You are hereConservative Politics, Homosexual Marriage and The Bible

Conservative Politics, Homosexual Marriage and The Bible

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/ on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/ on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 149.

By Mick - Posted on 28 January 2010

by Mickey Denen
Theodore B. Olson, in the Jan 9, 2010 edition of Newsweek, explains why he is “attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.” The enter article may be read here:

He goes the great length to explain why same-sex marriage is an “American value” which ought to be defended and is a core right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. In the opening paragraphs he defines the presuppositions which create his worldview and ultimately lead to his conclusions. Olson says, “My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.” While these presuppositions and worldview are very appealing to contemporary American citizen, should this be the basis for truth and law in the United Sates?

Are Olson’s presuppositions, the correct ones for conservatives; for Christians? One of the powerful lessons we in the community of believers who embrace a view of fulfilled eschatology have learned and I would argue is a core presupposition of our attempts to understand how we should live in the restored presence of God is “the Bible can never mean to us what it never meant to the original inspired writer or informed original audience.” This presupposition leads us to our understanding of God’s Kingdom, salvation and resurrection from the dead. Is a form of this presupposition a legitimate approach to politics in the United States?

Is it legitimate for us to say the United Sates Constitution can never mean to us in 21st century what it did not meant the original authors? I submit for your consideration this is a legitimate and the correct approach to Law in the United States. This will be the foundational argument in this the article.

The preamble the United States Constitution sets out the foundational goals of this document. The Constitutions stated goals are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence(1) , promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity(2) ” What did this mean to them? Some who only read the history of that time in a superficial way would argue the framers of the Constitution only intended these goals to be extended to rich, white, Christian men. They do this out of ignorance, bias or both. Olson rightly points out, “The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’" So while no mention of “God” exist in the United Sates Constitution the basic presupposition for our laws was and ought to be those rights which are revealed by the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Who is this Creator in the minds of the author and his audience? Certainly we may not assume Jefferson was an “orthodox Christian” of his time. He said, “I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature,” “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.(3) ” and “I am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greek and Roman leave to us.(4) ” Yet the second quote, I submit, reveals what Creator he had in mind. When he used the term Creator he was thinking the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I would also submit the second quote revels who his contemporary audience understood this Creator to be this same God. Yet Olson continues to argue his position from his presuppositions and worldview. His only hint of consideration given to what the founding fathers of our nation would consider the source of our rights is to say, “Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable ‘lifestyle’ should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment,” and “I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law.” This apparently is his trump card. He rejects the source of the rights that he desires to uphold. He has failed to make his argument by arbitrarily deciding to reject the source the founding fathers had in mind and elevating his worldview above the worldview of the founding fathers.

Olson appeals to science and history as the basis for the right for homosexuals to marry. Yet that same science proves that greater than 98% of cervical cancer can be prevented by a woman only having one sexual partner in a lifetime. Using Olson’s logic, since human history proves that woman only having one sexual partner for a lifetime is not pragmatic, we as a culture to ought to reject what science has proven. Olson’s work as a lawyer has clouded his mind to the difference between truth and a legal judgment.

I know I have not proven that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob thinks of homosexuality as an “unacceptable lifestyle” or “morally wrong.” That is beyond the scope of this article and may come in a later article. I agree with others who say that Christianity is the presupposition of intelligibility. I submit that the founding documents of this nation are based upon this same presupposition.

Olson has not made his case. He is inconsistent and arbitrary. We will see if the federal judges and ultimately the United States Supreme Court agree with my assessment.
1 The fact that the Constitution was penned and created by imperfect men is shown to be glaringly true by the preserved errors. For an explanation of these errors see:
2 The Constitution of the United States of America. 1998 (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
3 The arbitrary nature and poor logic of Jefferson’s statement is left to another discussion

Windpressor's picture

Lesbian Custody Battle Vermont - ABC News Nightline Jan 28,10

Isabella wasn't abducted by a stranger. The girl with the blond hair and the big grin went missing along with her custodial parent at the end of last year. But this is not the typical mother-father divorce dispute: This is mother versus mother.
Isabella's parents are Jenkins, 45, and Lisa Miller, 41, who traveled from Virginia to Vermont to be joined when civil unions became legal there. They moved to Vermont in 2002 and opened an in-home day care center.
"We chose a sperm donor, an anonymous donor, from a California cryobank that has all my traits -- ... we wanted our child to look like both of us, and she does."
But when Isabella was 17 months old, Jenkins and Miller separated and filed for divorce. Miller headed home to Virginia with the toddler. Jenkins, who still runs the day care center, said they worked out an amicable agreement.

... Miller became a born-again Christian. She joined the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va., founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. She renounced homosexuality. Miller told a reporter for Newsweek, "I realized, 'Wow, I say I'm saved, but how can I be if I haven't repented, if I've been living in sin all these years in a same-sex relationship?'"

With that renunciation, Jenkins said, Miller moved to cut off her contact with Isabella.

"Then I became a sinner, and she didn't want me to have my daughter to call me anything other than my name, Janet, and this was very confusing for my daughter," said Jenkins. "She knows me as 'Mamma' and she knows I'm her other mother ... but really from that point on I could not see my daughter."

The legal arm of Falwell's church, Liberty Counsel, took up Miller's case and her cause, helping her fight to cut off Jenkins' parental rights -- in court and in the court of public opinion. Vermont courts gave Jenkins parental rights, while two Virginia courts sided with Miller. The case went all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, which agreed with Vermont. Jenkins was granted parental and visitation rights. But when Miller still refused to let Jenkins see Isabella, a Vermont Family Court judge awarded Jenkins full custody. ...

Miller's church, however, would say there's no way that Isabella can have a normal life if she has two mommies.

"That is just barbaric to me," said Jenkins. "There are so many different diverse families. Grandparents raise their children. Single moms raise their children. Two men raise their children. Uncles raise their children. Two moms raise their children all the time. The stigma is just hatred and bigotry being taught. It's just very backward. ..."

Olson's arguments are practically, legally, and near logically unassailable based on the statist moral premises that have been allowed to interlope and stand for so long. Not an easy quandary to extricate from without a clear rethinking of fundamental moral, health and theological understandings.

Q: What now precludes repeal of legislative proscription against polygamy?



G-Juan Wind

Virgil's picture

Wind, I don't understand your point and question. Are you suggesting that the government's role in marriage should be increased even more?

As far as polygamy goes, what stops willing women today from cohabiting with one man today? Nothing. A law does not stop what people's hearts are set to do, we all know that.

Windpressor's picture

No, I don't advocate for more government intrusion. If you start with the premise of government as a necessary arbiter, then Olson's arguments make sense.

My sentiments are with a past donation plea posted by --
The Power Elite Hates LRC

With fascism-socialism on the march in the US and so many other countries, how important is the untrammeled voice of freedom, unafraid, uncompromising, innovative, and effective.

No part of the regime, no statist intellectual, bankster, CIA killer, Wall Streeter, nor shill, will find deference on Here, we recognize the state, as Murray Rothbard put it, as “a gang of thieves writ large.” That goes for the presidency, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Fed, the Pentagon, and every other sinkhole for our stolen money.

Nor will we heed the bleats of “terrorism, terrorism” as an excuse to fasten the police state on us. Clinton, Bush, Obama – and their equally bloody predecessors – are all given the hotfoot at LRC.

Yeah, I first noted the excerpt at my regular stop at End the War on Freedom blog site.

My query was from a thought on how the pretext for a current turf battle strikes me as ironic -- considering the conditions for Utah's statehood required an LDS revelation rescinding polygamy. If one is to argue from simple egalitarian legal standards, what makes two same sex partners more acceptable than 2 same + 1 opposite or any other more numerous mix? That is the blatant hypocrisy that baffles me and settles my sense for maximal libertarianism.

G-Juan Wind

Mick's picture

Virgil and Chris,
Thanks for the feed back.
I was not arguing for or against the role of the state in this matter.

Covenant Eschatology leads to a worldview that marriage is in the jurisdiction of the church and not the state, but that is not the only way to arrive at this conclusion. Indeed if I had it to do over again and knew what I know now, I would not have appealed to the state for permission to marry either.

My article was an attempt to critically analyze Olson's thinking process in light of Covenant Eschatology and the worldview that comes from it. In my opinion his reasoning for the state sanction of homosexual marriage is poor. He ignores the thinking of the framers of the Constitution and the Creator to who they appealed to for guidance.

Mickey E. Denen

chrisliv's picture


Thanks for making that more clear for me, Mick. I didn't bother to read the linked article that prompted your article.

Sure, and I would add that it's not just the realm of Covenant Eschatology that implies the biblical concept of Marriage, but simple the Body of Christ looking to, not the State, but Christ, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit for guidance on Marriage within the Church.

Or, we could also mention that Marriage pre-dates the Bible, the Congregation of Ancient Israel, and the Church.

What I mean is, that it seems to me that God recognizes that a Marriage can occur even without the Church, and, of course, without the State, too.

Or, does anybody think Gentile Christians, in the First Century AD, instantly had Christian Weddings in order to Marry?

If so, the Bible never mentions them, or that the Church instantly took up Marriage as biblical function.

Of course, I'm pretty sure God doesn't consider sexual intercourse as a Marriage.

At least, I hope not.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Virgil's picture

Another interesting point to mention is that for a very long time, marriage involved the parents of both bride and groom agreeing and deciding on the marriage between the two since childhood, often involving the payment of a hefty sum to the bride's father.

Our society has evolved marriage into something more, involving physical attraction, smarts, compatibility between the two, and all kinds of other factors that society respects today, especially in a Christian context.

Now my question is this: today's believers would readily condemn childhood marriages, dowry or any other practices like that. In reverse, the other way would be would likely be appalling to ancient parents to allow kids to get married on a whim and let their kids choose their mates.

This is just one example of how marriage has changed over the centuries and how people change with it. That's why imho the government (and consequently the majority) needs to stay out of it completely and just leave people alone. I think that focusing on other more pressing things could be more beneficial, like the 50% divorce rate among Christians...

Kyle Peterson's picture

Interesting. I wonder why the divorce rate is so high today even though in this day and age we are getting married out of love, compatibility and self-choice; in contrast to millennium prior where many were arranged (or even related)?

Stricter punishments for infidelities?
Women's suffrage non-existent?
Ease of travel / small communities erased?
Greater hardships caused couples to stick together?
Society has become more entitled/selfish?
Society has become less forgiving?

Ed's picture

Paul seems to indicate in his writings that having sex with prostitutes made you one flesh with them. To me this indicates that sexual relations had more to do with the marriage covenant than just an afterthought. Whether a culture established a way to enter that covenant (blood-letting, oath-taking, etc.), it still was not a marriage if one didn't "know his wife" (cf. Isaac's marriage with Rebekkah).

Just throwing in some additional thoughts...I do agree with you though that the State is not the definer of least it shouldn't be.


Papa is especially fond of us

chrisliv's picture

Well, Ed,

If Paul said having sex with a prostitute made "you" one flesh with them, in the sense of Marriage or some sort of permanency, I missed that part.

Paul uses a lot of figures of speech, which point elsewhere.

The "one flesh" in the context of Genesis is not the same "union" or "one" with devils Paul mentions about prostitutes.

Paul uses a lot of metaphors and figures of speech, like "new creatures," "the cup of devils," "the table of devils", etc.

So, we get it, that Christians aren't really a new Genetic Species on the Planet, as Paul describes them.

And, the OT suggests that Isaac and Rebecca were Married the moment they had a brief acknowledgment or ceremony in the presence of Sarah:

"And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death." Gen. 24:67

But Apostle Paul did suggest that all Christians should never Marry.

And that's an Anathema to the modern Christian mindset, which has elevated Marriage and Procreation to being nearly equivalent to the Gospel itself or like a pagan Fertility Cult.

And Mormonism, with its family-values emphasis, has a false underlying religious basis, too, which believes idealized earthly Families will be reorganized in an Outer Space afterlife on various planets. Which is very funny, to me, because Donny Osmond really expects his dead father to be cast in the role of his father once more, rather than in the role of a son, to Donny's grandfather, etc.

Of course, Paul went on to say that those who have trouble with lust, and do Marry, are not sinning.

So, it's not a sin to marry, the Bible states.

But, sure, a Marriage is almost always consummated with sex.

However, I'm confident that a Marriage can occur without sex, too.

I mean, do you really think semen traveling down a urethra and into a vagina is the crowning or magic formula that God recognizes as capping a Marriage?

If so, then a paraplegic who marries a woman can not be Married in God's eyes, so to speak, unless you think God accepts oral sex as qualifying as "knowing" a woman and consummating a Marriage.

You see, just because a married couple hasn't had sex yet (even in the Bible), doesn't mean a Marriage isn't valid.

Actually, in the Bible, even the betrothal period was considered part of the Marriage covenant, I think, and could actually end in a woman being stoned to death. Which is why Joseph, Christ's surrogate father, sought to put Mary away, privately:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Mat 1:18-20

Anyway, Ed, this topic sure has a lot of dimensions, so to speak, don't you think?

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Virgil's picture

I am not sure I see that in Paul's words Ed.

Anyways, today's debate over marriage is rooted in something even deeper, related to health insurance, benefits, tax rebates, etc...all kinds of problems ultimately caused by government's involvement in people's lives.

The other side of the coin is this. If one is free to marry anyone they wish, like, let's say his pet squirrel, then leave them alone and let them do that. In a free society where additional benefits are not attached to that relationship, the marriage to a squirrel will be irrelevant and will hardly prompt other people to also marry a squirrel. Same goes for a gay couple, does it not?

On the other hand, if we Christians practice what we think the Bible says about marriage, then we are not subject to anyone's definition of marriage, but scripture's alone.

I think this whole debate is rooted in the ultimate problem that everything from marriage, to education of children has been turned over to the state by the Church.

We really are only dealing with symptoms here.

Ed's picture

15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."


Papa is especially fond of us

Virgil's picture

Ed, Paul is quoting Genesis 2 here referencing OT covenant marriage. It's safe to say that a man going to a prostitute doesn't constitute covenant marriage since it doesn't fall in line with the Genesis 2 passage which involves an actual plan of developing a family, leaving one's parents in order to join with another woman.

The "one flesh" allegory indicates the oneness of the two...two becoming one to constitute a new household.

Note that Paul is contrasting the flesh oneness with the spiritual oneness of the body of Christ, so his point seems to be that leaving the spiritual body of Christ to partake in another fleshly "oneness" with another woman is not what Christians should do, since the higher spiritual body of Christ is so much more important than sexual relationships with a prostitute.

Starlight's picture

It might be interesting to note that Tom Holland in his book “Contours of Pauline Theology” believes this section is corporate body language regarding the wife “body of Christ” described in an adulterous relationship with his fathers wife as pertaining to the faithful continuing in sin or going back to the Fathers (Adam’s) old wife (Judiasm) and uniting themselves back again to a OT prostitute. It makes for interesting reading and those of you that are comfortable with the corporate body usage of “soma” it may shed some light on the possible context going on there. I have supplied the link at the end of these excerpts.

A Question of whose body? Page 91-92 Chapter 6:

The idea of the Corinthians, or a Corinthian, being united with a harlot32,
which has normally been seen to be a reference to a temple prostitute, has
been challenged by the foregoing exegesis because it has questioned the
temple links by challenging the meaning of ‘bought with a price’. Is there an
alternative setting for this statement that will make better sense of the
surrounding text and that will be in harmony with bride purchase?
There are in fact a few scholars who have tentatively suggested a corporate
setting for this passage. For example, Kempthorne has queried the traditional
understanding of body in verse 18 and has suggested that it refers not to the
body of the offending man, but rather, to the church, the body of Christ.
Kempthorne thus argues that sinning against the body is sinning against the

…And the precipitous importation of the Church as The Body of Christ, a theme wholly
undiscussed so far in the epistle and presumably unknown to the Corinthians,
once again proves problematic. Moreover, the association of 6:12-30 with
chapter 5, by which an individual reference is supplied, raises a doubt.
Although porneia occurs in both passages, in 6:12-20 the female partner in
immorality is porne, a prostitute, but in chapter 5 the female partner is the
wife of the man’s father. An equation between the two, therefore, seems
doubtful, especially if the porne is a temple prostitute, as the figure of the
temple in verses 19-20 and the local color of the Temple of Aphrodite near
Corinth both suggest.”

Further evidence. Page 98-99
Another point which suggests a corporate understanding is one that Gundry
came very close too, but did not quite identify. He noted67 that Paul says:
‘Shall I take away the members of Christ and make them the members of a
prostitute? (aras oun ta melē tou Christou poihsw pornēs melē),’68 an
understanding the original text contains (i.e. the taking away from the body of
Christ) which is not generally followed by commentators69. It is this
statement that supplies the key to Paul’s thought. It cannot be a reference to
being one flesh with an individual prostitute as is generally accepted, because,
in addition to the arguments previously advanced about one flesh, Paul uses a
term here that is never used to express a marriage relationship (melē - a
member). Scripture always reserves the concept of being members for a
corporate relatedness. It never speaks of a man being a member of a woman
or vice versa. It is used by Paul to denote the relationship of the individual
believer with the body of Christ.70 This passage, if the language of Paul is to
be allowed any reasonable degree of consistency, does not refer to an
individual prostitute figure, but to a society called the harlot.

You can read the entire book or download the entire chapter from Hollands web site at the following link. These excerpts are from an extensive discussion and examination by Holland found in Chapter 6. “The Paschal Community and the Eschatological Marriage”


Virgil's picture

Ok...this is really weird...I was just reading that passage today. I have the book and I am almost done with it. I absolutely love it!

Starlight's picture


You think explaining 1 Cor 15 as a corporate body rising of the dead is challenging, try presenting a corporate body view of sexual union with a prostitute. ;-)

Virgil's picture

Well, the parallel can stick, but I am not sure I fully agree with Tom there. I like his point on Paul's eschatological understanding and use of the exodus/exile language in Isaiah, it's almost identical with the "transition period" in the first century some of us talked about before.

But yes, to your point, for consistency's sake you have a point. If we are to hold to a corporate view, then the one body/flesh idea needs to hold. :)

Starlight's picture


I think I’ll leave those sections alone for the Marriage counselors to utilize. LOL it’s too hot and steamy to tackle and the points to win are not substantial. However if Holland is basically correct it would possibly demonstrate how immersed Paul and the Jews were into this symbolic language that just goes right over out heads. That raises a question even more expressively in how difficult it is for us to grasp the Jewish cultural interplay with biblical symbolic language. Even the Jews didn’t grasp it most of the time which makes one scratch their heads and realize that one really had to want too to get it.

chrisliv's picture


Nice contributions to the thread, Norm.

And it now occurs to me that the "one flesh" usually attributed to a mystical union between, first, Adam and Eve, and presumably those married couples that follow, was really implying far more than just that superficial understanding, as true as it may be.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Starlight's picture


Thanks: you guys were on the right track but I thought this little Holland sidebar would help frame it with some more Pauline added flavor. Notice how Paul calls this understanding a mystery that refers to Gen 2. However it obviously wasn’t mysterious to him as he understood the theology behind it from the beginning. Just goes to show how Paul interpreted Genesis through a less than literal perspective.

Eph 5:31-32 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." (32) THIS MYSTERY IS PROFOUND, and I AM SAYING that it refers to Christ and the church.

chrisliv's picture


I'm diggin' it, Norm.

C. Livingstone

chrisliv's picture


I'm with you, Virgil.

I think the allusion by Paul is a point that revolves around the composite nature of the Body of Christ, and not the individual persons so much.

I mean, in the Genesis narrative, Adam's solitary creation is described as a complete event in itself, with Eve being a sort of an afterthought by God, after He discovers that Adam is lonely, having named all the animals in existence and finding no true fellowship in them. You know, kind of like "Oops, I should have known he'd be lonely, silly Me!"

Of course, I think God and the biblical writer expect us to be smart enough to know that The Woman was conceived at the same time as Man, in the Mind of God, even if her literal creation occurred shortly after the person, Adam, was made flesh. We can presume as much, because Adam wasn't altered in any other way that we're told, physically, i.e., he must have had a penis "and testicles" that were there in anticipation of The Woman, and not attached after Eve's arrival.

I mean, we're told that Adam was put to sleep so that God could take some genetic material (a rib) from Adam, to create Eve.

I believe there is some literal accuracy there, as well as some foreshadowing of the Body of Christ via allegory.

And as far as we know, no other human person gets his wife in that same way, literally speaking. So, Adam alone could say with literal accuracy to his wife, "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh".

So, as the Last Adam, how did Christ obtain a wife (The Bride of Christ), since he was a lifelong bachelor, literally speaking?

There was no literal sexual intercourse or genetic sample taking involved.

But, still, we know that Christ has a Bride, and Offspring, too.

To me, the mental image of Christ crucified on the Cross, with the side of His torso cut open by a Roman State spear, says a lot about where His Wife came from, in a non-literal way.

And I suppose we could possibly describe the period that the pre-incarnate Christ, while interacting with Abraham (when taking Abraham's place, and putting him to sleep, at the time the Abrahamic Covenant was cut) and the ancient Congregation of Israelites had some parallel to Adam's period of naming all the animals (as good as they were), but finding no true fellowship or bride-companion, as unflattering as that must seem to religious Jews then, or now.

Christ alone was the True Israel. And He was the Divine Atonement between God and Himself, making atonement for Man, as one of them, too, as Perfection is something Man on his own can't offer to God, because he doesn't seem to have that.

Anyway, there's a lot of ways to look at some of these issues, I think.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

davo's picture

Hey Ed… I wonder how much this might relate specifically in the "cultural context" of Corinth and so that of pagan temple prostitutes – and thus NOT a generic injunction as such as it is typically read?

chrisliv's picture

Yeah, Davo,

That's much like a response I thought I posted to Ed, too. But I think I just clicked on the "Preview" part and left it hanging until I went offline.

Anyway, the pagan temple prostitutes of Corinth were notorious for their gross debauchery, and in the Roman World, there was a slang term that characterized as much, known as "Corinthianize/d". And there were obviously some Corinthian church members guilty of as much.

I mean, I think it's pretty ridiculous, if you think about it, to believe that every time a prostitute has sex with someone, that God recognizes that as a new Marriage.

If Paul was implying as much, I think he was being too zealous, by importing the Genesis "one flesh" context as a true equivalent at an individual level. Of course, even the "one flesh" of Genesis is a metaphor and not a literally accurate description, even in a marriage.

Psychologically speaking, there is obviously a lack of "oneness" in a literal or spiritual sense for those engaged in promiscuity and sleeping around with multiple partners or prostitutes, and the term spiritual "fragmenting" is probably more fitting for those people. But that's probably not what Paul has in view, either.

No, I think Paul was making a point about how unfitting the "association" between the composite Body of Christ and Pagan Temple Prostitution was.

Of course, Paul was right to be outraged by Christians at Corinth, who were apparently known to patronize pagan temple prostitutes.

So, yeah, Davo, I agree, that Paul was emphasizing something that was even beyond promiscuity with the girl-next-door, so to speak, which is not recommended in the Bible, either. And, as I also mentioned, Paul actually suggests that all Christians should consider NOT marrying at all.

Anyway, Ed, please don't take any of my assertions or contradictions of your position (or the author of the book you just read and are espousing) too personally, as I don't take any of your contradictions of my opinion personally.

Peace be with you all,
C. Livingstone

Ed's picture

I'm not seeing how that might change the basic point - sex creates a oneness.

Greg Boyd, in his new book "The Myth of a Christian Religion," makes the same connection. He says that as Eve came out of Adam (one becoming two), so the sexual act re-unites the two into one. He even quotes the same scripture that I did to prove his point (I just read that part in his book last night after posting this).


Papa is especially fond of us

Paige's picture

"I'm not seeing how that might change the basic point - sex creates a oneness."

I agree, and I think someone even posted a video interview (on a PP blog before the changeover) educating about the biological factor of sex, and the bond that it produces. However, I believe that we disconnected from that awareness a long time ago, thus detaching ourselves from that truth.

One more thought though in reference to that, is that under the OC, before the contrast was fully seen between physical/spiritual, perhaps that biological component was more needed due to the fact of how the knowledge of good and evil was being played out daily in their lives?

I think a good point could be made today that we already have oneness/unity with each other (spouses included) due to the completed work of God's redemptive plan. Recognizing that makes the act of sex more like icing on the cake in our marriages.

Hope I've communicated this clearly...


Windpressor's picture

That interview was on Al's Blog --

I thought it had some compelling science on copulation biochemistry.
I am not entirely persuaded by all conclusions toward the Catholic bias.

G-Juan Wind

Paige's picture

"I am not entirely persuaded by all conclusions toward the Catholic bias."

My thoughts exactly as I watched the presentation.

Virgil's picture

Mick, this is good but I think your article still surrenders marriage to statism.

A while back chrisliv posted a great blog on the relationships between marriage and the state which is really worth reading. When we surrender the definition of marriage to the state, we have surrendered our rights to say or define what marriage really is - the state decides it. Marriage has always been (within the biblical context) the union of man and woman (or more than one woman depending on culture) into one flesh before God...not a contractual legal agreement between two people before and enforced by the state. If Jamie and I would do the whole thing all over again, I would never submit a "marriage application" to the state of Ohio so I get a "license" and a permission to marry. Unfortunately back then we were not as wise as we are now...

The act is an obscene replacement of God with the state, and Christians should refuse to participate in it in my opinion (thank you chrisliv for illuminating me on this issue).

This probably sounds pretty radical to most people, but it's where I am now.

So, what I am saying is that the conversation in this context will change the entire tone of the debate, and the church, not the state should decide who to marry, when, why, how, etc...

chrisliv's picture


Thanks, Virgil, for the nice feedback.

Of course, I was mostly just passing along the info.

I agree, that the statist mindset, which includes nearly all state-incorporated churchgoers, will attempt to try to keep their statist Idol as unchanging as possible, like a "god".

Of course, appeals to the US Constitution are pretty foolish, I think. I mean, the writers themselves admit that the only ones who "ordained" it, was themselves. And they go on to try to bind future generations (called Posterity) to their non-voluntary system (a Parasitic Ego Mass), compelled by force, suggesting that "they" know what's best for people within their political fiction.

And that was just for the White People. A system of global kidnapping and full-blown Slavery was made "legal" within the US Constitution. Indians were also mentioned as less than fully human or "persons", which became the same argument to uphold the "right" of US Citizens to murder their own unborn babies, i.e., a fetus is not yet a "person". More recently, anyone deemed an "enemy combatant" from a foreign US Military invasion is considered less than a "person" in the sense of the US Constitution, even if there is no evidence of any crime against them, and can and are being held in prisons, indefinitely.

Also, enshrined in the US Constitution, is it's ability to be changed by Amendment or Federal Court Ruling, i.e., Slavery Abolished, Abortion Legalized, Direct Tax on Labor, Fiat Money, Conscription, Foreign Military Invasions, Future Generations of US Taxpayers Already Saddled with WASH DC Debt, etc.

So, it doesn't matter what the so-called "writers" intent was, or even the definition of the words at that time, because nothing is absolute with the State or the US Constitution.

The legal and rational basis, from an American Statist and Jurisprudence standpoint, is certainly on the side of Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Unions or Marriages that are equal to Heterosexual Unions that are State-Licensed or Recognized by the State, e.g., "Common Law" unions are recognized in some areas by the State and the Federal State.

That's all in the realm of Babylonian, Statist, and World System paradigms, of which I have no real or vested interest, except to point out these simple contrasts.

I believe the Body of Christ is Separate from the Body of the State, and that the problems that the Body of Christ have are not the same as those of the Body of the State.

It's pretty stupid, I think, from a biblical standpoint, to try to lobby a pluralistic Parasitic Ego Mass to impose a Christian Standard on Marriage or anything else.

It's better to just Separate from the State and it's ever changing Parasitic Ego Mass. You know, "You are the Salt of the Earth," "the Light of the World". I really don't think the anybody or any Body can be a Light to the World if they're just another compliant and participating part of it.

I know, I know, most churchgoers are seemingly held hostage as US Taxpayers and in other ways, so they want to get in there with all the other Lobbyists and Voting Blocks to impose an Agenda that seems more to their sensibilities or religion. So, it make some sense, if you're made to be a slave, that you would get in there with the other slaves (Homosexual Lobby, et al) and beg your Master for stuff.

The State and the United State are not an Idol for me. And even if they were, I hope I wouldn't be foolish enough to think I could reform them to my liking, even if I spent my whole lifetime trying to do so.

Or, like Thoreau said, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil, to the one who is striking at the root."

Peace be with you all,
C. Livingstone

Recent comments


Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
No only registered users should comment
What are you talking about?
Total votes: 43