical type cultures (and their modern descendants) who’d opt for polygamy, but I’m unsure of any Constitutional reason to ban it, just cultural ones.
Free adult behavior, and all of that.
And that slippery slope argument does nothing to harm the case that gay folk ought to be allowed to marry, as a matter of justice.
BUT, even if polygamy was to come out of this (I don’t know that it will, but supposing it does), what of it? What do you think would happen? That people everywhere would suddenly jump into polygamous marriages?
Worst case scenario: Some people would, just as they have in the past, like in Mormon cultures and in biblical cultures (you know, King David and all that). And life would go on.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Hello Doug,
I found you at a pained hollow visit through the woods. I didn’t stop to trudge through all the usual suspects’ intollerant condescensions toward better people, but I didn’t recognize your name as one of them. So I came here and found actual sensibility so lacking at the previous site.
Dan likes to pretend he just can’t imagine what possible harm would befall society should homo or polygamous or incetuous (etc.) unions be sanctioned by the state. The truth is that he doesn’t take the time to imagine at all. He only likes to believe that he’s on the right side of the issue based on sentimentality rather than true reason. “I’ve been wracking my brain to come up with some reason to oppose…” Yeah. Right. Sure you have.
Instead, he will fall back on positions supported by “research” tainted by the homosexual leanings of the researchers, that suggest there is no psychological justification for denying homos of their demands. He will ignore the agenda of the activists no matter how many times said agenda is presented to them, because he claims no one he knows mentions such an agenda (as if they are keen on making sure Dan Trabue is up to snuff).
The problem with Dan’s retorts (and I’ve ony listed a mere sampling), like all who enable the sadly defective, is that they base all on the dishonest premise that there is no abnormality present. They would call us fools for insisting that water is wet. Homosexuals are defective because their attractions conflict with the intent of nature, the purpose of which was to form one sex to combine with the other for the purpose of species propagation.
This is not to say that such attractions are necessarily harmful in and of themselves, but that the acting on such abnormal attractions IS harmful, to the participants and society in the long run. We can see such signs of it’s destructive impact in Scandinavian examples, where more out-of-wedlock births occur and fewer heteros (by percentages) marry, because, you know, what the hell difference does it make?
Also at work, is the Judge Walker’s initiative in redefining the word “marriage” to mean a union of ANY two people. This is typcial of the enablers and the people they enable, the good judge being one of them. “Marriage” has NEVER meant that in any society anywhere on earth at any time in history, but this judge believes he has the authority to define it any way he wants.
Of course the worst part of all this is the heinous disregard without basis for the rights of the majority of the nation who, where allowed, have voted against such unions being sanctioned. It has been stated by those who support the perverse agenda that the rights of homos must necessarily trump the rights of everyone else, particularly those of faith, who’s free expression is ACTUALLY protected by the US Constitution, whereas the fantasy right of SSM is not nor ever has been.
In the end, what we see with the Dans of the world and those they enable is examples of everything they accuse their opponents of, as regards “intolerance” (another word they bastardize), the forcing of “morals” down the throats of others, and the proper understanding of words and their definitions. They are liars and evil insisting they are truth and goodness.
Dan likes to pretend he just can’t imagine what possible harm would befall society should homo or polygamous or incetuous (etc.) unions be sanctioned by the state. The truth is that he doesn’t take the time to imagine at all.
First off, do you have anything to say that isn’t an ad hominem attack/fallacy?
Secondly, if I can’t imagine, all anyone has to do (and they OUGHT to do it if they wish to be taken seriously) is offer up the list of where the harm is. But it needs to be a serious list, not just a bunch of fears and worries.
For instance, I’m opposed to mountain top removal coal mining because there is physical, actual harm to the streams surrounding such work – harm that is measurable, which causes harm to human beings below this work. I can point to a verifiable harm from the practice.
All you have to do to support your cause is point to a verifiable harm.
If/since you can’t, I have no reason to try to make one up myself and no reason to take seriously the whimsical claims of someone with no support for their argument, right?
Homosexuals are defective because their attractions conflict with the intent of nature, the purpose of which was to form one sex to combine with the other for the purpose of species propagation.
“Defective?” Are black people “defective” because they are black? Are heavy people “defective” because they are heavy? Are children with Down Syndrome or mental retardation “defective”?
It’s the way people and animals are born. Calling people “defective” because of the way they are born is just ugly and hateful, shame on you.
Homosexuality is a NORMALLY occurring trait in nature and since you are not God, I’ll remind you that you do not get to speak for nature, you just don’t know what “nature’s intent” is, do you?
So, unless you have something serious to say that isn’t frivolous or an ad hominem attack…
Dan, I understand your stance on homosexuality vis-a-vis Christianity, and I’m sure you know mine. Given that, just a few observations.
To Art:
Homosexuality is a NORMALLY occurring trait in nature and since you are not God, I’ll remind you that you do not get to speak for nature, you just don’t know what “nature’s intent” is, do you?
I will note that the tendency towards violent behavior or the tendency towards alcoholic behavior is also as much a function of the genes as is the tendency towards homosexual behavior. And yet we encourage the first two groups to change rather than handwave away their behavior as "normal". In fact, we’ve criminalized some of that behavior. Thus, the fact that a predilection towards a certain behavior exists in a person is not sufficient to say that it is OK to be expressed. True, by itself, the presence of genes doesn’t make the behavior automatically bad, but it certainly doesn’t make the behavior automatically good, or even neutral. I find this to be a big contradiction in folks who argue this point.
And what we’re dealing with here, Dan, is an institution that God Himself set up in the Bible right from the beginning as the ideal of one man and one woman. In fact, with or without the Bible, cultures throughout history have rejected same-sex marriage overwhelmingly, if not entirely. We’re tampering with what God clearly intended for us, moving farther away from the ideal. When liberal sensibilities were applied to general human sexuality, we got the 60s, which gave us skyrocketing out-of-wedlock births and abortion-as-birth-control. Liberals now want their sensibilities applied to marriage specifically. Sorry, but their track record in this area doesn’t thrill me.
That I can’t see the future and predict what specifically may come from this should not negate (entirely) my Biblical argument. If I recall, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe your response to this previously was that perhaps God knew that mankind was not ready for that revelation at the time; that same-sex marriage was really OK. This surprised me for someone who purports to take the Bible "seriously". Another contradiction.
But the main point of this post was to note that SSM has come about because of misdirection, if not outright deception, on the part of a liberal judiciary and its enablers. This deception was called out a quarter century ago, and it was right. Similar concerns today should not be so simply brushed aside.
And what we’re dealing with here, Dan, is an institution that God Himself set up in the Bible right from the beginning as the ideal of one man and one woman.
Says you. The Bible is all over the place on marriage and monogamy and polygamy and women as chattel and rape and concubines and prostitution and much of it is not condemned or is outright supported.
I understand that YOU and some others THINK that “God ordained” marriage to be one man/one woman and that was the ONLY WAY that God ordained it, but you have to realize that not everyone agrees with your hunches about what God does and does not ordain. You’re welcome to your hunches. Don’t marry a fella if you don’t want to.
In the meantime, some God-fearing Bible-believing followers of Christ disagree with your hunches. We have our own hunches. In the meantime, other non-religious citizens have their own hunches about what marriage is and isn’t. Unfortunately, no one owns a patent on the ideal.
I believe in marriage and fidelity between two rational, committed adults entering it of free will. I think the Bible (and our God-given common sense) suggests this is good, wholesome and holy.
You think something else. Fine. You believe as you wish and we’ll believe as we wish.
But in this nation of freedom and justice for all, I don’t see how a certain subset – perhaps the majority now, barely, but not much longer – can outlaw marriage for some while allowing it for others.
Pretty soon, you will be in the minority on this point: Do you wish the majority, at that point, to tell churches who they can and can’t marry? No, that would be a violation of our freedom of conscience.
You marry who you wish, let us marry who we wish. We’ll all be accountable to God and, if and when you (or I) find out you (or I) was mistaken, we can throw ourselves on God’s grace.
Fair enough?
We’re tampering with what God clearly intended for us, moving farther away from the ideal.
Says you. Other moral adults with free will who are seeking the good disagree. Life goes on. Let it.
Hey Doug (or anyone else), tell me this:
Not too long ago, the Texas GOP was considering actually CRIMINALIZE performing gay marriage. Any churches (such as mine, if we were in Texas) who perform marriages between gay folk would face penalties – it would be a felony, I believe.
I’m sure it got nowhere, but I am wondering your opinion:
Good or bad idea?
Doing God’s Work or interfering with religious liberty?
Says you. The Bible is all over the place on marriage and monogamy and polygamy and women as chattel and rape and concubines and prostitution and much of it is not condemned or is outright supported.
The Bible, as you have noted yourself, is full of sinful people, not all the actions of which God approves of. The link pointed to a verse, which is quote by Paul later, defining marriage.
It’s not a hunch.
Again, says you.
Many Christians of good faith have studied the matter and come to a different conclusion as we looked to follow God’s will.
The FACTS are:
1. The Bible is silent on gay marriage.
2. The Bible is nearly silent on issues of homoseuxality at all, with a handful or two verses at the most touching even marginally on the topic.
3. Of the verses that do touch on the topic, there is not a clear teaching suggesting that it is ALL homosexual behavior that is being condemned or talked about.
Those are just the basic factual starting points on the actual text. FROM THOSE starting points which we should all be able to agree upon, some have reached the conclusion (not a biblical one, but an extrapolation of a few verses) that gay marriage is not a moral good. Others of us have extrapolated (on this topic which is factually NOT covered in the Bible) that gay marriage IS a moral good.
We disagree on an extrabiblical topic. It happens.
The difference is that I don’t claim to be speaking for God, it’s my hunch on a topic which God has not offered an opinion. You all, too often, choose to presume to speak for God on a topic on which God is silent.
I would suggest that is unwise.
is full of sinful people, not all the actions of which God approves of.
But some – like polygamy and prostitution – God apparently DID approve of.
God GAVE David his many wives, the Bible says. Do you think God would give someone many wives if God thought it was an evil? Does God give us wrong things?
In the story of Tamar, it sure seems to imply that Tamar’s prostitution was deemed “more righteous” than the actions of the man in the story. If you aren’t familiar with it, in Genesis 38, Tamar uses prostitution to get justice due her and she is held up as a righteous woman for it.
Perhaps less directly, but the implication is that she was right in doing so.
My point is not defending prostitution or polygamy – I happen to believe in marriage between two people and disagree with prostitution. My point is that an objective look at the Bible and sexuality makes it hard/impossible to make claims about what God’s ONE TRUE WILL is when it comes to sexuality.
Certainly, polygamy was a cultural thing and it was accepted as such at the time, never once is it condemned in the Bible.
Later, we’ve come to condemn polygamy, but the Bible doesn’t, nor does God.
The culture changed, the rules changed, the expectations changed.
That’s just the way it is and has been. We don’t sell our daughters any more nor do we give them away at age 13 or 14 to a man they’ve never met to be married. We don’t treat women as chattel anymore. Cultures and norms change and that is a good thing.
One hundred years from now, gay marriage will be accepted and not blinked at. And you know what? It won’t have harmed “straight marriage” in any way. People will still get married, still get divorced, still have happy lives together, still struggle.
Such is the way of the world and I don’t think God objects. My opinion. You’re welcome to yours, just don’t claim that it’s God’s because we aren’t “God enough” to make that claim.
I’m not “God enough”, true, but the Bible is. Let me quote that verse to you that I linked to:
Genesis 2:24 – For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
If you know of another verse that speaks directly to what marriage is, or even isn’t, I’d like to read it.
I’m not saying that does not speak to what a marriage is. I’m saying that does not say, “THIS AND ONLY THIS is what I deem acceptable.”
Clearly, in the context of the Bible, polygamy was acceptable. So we can know BIBLICALLY that the suggestion that “THIS AND ONLY THIS” interpretation of that passage is not valid, from a purely logical and biblical point of view.
That is, I’m not disagreeing with the teaching…
“The Bible says man shall leave his father and be united with a wife”
That is a biblically sound starting point.
Where you err is in the “THIS AND ONLY THIS” approach you’re taking. THAT is where you’ve stepped into the extra- and even anti-biblical.
So then, anywhere the Bible makes a clear, concise statement about something, and indeed says nothing else on the matter anywhere else, that is just a starting point?
And basing one’s theology on what the Bible makes clear, and says nothing else about, is extra-biblical and even anti-biblical?
Really? Wow, just when you thought you knew a guy…
So then, anywhere the Bible makes a clear, concise statement about something, and indeed says nothing else on the matter anywhere else, that is just a starting point?
Yes, any one verse in the Bible is a starting point to understanding God’s will. Do you disagree?
For instance, the Bible is QUITE ABUNDANTLY clear that a child who is disrespectful to their parent should be killed. Period.
It IS quite clear and yet, it is only a starting point. We get that being disrespectful to your elders is a bad thing.
BUT, that is not the whole of Godly thought, biblical teaching or good reasoning on the matter of raising children, right?
So, IF one were to take that one verse and say, “THIS AND ONLY THIS is the right way to raise children, killing them if they are disrespectful!” I’d posit that such a person had a horrifying skewed idea of biblical exegesis and basic reasoning, wouldn’t you agree?
I bet you do.
Any one passage can only get you so far in understanding God.
Or how about this passage which has God saying…
As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” [the “mark” being a sign of those who have repented -dt]
The passage is quite clear. There was an evil people (Israel is who they’re Ezekiel is speaking of here, in this case, who were guilty of bloodshed and injustice) and God had had enough. He commanded his followers to go through and kill those who would not repent.
The passage is unambiguous, we see similar passages elsewhere, the message is clear: God wants us to kill the infidels.
IF we start and stop at that verse, saying, “THIS AND ONLY THIS is the right way to interpret that clear passage.”
But we ought not start and stop at that one passage and say, “This and only this…” THAT would be where we began a horrible error.
Right?
Poor examples, at least compared to this particular verse, mostly because I have Jesus (sorry, said Paul before) quoting this very verse, providing the very context you say is missing.
Matthew 19: 4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
This was about divorce, but again Jesus affirms the male and the female when it comes to marriage. Every mention of marriage by Him is with the assumption that it’s a man and a woman. And the Jews already thought homosexual acts were sinful, so Jesus doesn’t need to correct them on that matter.
So, I’m not taking a verse out of context, as you properly say I should not do. The context of marriage, every time it’s specifically defined from Genesis to Revelation, is one man, one woman.
This, of course, doesn’t mean that people in the Bible didn’t always practice it that way. But it’s held up as the ideal. Even in polygamy, even that permitted by God, the sexual relations were never same sex.
And recall, too, that while God has always said He “hates” divorce, He permitted it for a time. Also from Matthew 19, with emphasis supplied:
7″Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The Pharisees tried to suggest that divorce was a “command” of Moses, but Jesus sets them straight, acknowledging specifically that that concession was “permitted”, and for a time, but it’s not the way God wants it. It’s not His ideal.
Please don’t suggest I’m pulling a verse out of the air and building a theology around it. And comparing this to civil law given to the ancient people of Israel is apples and oranges.
Says you.
And that’s what this gets down to. You think because a verse says, “Marry a man and a woman,” and is repeated by Jesus, “Marry a man and a woman,” that this means “Marry a man and a woman and THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY way you can properly marry and every other way is a sin.”
Again, this is your exegetical error.
Especially when the text itself provides other instances of proper, acceptable marriages.
HOW is this different than me pulling an Ezekiel passage out and saying, “Because God commanded some of God’s followers to kill the infidels who refused to repent, THEN THIS AND ONLY THIS is the proper way of dealing with infidels…”?
Every mention of marriage by Him is with the assumption that it’s a man and a woman.
And EVERY mention of polygamy has NO condemnation of it, indeed, it is accepted as normative and God even claims responsibility for giving David his many wives.
No, you have a “THIS AND ONLY THIS” fallacy happening here.
Here’s an example directly from Jesus’ teachings, one which I’m pretty sure you reject the “THIS AND ONLY THIS” approach:
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.
This is a clear teaching. It is an echoing of OT teaching, and Jesus expands upon the “Love your enemies” to say specifically what you should do with your enemies. You should DO GOOD to them. Bless them. Pray for them. Turn the other cheek if they assault you.
Quite clear and from Jesus’ own mouth. And yet, you reject the “THIS AND ONLY THIS” interpretation here. You say (I believe, correct me if I’m wrong), “Wellll, sure IN SOME CONTEXTS we should do this. But other times – like in war – we should kill our enemies, we should shoot them before they shoot us, we should curse them and see them die. It all depends upon the context in which we find ourselves…”
You reject the “THIS AND ONLY THIS” interpretation of a much clearer topic while embracing it in a much more vague topic. This is where I think you’re going wrong.
Perhaps it would help clarify things if you could enumerate what your process is for understanding scripture. That is, we appear to agree that some rules were time and place specific. You appear to think that rules specifically for the people of Israel are “apples and oranges” to more universal sorts of rules, and I don’t disagree.
But how do you differentiate? How do you KNOW that killing all the non-repentant infidels was specific to Israel at that time and that “man and woman wed AND THIS AND ONLY THIS is acceptable” is a universal?
What are your criteria for sorting that out?
Also, I’d still be interested in hearing anyone’s position on the proposed Texas law which would criminalize performing gay weddings.
This is a clear teaching. It is an echoing of OT teaching, and Jesus expands upon the “Love your enemies” to say specifically what you should do with your enemies. You should DO GOOD to them. Bless them. Pray for them. Turn the other cheek if they assault you.
And my example was of a clear teaching, indeed an echoing of OT teaching, and Jesus expands on the “united with his wife” to say specifically what you should do with your wife. You should STAY MARRIED, stay united, as difficult as your culture may think that to be. And even understanding what God allowed before.
But I get “says you” from you (handwaving away hundreds of years of Christian scholarship, I might add), and a request for a complete exegetical explanation from me. Well, I’m not going to get drawn into that kind of discussion. I’m trying to match some of your standards of proof, but this gets tough when you try to dismiss my methods by using what you yourself seem to agree are apples-to-oranges comparisons.
For now, I think we’re done. I, at least, am.
No, I didn’t agree that marriage standards in the OT and killing disrespectful children standards in the OT were apples and oranges. I agree that comparing universal laws with temporal ones is apples and oranges, and I ask you on what basis would you say “men and woman and this and only this” is universal while polygamy and killing enemies is temporal, what’s the problem with that?
From where I sit, this is the problem with your exegesis, it seems entirely whimsical beyond, “I THINK this one is universal, therefore it is.”
That’s not enough for me and, increasingly, not enough for the rest of the world. It’s why that sort of whimsical and culture-based religion will become increasingly marginalized and irrelevant, I think – if you can’t explain your accepting one verse and rejecting another, why would anyone accept your opinion on the matter as being equal to God’s opinion?
If something I have said has offended you, I apologize, I’m just trying to get why you’d have me accept your opinion (and yes, hundreds of years of church tradition) as being equal to God’s opinion and so I ask questions and offer my opinions as to why your position does not seem consistent or logical. No offense intended.
I GET that you think your position is that it’s a “clear teaching.” But we don’t all agree on what is and isn’t a clear teaching. You don’t think my example of peacemaking is a clear teaching, I don’t think your example is a clear teaching.
The difference is, I don’t claim to be speaking for God. I’m just offering my own tiny opinion, for what it’s worth.