Sunday, March 1

The Sin of Marriage

 The hypocrisy of Christians and marriage has bothered me for years. Besides ignoring what the Bible clears says on divorce, they likewise ignore 1 Cor 7.
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
... anyone who reads and understands the Bible properly* must know that the Church (and all Christian leaders) should, like St. Paul, be teaching that the highest calling for all Christians is to celibacy, while marriage, even though a sacremant as well as a civil right, should be seen only as the last resort for those Christians whose libidos are such that they cannot remain celibate.  trans-cendence.blogspot.com
 I would replace "properly" with "literally." Stripping the passage from her context, we have only a harsh command against marriage, same-sex or heterosexual, as a last resort. Marriage is only for the weak Christians.  I won't even touch Paul's anti-sex feelings! Yet Christians also strip the "gay" and "transgender" verses from their contexts believing that if an act itself is spoken against, Scripture doesn't care who or what motivation is involved.
The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision. - Unknown

3 comments:

David Aubrey said...

More supervision? ha ha, I'm not going to disagree there! : )

As far as I know, that verse is the single verse in Scripture that speaks negatively about marriage.

Thus, constructing a doctrine upon it is just as wrong as constructing one on single verses in Leviticus.

Do you know what I mean?

We always need to interpret from the whole, not the parts by themselves.

As for your comment on my blog, do you think you could send me a link to the legislation you were speaking off? I'm curious to see where Illinois ranks in this important issue of human rights.

Also, I don't quite understand the nuances or distinctions between "orientation" & other words. Maybe you would explain if you have some time. Feel free to email me if you prefer.

Grace.

David Aubrey said...

Oh yeah, I forgot, "This American Life" on WBEZ did a show on Transgender issues two weeks ago. Did you hear it? If not, you can find it on their podcast.

Ephilei said...

Yes. In fact, TAL has done three shows featuring trans people that I've heard. "Dawn" and "Testosterone."

No, there are other discouragements against marriage, but none so blantant as this.

Unfortunately more than one person hasn't appreciated the sarcasm of this post. My point is not that marriage is sin; that would be the "literal" meaning of the passage, but I believe a literal reading here would be silly. My point is that Scripture requires much context. Christians would never take one (or three) passages out of context to mean heterosexual marriage is unbiblical, yet many do exactly that when examining homosexual marriage.

In this case, we need the context of a) Paul, b) the character and principles of Jesus, upon which Paul bases his own character and principles, c) the rest of the Church, some who married and many who did not, d) the rest of Scripture which has much to say about marriage and sexuality, e) the historical view of sex which Paul bases his argument on (that sexuality intrinsically hinders commitment and ability), f) the history of the Church (which did not end nearly so soon as Paul expected) and finally g) the context of Creation in which God has created us as sexual and social beings.