Calif. Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex 'Marriage'

Jay Walsh Springfield IL »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:18 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Re; JoshGilmanTue Mar 04, 2008 2:24 pm

You make three claims.

Your first assertion is that same-sex marriage degrades the original intention of marriage. Help me understand the historical, theological, scientific and legal rationale supporting your claim.

Your second contention is that homosexuality is a sin. Again, you do not support your claim within a theological context. Please help me appreciate you position by explaining, in detail, what you mean.

Thirdly, you suppose I have never met a person like you, before. You could not be more mistaken.

More importantly, what you have also failed to do is justify how theological arguments have any place in legislation within the United States.

The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of 1787 are the bedrock foundation of our non-sectarian United States. These documents, crafted by America’s “Independence Fathers” through group consensus do not make our nation a Christian state.

The Declaration of Independence makes one reference, each, to: “Nature’s God,” “Supreme Judge of the world,” Creator,” and “divine Providence.”

Colonial leader Stephen Girard and other atheists could simply acknowledge this language as poetic metaphor. Deists, such as Franklin, Jefferson or Washington were certainly amenable to neutral religious language. And theists, including Jewish colonist and revolutionary congressman, Francis Salvador – the Catholic and Declaration signatory, Charles Carroll – and Protestant colonists of any denomination – could easily attach rich meaning to this language in ways unique to their own faith traditions.

The Constitution of 1787, having no other theological references, closes, “in the Year of our Lord.” These words don’t make the Constitution a Christian covenant. This expression was a convention for dating the year – having no more significance than weekday or month names do. “Thursday” does not mean that Americans worship Thor. Nor does “July” or “August” signify that the US is in covenant relationship with the Roman emperor and deity, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus.

The Bill of Rights makes no reference to God.

These three documents do not mention “sin,” “sinner,” “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Jehovah,” “Redeemer” or “Savior.” They are not a “Christian Manifesto,” as some claim. They demonstrate the bold willingness of all those signing these texts to set aside religious differences “in order to form a more perfect union.”

Calif. Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex 'Marriage'

Jay Walsh Springfield IL »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:54 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Re: Tom Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:28 pm

Tom, I took the time to respond to each of your points in my Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:55 pm posting.

I simply ask that you return the favor, in kind. Unless you return the courtesy of responding to my points - which you have not - we are not engaged in a dialogue.

Calif. Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex 'Marriage'

Jay Walsh Springfield IL »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:55 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Re: Tom Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:06 pm

Tom: Contrary to your assertion - which you neither defend nor explain - denying same-sex couples equal access - when it comes to enjoying the protections, rights, privileges and responsibilities enjoyed by heterosexual couples - under the law in civil marriage IS most certainly a human rights issue. Plain and simple.

“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” We separate ourselves from so-called Christians who twist the Word to deny same-sex couples their civil liberties. And we will stand firmly with these couples who request nothing more than equal treatment under the law.

You assert that people are able to change their sexual orientation, yet provide no scriptural and scientific justification for your position. Tom, are you able to change your sexual orientation to a same-gendered object, at will? If so, we would love to hear more about it. You say that supporting the civil rights of ALL tax-paying Americans who wish to marry is biblically wrong. Again, you provide no detailed explanation or irrefutable proof.

Because my family and I radically disagree with you, you suggest we are not Christian and our beliefs are illegitimate. How intellectually weak and spiritually bankrupt your arguments must be to resort to mere “ad hominem” attacks.

My family and I will be praying for you, as well.

Calif. Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex 'Marriage'

Jay Walsh Springfield IL »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:44 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

Not just anyone can go over to city hall, draft up a marriage contract and have it notarized, as “Seedplanter” suggested in a “Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:56 pm” post. That can only happen in Massachusetts. For heterosexual Christo-fascists, even this is too much. They want to deny civil marriage to all tax-paying couples – reserving it only for the heterosexual population. They want to whitewash their prejudice and hate with credibility and affirmation and couch them in Biblical and theological arguments.

Despite numerous Scriptural injunctions prohibiting it, over fifty percent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Throughout the centuries, dominant Christian blocs have invested considerable resources manipulating ecclesial and civil courts to develop legal rationalizations for promoting divorce and annulment. Heterosexual Christo-fascists assert that they want to defend marriage. However, srict, unilateral conformity to Scripture is not the purpose of these organizations. If this were the case they would be laboring to pass a Constitutional Amendment outlawing divorce and annulment in the “Homeland.” However, everyone is aware they will not attempt this.

Divorce is the true threat to marriage and families. We all know the real agenda of “Christian Family and Marriage” groups is NOT at all to defend marriage by banning divorce. Their goal is to discriminate against a minority of tax-paying, consenting, committed couples by denying them civil rights and privileges enjoyed by the majority.

These “Christian” groups, beneficiaries of George W. Bush’s “Faith-Based” tax-exempt funding initiatives, devote massive amounts of cash and human resources to vilify same-sex couples wishing to marry civilly. For a comparison of the rhetoric between the German National Socialists and so-called “Christian family and marriage protection” groups in the United States, see: http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html.

As born-again believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, my immediate and extended family and I are as opposed to manipulating the Scripture to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples as a number of our forebears were repulsed at the notion of “Christians” using Scripture to justify slavery. We are working prayerfully, ardently and boldly with members in our church and community to win the civil rights of all same-sex couples to marry. Praise God, we are gradually winning the war against small-mindedness, prejudice and hate.

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Jay Walsh Springfield IL »

Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Former Episcopalian (Re: Your posting of Mon Feb 25, 2008 - continued)

I failed to mention that the proportion of “variant free verses in the New Testament” asserted by the Drs. Aland at the end of Table 1 (p. 29) stands at 62.9% degree of accuracy. Admittedly, this is a far cry from the 99.5% level of confidence advanced by Giesler and Nix.

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Jay Walsh Springfield IL »

Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Former Episcopalian (Re: Your posting of Mon Feb 25, 2008 )

It was a pleasure hearing from you. I appreciate the thoughtfulness you take in preparing your responses. Even more, your fraternal sincerity is a welcome reprieve to the inflammatory comments regularly expressed on these e-pages.

I’m getting ready to take the family out to dinner and then come home to grade Latin mid-term exams. So, responding to you with any degree of thoroughness will have to be deferred until later.

In response to another writer, I wrote the “claim that the MSS are 99% faithful to the non-existent originals is unjustified. The Drs. Aland, highly reputed Scripture scholars, place the accuracy of the MSS between “62.9%” to “80%”

Please allow me to quote two texts and cite and their source in its entirety: Aland, K., & Aland, B. (1995). The text of the New Testament: An introduction to the critical editions and to the theory and practice of modern textual criticism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.

First, the 80% accuracy figure was, in a sense, more generous than warranted because it takes into consideration only two types of Greek MSS at the exclusion of those from other linguistic origins. “…when identifying the text type of a manuscript it is all too easy to overlook the fact that the Byzantine Imperial text and the Alexandrian Egyptian text, to take two examples that in theory are diametrically opposed to each other, actually exhibit a remarkable degree of agreement, perhaps as much as 80 percent (p 28).”

Second, the Drs. Kurt and Barbara Aland state, “It is quite easy to demonstrate that the amount of agreement amount the editions of the New Testament we have been discussing is greater – far greater – than has generally been recognized. Table 1 gives a count of the cases in which there is complete agreement among the six editions of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, and Bower with the text of Nestle-Aland (apart from orthographical differences). (pp. 28-29).”

Reproducing the text is pragmatically inexpedient. Note that the following appears immediately after Table 1. “ Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (pp. 28-29).” It is important, again, to stress Coptic, Syriac, Old Latin and other linguistic strains were excluded from their consideration.

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Jay Walsh Springfield IL »

Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Dear Chris333:

You assert that a multitude of early manuscripts convey 99% of what was recorded in the original New Testament documents. There are, by conservative accounts, 5,300 Greek manuscripts (MSS) 10,000 Latin versions, as well as 9,300 other early versions including Coptic, Aramaic, Syriac, etc. [McDowell, J. (1992).]

Roughly 24,000 handwritten Christian Scriptures present a considerable witness. But they are not an inerrant monolith, as you suggest. As early as the fourth century, when commissioned to produce a translation of the Bible, St. Jerome, grumbled “there are as many versions as there are manuscripts.” [Hieronymus, E. S. (398). Prologi Sancti Hieronymi in Biblia Sacra]. Throughout the centuries, other translators and scripture scholars have echoed the same complaint. John Mill noted 30,000 MSS variations in the eighteenth century. [Millii, J. (1707)].

Your claim that the MSS are 99% faithful to the non-existent originals is unjustified. The Drs. Aland, highly reputed Scripture scholars, place the accuracy of the MSS between “62.9%” to “80%” [Aland, K., & Aland, B. (1982)]. A 36.1% to 19% plunge in the confidence-level of the NT MSS is hardly a “slam-dunk.” The hope of ascertaining “the original text of the New Testament has become irretrievably lost.” [Metzger, B. M. (2005)].

You encourage me to N. T. Wright. His expertise is neither in the field of Biblical languages or Scriptural textual criticism. He summarily rejects the validity of textual criticism [Wright, N. T. (1992)] because the weaknesses of his historical and theological presumptions would be necessarily called into doubt. He is most certainly playing his strong suit to appeal to, and profit from, his base – as well as evade legitimate academic challenge.

It is naïve to say all the MSS variants are minor and do not affect the meaning of the Scripture. In I Timothy 3:16, Greek manuscripts speak of Jesus. Some MSS state “GOD was made manifest in the flesh” while others read “WHO was made manifest in the flesh.” [Metzger, B. M. (1994)]. Many similar differences exist and are not minor.

Chris, please be aware that I do not give you permission to call me “an ignorant person” as you did in your 18 February 2008 communication. If you cannot afford me the respect of a person who has been sealed by the blood of Christ, rest assured that I will cease responding to you.

I have responded to you in sincere fraternity. Kindly know that I do not mind your questions. They are most certainly welcome. However, without a genuine response to the questions I pose to you, as well, there is no dialogue only posturing. I hope would agree that if individuals will not respond to each other’s legitimate questions – as well as ask them – in a spirit of brotherly agape, there is no need to post in this forum.

Please list all the verses that allude to “homosexuality” and justify your assertion that “all manuscripts agree that homosexuality is wrong.”

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Jay Walsh Springfield IL »

Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Dear Former Episcopalian:

I have responded to the questions you have put to me. Your kind return of the favor would be appreciated. You have yet to answer the following questions I put to you:

First Question: You state Norman Geisler and William Nix are Scripture scholars: What about their academic credentials entitles them to speak with authoritative expertise in biblical languages?

Second Question: What expertise in Biblical textual criticism do Giesler and Nix claim to enable them to speak authoritatively about them?

Third Question: Giesler and Nix attribute the following quote to Metzger: “The New Testament has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book – a form that is 99.5 percent pure.” (“General Introduction to the Bible,” p. 367.) The quote, they allege, is from “‘Recent Trends in the Textual Criticism of the Iliad and the Mahabharata’, Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism. (Metzger, 1963.E. J. Brill: Leiden).” In no place in the document does Metzger say this. What credibility do they garner when “citing” a non-existent quote?

Please be assured that I do not mind being challenged by your questions. They are wonderfully welcome. However, without a genuine response to the questions I pose to you, as well, there is no dialogue only posturing. I hope would agree that if individuals will not respond to each other’s legitimate questions – as well as ask them – in a spirit of fraternal charity, there is no need to post in this forum.

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Jay Walsh Springfield IL »

Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Dear Former Episcopalian (Re: Your posting of Thu Feb 21):

My last posting was addressed to you AND Chris333. I tried to attend to both of your postings since they were so similar, at several points. Please accept my apologies for any unintended confusion.

Response 1: I’m glad that, though you cite Metzger [Strobel, L. (1998). The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan], you concede Strobel is not a Biblical authority. Understandably, your point for citing Metzger was to bolster your position. Curiously, within the context of the interview (Strobel, 64-65), Geisler and Nix, attribute the spurious claim that New Testament MSS are “99.5%” accurate. Metzger never made this assertion.

Also, despite your additional assertion, Metzger never said “the copies would agree if and only if there really were originals. And the more manuscript copies we have the better chance we have of finding the originals, after we sift through all of the manuscripts.”

In direct contrast to your claim, Metzger actually said, “… (a) none of the New Testament books is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another.” [Metzger, B. M. (2005). The text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration. New York: Oxford, p. xv].

Response 2: I am well aware that the number of NT MSS witness far outweighs the quantity of other texts from antiquity. I concur. Your point in this matter is a non-issue for me.

Response 3: Metzger devoted his life to an academic exploration of the NT MSS. Regarding these documents he did say, “The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church.” By the same token, it is important to consider the following part of the Strobel-Metzger interview which you did not mention. Strobel: “How many doctrines in the Church are in jeopardy because of variants?” Metzger: “I don’t know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy.” Strobel: “None?” Metzger: “None.” [Strobel, L. (1998). The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, p. 65]. Here, Metzger is not saying that doctrines are not in jeopardy because of textual inconsistencies. He is merely saying he knows of no such doctrine.

I feel it is important to state that doctrine is not divine revelation, unless one’s faith tradition is Roman Catholic, or Mormon – in which case it is. In the Protestant traditions, only one doctrine can overthrow another doctrine. Consider how the scriptural-doctrinal justification of slavery has been trumped by more liberation-minded theological doctrines of Rev. Dr. M. L. King, Jr. However, it cannot be presumed that variant Scriptures have not influenced doctrine.

Response 4: Yes. I profess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and accepted Him as my personal Lord and Savior at the age of fifteen. My study of Scripture prior to, during and after seminary - has only strengthened my relationship with Him, my fellow believers, as well as those who are not yet “of the household of faith.”

Anglican Boycott Over Gay Bishop

Jay Walsh Springfield IL »

Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Dear Former Episcopalian and Chris333 (Re: 21 February 2008)

Admittedly, I was disheartened to see that postings from each of us had been “flagged.” It is disappointing to think that the faith, understanding and agape of some readers, here, is so weak they can do nothing but resort to anonymous deletions of dialogues between members of the community of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Bush Ties U.S. Malaria Aid to Moral Duty

Jay Walsh Springfield IL »

Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

My apologies...kindly excuse my previous post. It was an unintended typo.

Bush Ties U.S. Malaria Aid to Moral Duty

Jay Walsh Springfield IL »

Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

ΣΘ