Featured comment: Faith and marriage
A CNS reader writes: I’ve about had it with the utter nonsense of hiding bigotry behind the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin”. It’s a catch-all phrase intended to spare the speaker from criticism of denigrating their fellow human beings. The phrase itself, and sentiment behind it, isn’t necessarily problematic — for example, it will always likely be true that there are things you don’t like about what other individuals do or say, their mannerisms, character, etc. but accept, love, enjoy friendship with (and so forth) them nonetheless.
That is the embodiment of the concept behind the phrase. You wouldn’t diminish the value of their person, their humanity, despite that they swear, cheat on their partners, make mistakes, blaspheme, lie, fail to uphold the Sabbath, or generally do something you disagree with. You likely wouldn’t treat them as lesser people, though you might find their behavior reprehensible.
That is, until you couch it in faith or religious arguments. Then a consistent valuation of humanity flies out the window. Not because religious beliefs are wrong, or that many of the morals religious beliefs attempt to impart upon society are outdated. It’s because religious arguments, and arguments based on concepts of faith are nearly impossible to argue with, making them ideal vehicles to hide horrific actions. You can’t argue with my faith, because there is no evidence to overcome arguments of faith by its very nature. Faith is belief in something for which there is no proof (hence it being “faith”). Knowing this, it becomes very easy to hide reprehensible behavior and acts that dehumanize others behind concepts couched in faith and religious background.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. In practice, and in relation to homosexuality (and anything really that doesn’t represent “common” heterosexuality), the act of following this phrase would not entail the civil and legal segregation of “sinners” into 2nd class citizens, 2nd class humans. But that’s exactly what the most recent kerfuffle in the LA was all about: the legalized dehumanization of fellow people hiding behind the guise of moral beliefs based on faith. That should be utterly unacceptable, particularly as a logical examination of other pillars from the very same faith-based moral structure would lead one to believe there should also be civil and legal discrimination against other “sinners.” If that were the case, then we’d live in a theocracy rather than currently a society of hypocrisy. At least then there would be a coherent basis upon which our civic society operated.
If we want to truly be a country founded upon Christian principles, so be it. But don’t pick and choose which Christian principles our civil society will be founded upon as is convenient at a particular time. But that’s not the case. Instead, we’ve a legal allowance for divorce (so much for the everlasting sanctity of marriage), but don’t denigrate divorcees. We love those sinners, despite potentially hating their sin. We don’t dehumanize them for failing to uphold the faith-based value system we purport to be the foundation of our societal contract. It is of the most importance to note that we don’t discriminate against divorcees (and other such sinners — talking about you, liars, adulterers and coveting neighbors, etc.) from a civil aspect.
Other contributors have touched upon the historical progress of our society. We no longer stigmatize others for being in relationships with others of a different race. We abhor slavery, and attempt to punish those who revive it in a more modern form (e.g. employers who underpay, overwork, and withhold earned benefits from their workers while holding the threat of unemployment over their workers’ heads). All of these behaviors were once morally acceptable, and even may have had religious backing. And while some more regressive individuals may still hate the “sin” of a multi-racial relationship, for example, it’s unlikely they would express that sentiment in the role of a public figure. If they were to do so, they’d rightfully be called out for what is hiding behind that phrase (or some similar sentiment they package their thoughts in) — racism and bigotry. Thankfully, we’ve grown as people in that regard. So why do we give our elected representatives a pass for doing the same in this instance?
They don’t love the sinners and hate the sin. They hate the people who they think are sinning. Why else would they legally confirm the lesser status “as people” of those they see to be sinners. Here’s what their actions say, “I hate homosexuals and will do everything in my power to ensure we don’t treat them like “normal” people in our society.” But our politicians understand to say that actually sounds like hate speech. It’s blatant bigotry when expressed directly, so they hide behind a phrase and concept based in faith. And we fail to call it like it is. Because you can’t argue with faith. You can’t criticize faith itself.
But it’s time to acknowledge that this isn’t about faith, or morality. It’s the degradation of our society to fail to recognize people, regardless of their sexual orientation or proclivities, as just people. One’s sexual predilections doesn’t diminish or change one’s humanity. A person is a person is a person, regardless of their many imperfections. We all fail as people when we allow pure bigotry to be spouted publicly without condemnation.
Here’s the thing, hatred hidden in faith-based phraseology does nothing in the long run but harm the faith it was packed in. There’s a reason people look at the Crusades, the pre- and Civil War era US South, ISIS, modern Iran, Biblical Egypt, and so on and think, “Wow, they’re not doing their religion that they use to justify themselves any favors.” Any time our actions of hate are enacted under the guise of a faith, it has ultimately turned out to be incredibly harmful to practitioners of that faith. And that’s a shame, because there is a great deal of wonderful, positive things that can come from faith and religion. But the ability for faith and religion to pass on the positives is eroded when we allow it to be used against our fellow people in this manner. Those who applauded Mr Eden, for example, in defending his Christian beliefs might one day well regret that his words could erode the efficacy of Christian faith in Cayman because in retrospect he will likely have placed faith on the wrong side of what should be a civil matter.
Thus far I’ve opined a long-winded examination of the problems, as I see them, caused by faith-based packaging of civil discrimination. So now, here’s my suggested, best-for-all solution: let institutions of faith remain to those of that faith. But let institutions of civil society be open to all. I recommend that “marriage”, as a term, become a faith-based status term only, whereas any civil benefits recognized and provided by the State be solely devoid of faith-based terminology.
In other words, get married in a Church, by a pastor, church leader, priest, etc. Then go get your, say, “civil partnership license” from the government. Your marriage is a religious ceremonial term only, and confers no civil rights to you outside of your place of faith. Your civil partnership license confers all rights and privileges to you and your partner as deemed appropriate by civil society. Now “marriage” is protected from the gays (and non-gay unbelievers for that matter) and exclusive to those of faith. But everybody who enters a civil partnership has equally protected rights and privileges regardless of their sexual orientation.
Everyone wins, especially the government coffers if all the couples who wish the new license need to come in and pay a nominal fee to reprint their outdated marriage licenses to convert to civil partnership licenses. (I’d happily pay to have my marriage license reissued as a civil partnership license if it meant that the marginalized in our society could get one in the first place!) Then, when politicians and societal leaders stand up and proclaim they will not have their holy marriages destroyed by immoral homos, the LGBTI community, and non-hateful heterosexuals can all shrug and get on with their lives, because marriage as a term will become meaningful in religion only, no longer relevant to rights and quality of life.
I’m not heartbroken over the many religious positions, ceremonies, and perks I don’t, and never will, qualify for. Because they affect only those of that particular faith, and don’t by extension force a lesser status on me from a civil aspect. In a similar vein, I don’t benefit from other private partnerships and statuses, such as membership in social organizations. There is no doubt that benefits can be derived from memberships in social clubs and service or professional organizations. And those very clubs can have specific requirements to gain access to their membership statuses. But they don’t affect others on a broad, civic level.
It doesn’t harm me to not have the benefits of being a Rotarian, for example. The government doesn’t confer special rights and privileges to Rotarians for recognition of their Rotarian status, or punish or discriminate against those without. So why do so for the status of “marriage” in a traditional, religious sense of the term? Protect the sanctity of “marriage” by giving it all back to the faith, and redefine civil benefits of partnerships such that they are egalitarian.
This comment was written in response to Suckoo defends motion, apologises for offence
Category: Viewpoint
I thought about how I could defend God in this matter. Then I read His Word and realized that He did not need defending. Only a fool would refute these claims.
King James Bible Psalm 33
Praise to the Almighty Creator
1 Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright.
2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings.
3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise.
4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.
5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD.
6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.
10 The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.
11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.
13 The LORD looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men.
14 From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.
15 He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works.
16 There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength.
17 An horse is a vain thing for safety: neither shall he deliver any by his great strength.
18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy;
19 To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine.
20 Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield.
21 For our heart shall rejoice in him, because we have trusted in his holy name.
22 Let thy mercy, O LORD, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.
I started reading the comments but I gave up.
At the end of the day, neither the liberal arguments supported by CNS nor the rigid right and it’s tight connection to churches will ever matter.
All of us will stand before the Holy Creator and God of us all. Let all mortal flesh keep silence in the presence of the King.
Stop arguing and love. Love is clean and bears no malice.
Nicely edited. I consider it a playful joust. No prob. You have a great forum.
CNS: There is absolutly no connection between CNS and the HRC. I either had to edit the comment or write a note to that effect.
7.04…we have that here, have you tried shopping on Sunday?
Children raised with non-biological parents are more likely to be abused than children raised by both biological parents. Although we can’t definitely prove that all homosexual parents will be that way, the available evidence is worrisome, and enough for the government to protect children as much as possible. Here are studies for perusal:
Diana E. H. Russell, “The Prevalence and Seriousness of Incestuous Abuse: Stepfathers vs. Biological Fathers,” Child Abuse and Neglect 8 (1984): 15-22.
M. Wilson and M. Daly, “Risk of Maltreatment of Children Living with Stepparents,” in Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimensions , ed. Gelles and Lancaster (New York: Aldine de Gruyer, 1987), 215-32.
M. Konner, “Darwin’s Truth, Jefferson’s Vision: Sociobiology and the Politics of Human Nature,” The American Prospect 45 (1999): 30-8.
I used to just snicker at the faithful and their mindless beliefs. However, I recently had a change of heart after it was explained to me by a very clever philosophical gent that if the masses did not have the promise of a better life, they would not be able to endure their miserable existence on earth and would almost certainly make life less enjoyable for those who are fortunate enough to live in better circumstances. So now I give thanks and praise to organised religion.
Sweden seems to be doing alright without it.
There is no religion in Sweden?
Reading your comment on how you see people of faith, I too must snicker and shake my head at you. But in a kind way. Time always change things :))
ahhhh 8.37, so we should not take the meaning seriously, unless it comes to the gay question…these guys just make this up as they go along…
One point that seems to be missed here is that the institution of marriage is not entirely defined by Christianity. Millions of people throughout the world following many other religions and those who follow no religion get married.
Wow are all of you contributors gainfully employed?
As the author of the original post, I certainly concede your point in regards to the use of the word marriage by many religions and civil entities. I’d personally like to re-term “marriage” to reflect that regardless of which particular faith, or lack thereof, a couple may belong to, ultimately the benefits derived from a marriage/union/partnership are relevant primarily from a civil standpoint. Given the current contention over the term marriage, mainly from Abrahamic religions, my preference would be to antiquate the term itself and adopt a universalized term that reflects a more modern, State-sanction, unified concept from a strictly civil standpoint so we can all put it to rest and move forward. It’s certainly a naive wish with a very pedantic bent, particularly given the term “marriage” is highly normalized in most societies to mean multiple forms of marriage.
We are taking about “throughout the world”. We are talking about Cayman. In any event you will find that most other religions would have the same objections.
One point that you seem to have missed is that doing something and giving it a name doesn’t mean you have the right to redefine the name you gave it. I could punch someone in the face and call it crocquet, but that doesn’t make punching people is the same as crocquet. Christians aren’t saying they have the right to make up a definition of ANYTHING. They’re saying that God invented it, so he gets to define it, and there’s nothing any human being can do about that.
I think if this ” god ” person had a real issue with it he would present himself and deal with it. Apparently he/ she is not interested in this topic let alone war, poverty, terrorism,etc etc.
The Bible is a book and not the law of the land. It may even be a fiction novel. I think most people around here have broke most of the Ten Commandments anyway.
People are born Gay. Doesn’t make them different from anyone else. The bigots create the issues and push the bible. Get over it and let’s move on. We’re all going to hell anyway. Or maybe we are already there?????
You see when you say “born gay” we Christians ake it to mean “born in sin”. That would mean everyone. However we believe as sinners, God gave us freedom of choice, or else He made robots. The Christians aim is to be a loving person, to love God first and then others by the grace God has given us, so our dream our hope is to be ” one” with God. That requires hard choices to make in order to kill the selfish and sinful nature. We don’t say we are “born sinner” and helplessly live in the pleasures of sin which only come and go as we die. For we know sin is a sweet fruit at first and then consequences follow including the consequence of hell. Nonetheless we obey God and overcome this sinful nature because we see a heaven and we trust in His promises of eternal happiness. 🙂
God told me he is gay and to hate the religion, not the religious.
The Church declares our desires for different sexual intimacy don’t define us and they don’t condemn us either. Any desire contrary to God’s word or thoughts that are usually self-centered are considered as temptations from one of the three enemies of the Church: Satan, the world, or our sinful nature we are born with, known as original sin.
Now when we ACT on these thoughts and desires, when we yield to temptations is when the Church says we have sinned against God, our community, and ourselves. And sin carries dire consequences that some we may not face in this life but the next to come.
As a result of these truths, the Church clearly teach that the opposite of being self-centered and opposes the works of the devil, is that all Christians by the power of God’s grace should love (like Christ) their fellowman be it friend or enemy. For like those in the world, we are all subjected to the same kinds of temptations. So we are commanded to love all sinners including homosexuals, teaching them like everybody else to rise above the weakness of yeilding to the thoughts and desires to sin.
In this way, we LOVE ALL SINNERS, BUT HATE THE SIN, first in ourselves. And before we address the sins of others, we do so with humility, not hateful words, with the fearful reality that if it wasn’t for the grace and power of God, we in their shoes, could fall into similar sin.
That is why is we always pray, commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ, “Our Father which art in heaven … and led us not into temptation but deliver us from evil …”
Peace
What to do with gay Christians who would like their union to be made in a church?
I suppose that would be at the discretion of the individual church, as it’s a private institution.
Oxymoron.
Drop the “oxy” and you have your new CNS moniker.
Mary’s arms are ever open to welcome gays to Her Son and Lord. They free to enter into the fold of Christ and partake of the supper. They join the rest of the sinners in the fold, striving to live a holy life under God’s grace, love, and help and protection. 🙂
Mmm..,I think the point is they have no intention of living a holy life.
Has anyone thought about the immigration ramifications? A new set of individuals getting residency under the guise of being married to a local. How will that be addressed?
It will be addressed in London and this silly local bigotry will be put in its place.
If you want to preserve and protect the “sanctity of marriage” why not make divorce illegal? I wonder how that would go over with all you religious hypocrites?
Good so it is until death do us part. Well on that basis you will see the missing persons and murder rate go up!
Have a vote – this may be the one and only way a lot of the younger generation will actually get off their backsides and vote.
What is a marraige though; the battle is for civil rights, there is no issue once those are attained to want to use the term marraige just for the sake of it is not worth it.
God created woman for man. No one is born a gay or lesbian this is a choice and lifestyle they make on their own. Just because the reat of the world gone crazy dont mean we have to. SMH
All the scientific evidence and research indicates that you are completely wrong. People are born gay. Even if it were a choice, what difference does that make? It still doesn’t justify discrimination. What possible reason could you have for caring who another person falls in love with or finds attractive?
Actually, both of you are 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong. SOME are born gay, some choose later in life. I have met people who are born like that (no biggie) and some who choose because of some trauma they experienced in their lifetime. People should not be judged because of it whether they’re born that way or choose. Love for God means you have love for all human beings. I can say with all hands down the gays are cool, the pedos are not! FACT.
But is it the will of God for a person with male sexual organs to have a sexual relation with another male? You see Cass … the question arises, just what did God make sex for? We see that between a male and a female, sex can cause the miracle of a pregnancy. The couples love for each other doesn’t stop with them and their feelings. The love blossoms and blooms into a family, and they have the beautiful opportunity of raising children in the Lord. The Church has always defended the right of a child (who can’t speak for himself) to have a real mommy and daddy 🙂
So you had a chat with God and clarified why he made gay people then if they aren`t supposed to be gay… ya.. I doubt it.
Why do you care what other people do….. God will sort it out.. it`s none of your business.
That is as dumb as saying why did God make murderers if he didn’t intend for them to murder. The answer is he didn’t. Fallen human nature made them gay, not God.
I think you will also find that Humans also enjoy sex, unlike every other living thing on planet earth that has sex just to reproduce. Hence why there are gay people, they enjoy it, they don’t do it to reproduce.
The Church know sex is from God, we don’t condemn sex, but we also hold that the love a man and woman has for each other is intended to blossom, and yes that is a joy … a joy that includes more than just satisfying one’s sexual desires.
Read it again; in the original latin not the selectively translated english version. Oh wait many of the books were destroyed by man so no original text for you.
You are free legally to believe what you choose to; other should be free to live their lives on their terms.
Good try. You almost had us, until you stated the obvious intent of not just having civil unions for gays, but hijacking Christian Marriage as well. As you state:
“In other words, get married in a Church, by a pastor, church leader, priest, etc. Then go get your, say, “civil partnership license” from the government. Your marriage is a religious ceremonial term only, and confers no civil rights to you outside of your place of faith. Your civil partnership license confers all rights and privileges to you and your partner as deemed appropriate by civil society. Now “marriage” is protected from the gays (and non-gay unbelievers for that matter) and exclusive to those of faith.”
I don’t think the post was trying to sneak through anything, or hijack “Christian Marriage,” but rather give it fully back to the faith. Marriage, as a term, should stop being a civil matter. Marriage should be like baptism. Incredibly important inside the church, but non-consequential outside of it. Let the state issue civil union/partnership licenses for everyone, which should be all that matters in regards to civil benefits and privileges. The church can then decide to “bless” couples in marriage as it so chooses, according to its specific guidelines and principles derived from the bible and other doctrine, without delving into non-faith based civil matters.
Render unto Caeser what is Caeser’s, and all that jazz.
Point taken, however, I think for the government to allow marriages for civil unions to take place, they need to ensure the right of a child to have biological parents is protected. An innocent child cannot speak for himself and so I feel it is for government to uphold justice in this respect. Allow gays who want to live a gay lifestyle to do their thing, but protect children. We don’t have to copy the United States on how the government allow abuse of minors and abortions in record numbers.
Biological parents don’t always equate to good (or even present) parents. I think it would be the State’s obligation to protect the child by promoting good parents, biological or otherwise. Though the data is limited by the length of study, there currently is no evidence that a child raised in a family with parents of the same sex is any worse off in their development than a child raised in a family with parents of the opposite sex. I’m sure there are homosexual parents who are as equally good, and equally bad, at raising children as their heterosexual counterparts. Additionally, coming from a family that also adopted, I can confirm that the lack of biological parents did my siblings no harm in their development relative to my own. Shared genes with a child aren’t by any means a defining measure of parental quality.
We should perhaps focus more on protective measures as it relates to quality parenting, if the concern is in regards to a child’s welfare.
all very well thought out and reasoned but herein lies the underlying problem again, – any proposed legislation must for the most part first find approval by those presented to and then deliberating said change. It will eventually happen however succumbing to the real certainty of existence, – nothing will remain the same.
I wish our civil society well.
Why now, and just now, the LG have just realized that they should marry? From the beginning of time up until now marriage was unknown for LGs. Did an eruption take place and this is the result of a lava flow?
It’s a great point. Tony and Alva think that gays should not be allowed to marry and cite ambiguous biblical decrees. But we’ve never heard them campaign for the criminalization of adultery, the guidance on which could scarcely be any less open to interpretation!
If God was so against homosexual relationships why not have a commandment on it? And if Tony and Alva are so energized by biblical covenants why not campaign for a law against adultery?
Of course, the exact same could be said about gambling…
And you call yourselves “progressives”! How ironic.
The bible is not ambiguous about homosexuality. It is crystal clear. That is why you guys hate it so much.
yet it is more clear on adulterers and also clear on the abomination of eating turtle yet we farm it as part of our christian culture.
Re turtle, you really need to read the New Testament. Don’t get stuck on Leviticus. Christians are free to eat turtle.
It is equally clear on adulterers.
Yup, lets throw out whatever books of the Old Testament are inconvenient to us or contrary to our culture, but keep the bits we like. Sounds about right.
If you don’t understand the subject you really should keep quiet. Christians are under the new covenant which is revealed in the new testament.
so you are picking and choosing which parts of the bible to follow?
I guess whatever is convenient to your lifestyle choices then
On this point, the commenter is right. Christians are not under the Law of Moses or else we would have to be like the Jews keeping the Sabbath. We learn lessons from the Old Testament, but we are under the law of Christ now, a new age of grace. This is a clear Bible teaching – unless you’re a Seventh day adventist and still think some Jewish laws are to be kept like tithing and dietary laws 🙂
So why are the crazies in the states bleating on about Creationism then?
Are you perhaps referring to this messed up parable where homosexuality is not okay, but a father offering up his daughters to get raped by a town and incest between father and two daughters is encouraged? Have you even read the bible?
Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed
19 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry[a] his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.”
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”
18 But Lot said to them, “No, my lords,[b] please! 19 Your[c] servant has found favor in your[d] eyes, and you[e] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.”
21 He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar.[f])
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.
Lot and His Daughters
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.
Your problem is that you read without understanding. The Bible presents us warts and all. Merely because something is mentioned in the bible does not mean that God approves of it. The story about the two angels and Lot is very telling though.
How do you know it`s not you who is reading without understanding
Probably because I actually study the bible in depth to understand what it is really saying rather than running around looking for texts to ridicule. One good maxim is that text without context is pretext.
True. Here are some other things the bible is crystal clear on. I look forward to hearing from Messrs Eden and Suckoo on these sources of moral decay soon.
Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)
Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)
Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)
Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)
If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)
If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be “cut off from their people” (Leviticus 20:18)
People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
These passages don’t apply to Christians. Yes we learn valuable lessons in the Old Testament, we judgements, we see laws, we see prophets, we read stories that have spiritual meaning, and if you don’t understand the Bible you will take some things literal and apply it to us today.
But understand when Christ came, the beginning of the New Testament, He stated Himself that He “came to fulfill” the Law of Moses and the Prophets.
Hence a Christ means a follower of Jesus Christ and His Church He established. No more under the Old, they follow what’s in the New for salvation.
When atheist start cherry picking text from the Old to redicule Christianity, it really shows their ignorance and lack of understanding the Bible.
This comments is hilarious. Nobody cherry picks and twists the meaning of the words in the Bible more than the churches and pastors themselves.
Some of the most blessed biblical figures were serial adulterers, how many homosexuals can you cite that was blessed with kingdoms, riches and war victories.
Alexander the Great?
Off the top of my head: Queen Boadicea, Japanese Samurai, nearly the entire French Foreign Legion, Edward VII, Vladimir Poutin.
God. Never seen anyone make a sensible case for a theistic deity. Just bronze age fairy stories.
The evidence for God is evident to the braindead down the genome code of DNA, RNA and proteins if you bothered to educate yourself. You should can’t stand the thought of a moral superiority to which you’re accountable to. This is why you choose to be an atheist.
I hope you see the dangers of atheism. It is an “ism” like any other religion. You need a lot of faith as well to believe in a big bang theory and say there’s no God. Once they arrive at that conclusion, that means no God = no absolute morality, you are your own moral guide. And that means you’re free to do anything you want and anything you see right goes. You straightway dance to the serpents music that deceived Eve, “you shall be as gods”.
That’s why Atheist are behind abortions, behind homosexual lifestyle, behind a secular society that condemns anything that’s of religion, even against anyone who says they’re wrong. In their own eyes, they are right.
More worrying is the fact that some of those who shout loudest against the new world actually believe that two penguins actually walked all the way to the Middle East to get onto the Ark. Until they open their eyes and minds to reality and not a small section of societies view of it nothing in Cayman will change, sadly.
Penguins can swim so they didn’t need to get to the ark. Who’s the idiot now?!
But surely the chocolate covering would melt before they got there. Perhaps that’s why we were encouraged in the UK to ‘pick up a penguin’?
Just sayin’
And I am sick to death of idiot liberals who think they are free to label people as hateful, bigots and homophobes simply because they maintain a view that homosexuality is immoral. That is intolerant behaviour. Enough already!
If they didn’t do it in such a hateful bigoted way they would not be labelled as such.
I’m sick to death of conservatives who pick and choose what is immoral as it suits their purposes but sweep under the rug their own immoral actions to pretend they’re holier than thou.
Bazinga!
I’m sick to death of your arrogant condescending bigotry, intolerance, and your continual attempts to reinvent every facet of morality for the rest of us, to suit your selfish desires.
By definition if you think being homosexual is immoral you are being homophobic.
LOL! Thanks for admitting your perverted mindset! So let me get this right – if you think ANY behaviour is immoral it means that you you hate or fear the people who practise it, so it is okay to be hateful but only against those people that YOU disapprove of. Thanks again for making your moral bankruptcy obvious to all.
Are you judging people? I thought only He should judge
Identifying sin according to what God says is not “judging people”. That is exactly what we are supposed to do. Are you “judging” paedophiles or rapists?
Being homophobic doesn’t mean you fear gays, just that you are against them.
I’m sorry if naming your prejudice makes you fee that way.
Actually “fear” (and by extension “hatred”) is the root meaning of phobia. Disapproving of the practise of homosexuality (the sin) doesn’t mean that you are against homosexuals (the people).
There is a difference between saying homosexuality is immoral, and saying that it is associated with bestiality, paedophilia and baby murder, or for that matter implying that homosexuals who come near your family members will be at risk of physical violence. That I am afraid does make you hateful, a bigot and a homophobe.
James Austin-Smith made no such distinction. He condemned all these statements including that it is sinful and/or immoral as ‘hate speech’.
Albeit lengthy – A well thought out and balanced (without hatred) analysis of this subject which probably a lot of readers will either not bother to read in it’s entirety or will simply hit ‘dislke’ or ‘troll’ because they simply do not take the time to try and comprehend.
CNS Reader, Thank you for a well thought out and balanced Viewpoint on this contentious matter. You managed to state your position, and one I agree with, without attacking the Church, the religious adherents nor the LGBT minority community.
Most importantly, you managed to articulate the fact that marriage is a faith based institution that is based in religion, that confers certain civil rights to the married, by virtue of certain powers vested by law in marriage officers.
I assume that you agree that marriage, being born in religion, by definition is between a man and a woman.
You also articulate well, the fact that if a civil union law is enacted, as it should be, the LGBT community could have, and should have, the same civil rights and protection as those conferred by the laws that govern marriage.
There is no reason to change our constitution to accomplish this, nor is there any
need to redefine marriage within the religious community, nor to denigrate a church that refuses to carry out same sex marriages. The objective should be to confer equality under civil law, not to force churches to go against their faith.
I am 100% sure that the vast majority of Caymanians agree with your position, at least I do.
Doing that is still a way of the law defining that LGBT are second class citizens that doesn’t have the right to get their union recognized as marriage because marriage is the privilege of straight people.
We have a vested interest in supporting traditional marriage. Part of western civilization and building blocks of society.
Yes, I have noticed how civilization crumbled whenever gay marriage has been legalized.
Bazinga! x 2!
You spoke truth unintentionally.
And this is the same reason the world is in such a mess. Are we really better off than say 30 years ago?
By pretty much all metrics, yes. It might not seem that way due to sensationalist media reports and the adherence to the “if it bleeds, it leads” concept. But literacy rates are up, life expectancy is up, caloric availability per capita is up, GDP per capita is up, crime rates are down, and this is one of the most peaceful eras we’ve ever experienced. Worldwide, people are much better off than they were 30 years ago.
Hope that answers your question definitively.
Sensible. well balanced and worthy of consideration.
Very well written.
Utter nonsense my learned friend L. More rhetoric. Let it go let it go let it go!!!