P
Phinehas2
Guest
I would just like to bring to our attention the following
The debates here go round in circles and involve the same arguments, but the same flaws exist.
Take the well known Gagnon vs Wink debate
http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews/homoWinkExchanges.pdf
Here in the very second paragraph of Walter Wink's response ...
[FONT=OJLOJC+TimesNewRoman]Gagnon bases his argument on Genesis 1-2: Scripture rejects homosexual behavior because it is a violation of the gendered existence of male and female ordained by God at creation. Homosexuality is not mentioned in these chapters, so how does he know this? By means of physiology: penis fits vagina, and thats that. Penis only fits vagina? Of course heterosexual coupling is normal. Survival of the species depends on it. But it is not normative. If monogamous heterosexual behavior alone satisfies the will of God, why didnt Jesus marry? Why didnt Paul? [/FONT]
[FONT=OJLOJC+TimesNewRoman]To back up his argument, Gagnon exegetes every biblical text even remotely relevant to the theme[/FONT]
Ok, here is the problem with Winks response.
Gagnon bases his argument on Genesis 1-2: Scripture rejects homosexual behavior because it is a violation of the gendered existence of male and female ordained by God at creation. Homosexuality is not mentioned in these chapters, so how does he know this? Ok so firstly bestiality isnt mentioned either so how can could the absence of a mention be any use ? Secondly, when referring to things that arent mentioned such as bestiality and homosexual behaviour, both fail to involve man and woman which Genesis does say is Gods purpose in creation. So what is Winks point? it seems just a baseless objection.
In addition Gagnons article is about, and entitled, homosexual behaviour, homosexuality may be somewhat different in definition as in having a same-sex attraction. Wink, by saying homosexuality isnt mentioned hasnt correctly addressed the point anyway throwing the whole debate into potential confusion.
By means of physiology: penis fits vagina, and thats that. Penis only fits vagina? Of course heterosexual coupling is normal. Survival of the species depends on it. But it is not normative.
I would suggest normative means proscribing to the norm, in which case I dont think this statement is accurate enough either. Next we have the heterosexual coupling statement. Heterosexual means having opposite sex attraction. So heterosexual coupling means opposite sex attraction coupling. It would be clearer if he said man and woman or male female.
If monogamous heterosexual behavior alone satisfies the will of God, why didnt Jesus marry? Why didnt Paul? Firstly it might be worth pointing out that while monogamous man/woman unions were Gods purpose, God seemed to put up with polygamous or divorce for a time, there ws no toleration of same-sex unions.
I suspect that Wink refers to heterosexual coupling instead of man and woman because he wants us to think in terms of the sexual desires of people rather than in terms of the sex of people because that is what the Bible makes clear.
Now we know why Paul didnt marry as we can see in his letters that he called to be fully devoted to Gods work for him, and in 1 Cor 7 that marriage can divide attention.
But this is already a statement of outright disbelief from Wink. A beliving Christian would not say if when a believing Christian would say yes as to unions, a monogamous man/woman union alone satisfies Gods purpose because of Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 etc.
To back up his argument, Gagnon exegetes every biblical text even remotely relevant to the theme And Wink of course is not only not going to exegete any biblical text, but dispute every biblical text.
The debates here go round in circles and involve the same arguments, but the same flaws exist.
Take the well known Gagnon vs Wink debate
http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews/homoWinkExchanges.pdf
Here in the very second paragraph of Walter Wink's response ...
[FONT=OJLOJC+TimesNewRoman]Gagnon bases his argument on Genesis 1-2: Scripture rejects homosexual behavior because it is a violation of the gendered existence of male and female ordained by God at creation. Homosexuality is not mentioned in these chapters, so how does he know this? By means of physiology: penis fits vagina, and thats that. Penis only fits vagina? Of course heterosexual coupling is normal. Survival of the species depends on it. But it is not normative. If monogamous heterosexual behavior alone satisfies the will of God, why didnt Jesus marry? Why didnt Paul? [/FONT]
[FONT=OJLOJC+TimesNewRoman]To back up his argument, Gagnon exegetes every biblical text even remotely relevant to the theme[/FONT]
Ok, here is the problem with Winks response.
Gagnon bases his argument on Genesis 1-2: Scripture rejects homosexual behavior because it is a violation of the gendered existence of male and female ordained by God at creation. Homosexuality is not mentioned in these chapters, so how does he know this? Ok so firstly bestiality isnt mentioned either so how can could the absence of a mention be any use ? Secondly, when referring to things that arent mentioned such as bestiality and homosexual behaviour, both fail to involve man and woman which Genesis does say is Gods purpose in creation. So what is Winks point? it seems just a baseless objection.
In addition Gagnons article is about, and entitled, homosexual behaviour, homosexuality may be somewhat different in definition as in having a same-sex attraction. Wink, by saying homosexuality isnt mentioned hasnt correctly addressed the point anyway throwing the whole debate into potential confusion.
By means of physiology: penis fits vagina, and thats that. Penis only fits vagina? Of course heterosexual coupling is normal. Survival of the species depends on it. But it is not normative.
I would suggest normative means proscribing to the norm, in which case I dont think this statement is accurate enough either. Next we have the heterosexual coupling statement. Heterosexual means having opposite sex attraction. So heterosexual coupling means opposite sex attraction coupling. It would be clearer if he said man and woman or male female.
If monogamous heterosexual behavior alone satisfies the will of God, why didnt Jesus marry? Why didnt Paul? Firstly it might be worth pointing out that while monogamous man/woman unions were Gods purpose, God seemed to put up with polygamous or divorce for a time, there ws no toleration of same-sex unions.
I suspect that Wink refers to heterosexual coupling instead of man and woman because he wants us to think in terms of the sexual desires of people rather than in terms of the sex of people because that is what the Bible makes clear.
Now we know why Paul didnt marry as we can see in his letters that he called to be fully devoted to Gods work for him, and in 1 Cor 7 that marriage can divide attention.
But this is already a statement of outright disbelief from Wink. A beliving Christian would not say if when a believing Christian would say yes as to unions, a monogamous man/woman union alone satisfies Gods purpose because of Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 etc.
To back up his argument, Gagnon exegetes every biblical text even remotely relevant to the theme And Wink of course is not only not going to exegete any biblical text, but dispute every biblical text.
