The way I see it, if the government sells you a marriage license, that is a civil arrangement that I can accept. However, do not demand that the church perform a ceremony for you. Some churches might, while others might not.
@@robjackson4050 mind your own damned business what a congregation of Christians does or does not do - including whom they marry - you bigoted, fascistic, puritanical zealot.
@@robjackson4050 Not preforming a ceremony becasue of values that we have is not hate. We will not give up our values to please the world. If you think thats hateful then so be it.
@@robjackson4050Christians don’t make the rules of the God we believe in, we just follow them. If you don’t believe in the Christian God, you don’t need to follow his rules. Why would you want to be married in Christian church? There are plenty of churches that call themselves christian that pick and choose the social rules they prefer and ignore the rest. They are just a social club, feel free to join and be married in them. They aren’t following Christ. The Bible clearly states the rules in both the Old and New Testaments. You can Google them if you want. Marriage from the beginning is between one man and one woman. All sex outside of this arrangement is forbidden. It didn’t change with Jesus. We aren’t haters. We follow our rules, you aren’t a follower of Christ so you don’t need to follow the rules for Christians. I won’t go to your wedding, but not because I hate you, but because I can’t celebrate in an occasion that God says is sin. I still care for people that I know, who are not Christians and that have all sorts of sexual arrangements. I have dinner with them, I don’t go to their weddings.
The meanings of words are not written in the sky or set in stone. It is infantile to suppose that any words have so to say 'official meaning as if all are children and the grownups decide eveything as the kinderlander appear to supose. Marriage is joining together of sorts for the purpose of breeding which of course sewertites are either not inclined or unable to do.
Wow! Where has this guy been in my conscious awareness. He is brilliant! “When anybody, pressure groups, governments, civilizations, suddenly change the meaning of key words, you really should watch out.” This is exactly what has happened. It’s not a benign change.
I believe in part by normalizing such concepts through television, we have been subject to mass brainwashing, but it is also not too late to say "enough".
I like this N T Wright chap. This is the first time I've come across the man but he is clearly reasonable, thoughtful, wise and a very nice fellow. I shall go and find out more about him.....
Well I do enjoy listening to NT Wright speak he is intelligent and I love this particular little clip. But the clip on women preachers he is way off base. And says there is women disciples and there should be women preachers. Romans 16 there isn't a woman disciple. Go to the original text and Paul says this person is well known among the Apostles. Big deal i am well known among preachers here in Nicaragua but I am not a preacher. I am here to support local preachers. And the fact the Bible has guide lines for Preachers and Deacons and one of them is to be a Husband of one wife. NT Wright is wrong on that one and is doing the bidding for Satan on that issue which is very sad.
@@davidprice9792 Nonsense Wright has the track record of deep biblical thinking and I can't see for the life of me how Satan would benefit from opening church ministry to gifted and well-taught women. I don't think the Timothy verses exclude women so much as excluding polygamists. He tickles your ears by being against gay marriage so you expect him to just trot out the fundamentalist line on everything.
I think he was using as an example the parliamentary debate on the eve of war to show how the sombreness and urgency of an occasion can be used to win people over to a (dubious) cause regardless of the actual detail or process presented.
Jon Pool, much as the atheist has changed the meaning of faith. Faith means TRUST. It does not mean believing without evidence. These are scary times. I was always for civil unions because of civil rights. The right objected loudly and someone said, well, let’s see if we can get the Supreme Court...now, all the things people projected are happening. Google interesting partnerships. I’m sure I read where a woman married herself. SMH. Marriage was the only thing to survive Adam & Eve being kicked out of the Garden.
Word meanings evolve to suit usage - usage is not constrained by dictionaries. It's facile to point to a disctionary definition and declare that "THIS is what xxx means because the dictionary says so."
@oneconcerned No he's not. Truth is what comports with reality - words are simply the fuzzy tools used to describe, often equally poorly defined things. Saying "right is still right" demonstrates how poorly you've considered yuor own words. What is "right?" By whose standards? People are not rebelling against god because they want to do their own thing - they are rejecting the whole concept because it's patently ridiculous on a thousand different levels.
@@jonpool9030 I did - in response to you saying " truth is fought over the meaning of words." Word meanings are not constrained by definitions, but grow to reflect usage. 100 years ago, "gay" meant jolly, now it is used simultaneously to mean foolish, as an insult, and to mean homosexual. Words have ALWAYS been malleable and contextual.
The Religious Right re-defines words in order to promote its ideological dominance. Like calling a zygote a "baby." Or calling Creationism a "science."
@Visto che What about the woman who does not want to give birth? She has different feelings about that zygote. A significant proportion of zygotes never grow into babies anyway, they are flushed out of the woman's body but at that stage it is considered quite different than the death of a baby.
@Visto che Just as an acorn is not the same as an oak tree, a zygote is not the same as a baby. You only want to ignore the difference so you can have an excuse to bully women.
@Visto che Forcing women to give birth against their will is bullying of the worst sort. Abortion is a responsible, courageous decision that women do not enter into lightly.
@Visto che After the woman is already pregnant it is too late to tell her she shouldn't have had sex. Either she has access to abortion or you are forcing her to give birth against her will.
Here is the issue for me: I don't believe anyone should dictate to the Church, the Synagogue, to the Mosque, to the Temple what THEY define as marriage. BUT, when we leave those religious places ALONE to make their own call--why does anyone care if the CIVIL gives the same CIVIL RIGHTS to a gay couple? No one is dictating to the religious who are free to simply NOT recognize that union (a gay union) so I'm not sure I understand the concern. Can someone give me the other side of that argument?
One of the foremost biblical scholars sounds off on a topic that individual United Methodist Bishops are taking actions of a complete opposite nature. Thank you Sir for your as usual thoughtful response to a question today’s culture has attempted to redefine.
Well I will tell you what he getting at: just as the West went to war on false premise and there by destroy many lives not only others but also themselves so is with the new interpretation of marriage. The latter even if declared as acceptable in the eyes of the state, it can't be valid because it is not founded on reality. It is in fact based on false notion of what marriage is all about i.e. simply as a construction of state, simply to appease as in getting more votes. But society without a family, as a nuclear and nucleus, collapse into nothingness. And we know nothing begets nothing. In short, the West will decimate it self slowly---gay marrage, which is different from the natural marriage, is a man made bomb and, in due time, those who are not for life will die out or extinct. Many of us and our Children will suffer as a result of this imposed madness by the oligarchy ruling state and their puppet media and education system. We live by an agenda where not only error has right but also error is right. Yet for those who believe life giving personal God, "when sin abounds grace abounds all the more." Lesson is let not the state rule your life but trust with all your might Christ, the Son of God. Over all, I find his analysis and analogy quite revealing. I hope you see the connection.
Sin degrades a nation. Breaks it down slowly. Sin decays the human anyway. Proverbs 14:34 (CJB) 34 Righteousness makes a nation great, but sin degrades any people.
The notion of sin degrades the human. That's what it was designed, by theologians, to do. Any person can redress a grievance, even really tortuous things - but, only God can forgive a sin. Even a trivial one (though, a theologian will tell you that there are no trivial sins - and they'll tell you that because, it's their job).
Language changes constantly. why is it an issue that the social definition of marriage has changed? What is the recommendation for gay and lesbian individuals, specifically gay christians? Celibacy which is Robbing them of the chance to have a loving relationship with a life long partner? Or maybe have them live a life married to a straight person? It's not healthy or fair to ask two people to live a lie and it can be very damaging. And what if the person doesn't fit into either category of biological male or female? Is a intersex person who has BOTH male and female characteristics allowed to marry? And which gender should they be allowed to marry? I'm honestly curious as to what most conservative Christians think is the solution. So if anybody wants to comment I am truly curious on your thoughts.
You mean because gay people can get married now? With all the other things you might consider wrong with this country, many demonstrably harmful, I would have thought that would be insignificant.
I’m lesbian and I don’t know why I was even born then? So if god formed me in the womb and formed my brain then I don’t get why and how I will be condemned. It takes a choice to sin but being gay is not something ya choose. No straight person will understand that.
A few things to consider: 1. just because you experience a desire, even intensely, doesn't mean that that desire is who you are. We are taught that whatever we find when we look inside is who we really are. But why do we have to be slaves to those things? Are desires inherently justified simply because they exist? 2. God didn't create you that way just like he didn't create me to do things that I want to do but which are against His will. Sin has poisoned the world. So, my desires, which are broken versions of good desires, are a reflection of that world. It is because creation is messed up that God has set out to establish "New Creation" by His Son. We begin to live in that New Creation before it has fully arrived by surrendering to His Son Christ and putting our trust in Him. 3. God has the power to change us. This doesn't always mean that every toxic desire goes away when we come to Him (though He can do that); it means that we surrender ourselves, declare ourselves His, and allow Him to love us. His love, the same love that drove Him to the cross, the same love that pursues us, is the key to existence. You are created to know Him and know His love. Everything else pales in comparison. As Bob Dylan said, 'you gotta serve somebody.' It may be the enemy of your soul who will enslave you through desire, despair, and lies. Or it could be your Maker who has been murdered for you, whose love you were born to know.
@@Mayafav1212 lmfao... Bunch of bs. Homosexuality is proven to be natural sexual variation, god is not proven to exist, so you using that as an argument it's what's irrational.
@@thatbitch3254 Lmao you're missing the point: @mayara favarao is just responding to @Karen's argument, and both arguments are operating under the assumption that God exists.
@@fatbastard7896 and it's still wrong, because if god exists and he made us, ans if he is omniscient and all powerful, then created us to do something/be something he wants, free will is simply nonexistent if god exists. It's simple reasoning. And not to mention that mayara favarao wants from people to believe in something that nobody has evidence of, which is crazy... I can't convince myself that god exists, just like I can't convince myself that magical fairies and unicorns exist, therefore if I can't convince myself of that then it is immpossible for me to 'come to god'
Where does it say that a marriage must be between a man and a woman? The Bible does describe when a man and woman are married, but nowhere does it say that a man MUST marry a woman. And it sure as hell does not say ONE man and ONE woman, because it talks about any concubines a man might have while married, and completely condones such behavior.
The divorce rate in the church is the same or higher than outside of the church. Why is it so easy to gloss over the fact that marriage has also been defined as one man, and many wives? It is blatantly inconsistent and dishonest to address the issue of gay marriage as being a departure of the "traditional" definition of marriage while not addressing the same departure from said definition with the rampant polygamy and sexual indiscretion of countless "men of faith" and more importantly, key biblical characters. Don't use the generic arguments to hold up your disgust for people that you do not even care to get to know, or will not allow in your world(s). Jesus came to seek and save the lost, and it seems to me this is why he never spent time in the temple except to reason. He was with the people you all feel are too sinful to even get to know. It isn't about protecting marriage. Look deeper. There are individuals underneath and behind the ideas, the thing Christ cares about most. He didnt come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live.
@@TesterBoy god is the evil one not the defenders of gay marriage people are just too brainwashed to accept the truth that he is hate not love if i'd compare him to anything it'd be the abusive spouse the person keeps coming back too and eventually they are killed by their spouse's hands
Changing the meaning of language is based on arguments against an unfair hegemony that controls discourse, however it also leads to a lack of consensus on meaning if language doesn't necessarily refer to anything.
"Like the government voting that black should be white." Exactly! Or that one plus one can be three sometimes... or that car batteries can come with two positive (or negative) terminals. It's absurd at a dystopian level, and the dystopia is nearly worldwide. That is, as he said, "chilling."
It's a terribly weak case. Words are redefined and weaponised all the time. What do you think calling humans who don't agree with you "evil" or "deceived" enables for the church?
'Not wishing to call on anything Christian or religious at all...' followed by 'What is so important about Genesis 1 is God calling into being binaries...' -Hmm. No tension of cases there, especially when called in, conveniently, to support a point of view. It seems a strange form of inclusiveness to accept that 'marriage' across cultures has not been our (western) accepted paradigm of Husband and Wife and then claim - this same sex deviation is a step too far, because Genesis equates binary complementarity with the way God wants things.
@@stueyapstuey4235 but your assumption that things are binary the way you'd like to believe is not true. The history you're taught is influenced by those who want you have that opinion. There are many examples of non-heterosexual relationships and marriages throughout history. The binary aspect is part of a story and should not be taken so Seriously. It's full of holes and really only makes sense through the narrative lense. Sure that seems like the majority but look at evolution. Many religions denied it or reformed. The same will happen for sexuality and the 'exact definition of marriage' as if that mattered.
So when the definitions of freedom and human rights, were changed to include everyone. When rights went from being rights for some to equal rights... How was that wrong? The only reason you agree is because you already agreed, but apply that argument to anything else and it falls flat. Definitions change all the time, and words can ave multiple definitions, language is always evolving. Changing the definition has no inherent value nor it signifies anything, what is important is the content of the definition not the act. His example of Nazi Germany is in no way wrong because the definition was changed, but because the definition was changed to something atrocious. His argument amounts to Nazis did it , therefore it is wrong, but if I say that Nazis wore clothes, would you go naked from now on?
@@somercet1 what I mean is, many right-wingers and alike think that Orwell was right-leaning because of his critique of Stalinism, but he wasn't. I'm pointing that out just in case.
@@crishealingvtuber8626 all you need to know is the scanda countries that are secular and socialist leaning are way happier and less criminalised, better healthcare and social services, the more religious countries become, the bigger the prison populations.
@@HarryNicNicholas I'm a leftist. I'd argue the problem is organized religion, not religion itself. Marx mentioned how the Apostles held things in common, and it is known that the Romans killed Jesus because they saw him as a radical and a political threat, not just because of religion. And you probably know that the Bible has plenty of broadly pro-immigration and pro-poor mandates.
People can be anything they wanna be because the word Christian doesn't have it's origin in God. It was at antioch were people started calling followers of Jesus Christ Christians. Whatever people can name they can define and justify. Thank God for the word of God it doesn't change it calls sin abomination. As a young man I grew up being told God loves sinners but hate sin but everything changed the day I came across this verse Psalms 5:4-6 "For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, Nor shall evil dwell with You. 5 The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; YOU HATE ALL WORKERS OF INIQUITY. 6 You shall destroy those who speak falsehood; The Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man". Romans 1:28 "And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God delivered them over to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong"
*+ Elezar* You don't get to define what marriage means to the world at large. Legally (in most of the west) and overarchingly, marriage applies to everyone.
The difference between the way the Nazis and Communists redefined words (in his examples, at least), and the redefinition of marriage, is that they did it to try to limit peoples' rights, reducing equality. The redefinition of marriage to include gay people is to increase the rights of people who have been supressed for centuries. Essentially his argument is: "But we have always been prejudiced against gay people".
That's not what the Nazis and Communists thought. They wanted to give rights to a particular kind of group, because they thought of those groups as opressed.
@@djhalling As N.T. Wright mentions this was only the first step. After they were a sort of second class citizens, their property could be redistributed among the 'working class', i.e. the loyal members of the party. This was a very common practice in the Communist countries.
Starting this by making comparisons between the broadening of the word marriage to Nazi and Communist Newspeak is extremely manipulative. This man is even more reactionary that I had realised.
It is an interesting answer that doesn't take into context any of the historical redefinitions Christian leaders co-opted or purported. (Providence, the term is not entirely Christian). Jesus called God, Abba, isn't it? That's a redefinition of sorts especially if viewed from a Christian standpoint.
'Semantic deception - redefining terms to get agreement without understanding'. ~ Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt (from her book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America).
but then they couldn't get tax breaks and women couldn't take up to 3/4 th's of a man's money when they split up according to the courts. ;) I'm kinda with the idea of that but I don't know if it would work or not. For me I didn't marry for religious reasons but I suppose culture and to show the world and her my commitment to her. I don't know that needs to be legal either.... As far as LGBT community I'm for them to be as miserable as the rest of us in the institution of marriage. :D
Wes Sturdevant they are free to havr whatever assiciations they want. however they are trying to beat everyone into submission to accetp same sex marriage and punish and persecute those that disagred. Also where does it stop? Now we have people pushing for incest and other relationships to be sanctioned by Government as "marriage"
Ugo Cei since when was this about winning or losing? The deep end of all of this goes down to whether the Christian world view is a credible one to hold, hence why we have particularly different views on certain issues. In the end it is about bringing the world back to rights, and many of us struggle to do so. You have your ideas on how the world works and probably have ideas as well. This is about understanding and coming together in reasoning (yes there are ppl on both sides who have failed to show understanding and proper dialogue). At the end of the day there are differences, so yes we may pretty much subtly saying that we think the other is wrong. Okay, but in the end, if this is about who was right then that will be determined after death.
How can anything be determined for anyone if they're dead? By then it's too late because THEY'RE DEAD! and as I'm sure you like most thinking people in this wold know, dead people cannot think and therefore nothing can be determined for them, other than the way their body gets disposed of. But whatever becomes determined after that time is irrelevant to them because (as I already said): THEY'RE ALREADY DEAD.
Ok we’ve only gone 2 minutes in and already this guy is either ignorant of the vast history of same sex marriages in Asia and Egypt dating back to the dawn of history or he is deliberately lying. Either way he is not someone to be taken seriously .
....Could you please cite specific instances in antiquity? Moreover, although same-sex intercourse has existed for some time, marriage has mostly been a complementary institution across time and culture. The reason, of course, is that procreation is the underlying logic of family. Marriage for "love" or companionship has almost always been secondary (if extant at all) in human history. The luxury of economically free marriage--experienced by modern, mostly Western white cultures--gives rise to a gross anachronism (like the one expressed in your comment).
@@Matiyahu come on, you can not have studied Roman history and not know that at least 13 Roman emperors were at one time or another officially married to other men. Nero famously married two men on separate occasions in officially sanctioned ceremonies. This was not seen as anything other that natural. Get over yourself with this idea that marriage in ancient times was “only for procreation “ because it was more than that. Marriage was a political bond at times, at others it could have been for the combination of wealth and yes sometimes it was for mutual affection , but the point is none of those reasons demanded that one of the partners have a uterus. You can not be a serious student of history and not have known of these same sex arrangements.
@@Matiyahu *"Could you please cite specific instances in antiquity?"* A number of Native American tribes (including the Cherokee) recognized the union of homosexual relationships- bigoted white observers in the past described a Crow tribe with a female chief who had four wives. Some tribes were even progressive enough to accept third-gender/gender-variant people. And all of this is besides the point, because marriage has never been monopolized by Abrahamic religions; nor was it ever an invention of them. *"The reason, of course, is that procreation is the underlying logic of family."* Really. By that standard you should be _restricting_ marriage between two people who are incapable of having children, like those who are infertile or sterile. I hear counter-arguments to this, namely "but by the grace of god and miracles, that infertile couple could still have a child." To which one could point out that, if it were that god's will, they _could_ make a gay male couple pregnant (the nature of miracles being that they defy natural laws). I don't even mean this as a joke. In any case- why would same-sex marriage preclude procreation or family? Same-sex spouses can still have children through alternative (and natural) means, or adopt; the latter of which you'd _think_ more religions would get behind. *"Marriage for "love" or companionship has almost always been secondary (if extant at all) in human history."* Well, that's depressing, isn't it. No wonder your concept of marriage is an abject, divorce-riddled failure.
@@jamesfitzgerald1684 cultures throughout the world accepted same sex relationships in the past which means it exists and is not seen as a negative by everyone. What’s wrong with same sex relationships? Come on, amuse us with some ridiculous answers. 😂
Allowing same sex marriage doesn't damage marriage between men and women, neither does it damage the symbology described. Your interpretation of the institution is not harmed by others taking a slightly different one. No one is being taken away in the middle of the night
It would be hard to marry two pieces of wood together if one was not male and the other not female they would not hold together very good. But with modern glue it could still work for a while. Like sexes could not be married in the biblical sense because there is no way to consummate it. But they should be allowed to be legally married in the secular since. Why would they want to be considered married in the Christian since when they have been condemned by the christian teachings and the God they serve. If you claim you are under Grace them you would be admitting Homosexual marriage is forbidden. I would just stick with "why has God made me thus". Live in Peace.
Wright rightly locates marriage within the narrative arc of creation. From the complementary culmination of creation in Adam and Eve, to the joining of Christ with His Church, marriage both reflects and is defined by a deep-seated principle within God's creational intentions for the world. The aforementioned marriage narrative in scripture, combined with single proof texts (like 1Cor 6:9 and Rom. 1), along with historical Jewish ethos and the writings of the Church Fathers make it impossible for anyone who takes scripture and Christian theology seriously to uphold "gay marriage." (You can find the full interview at th-cam.com/video/8sCoF4uNLWQ/w-d-xo.html.)
That's complete crap! Marriage has been a social institution all over the world, in different forms, usually for more political reasons, and by far not always between one man and one woman! Not even in the biblical context (AS IF this should carry ANY weight!) Marriage today is a social contract between two people, that has NOTHING to do with anything christianity-related! This fear of taking away what marriage means for christianity or christians, or their "relationship with god" is completly irrelevant! ALREADY! The redefining of the word won't in any way be anything new, because marriage has lost the place you and Wright want it to have a long, long time ago! That's why marriage cannot be restricted to heterosexual people, because the state has no right to discriminate based on sexual preferences! And the christians don't like that, because they still like to pretend that marriage is somehow something that is related to the church and their religion... which is simply not true.
***** I don't particularly care how you "see" things in this regard. If you think that marriage is something "god" ordains, then the legal concept of "marriage" should in no way be of issue to ANY religious person. Because then we are talking about two different concepts. Take these two definitions: 1. The divenly sanctioned bond between a man and a woman 2. The social contract between two people who have decided to spend the rest of their life together. These are two different concepts. There might be instances, where they could overlap (like e.g. if one of these social contracts was actually considered sanctioned by a god), but the concepts, nevertheles, remain seperate. If you take these two concepts, then religous people (who usually claim that marriage means the first things) should in no way object to gay marriage (under the second definition) being legal, because it has no effect on THEIR concept of marriage. And yet, they DO object. Meaning, that they DO acknowledge the LEGAL concept of marriage and consider it important.
Zachary Mittman Hey Zach. First, you're begging the question. Who says that God creates people born with homosexual orientation? Does God create people with strong tendencies toward alcoholism? Much of Christian theology would say that homosexual proclivities are the result of sin's effect upon humanity. That is, sin has marred human nature and wounded God's creation so that things like perversion, addiction, hatred, etc. exists though it is not God's intention for them to exist. So, rather than affirming homosexuality simply because it exists, we point to Christ as the healer of the effects of sin. Besides this, the epicenter of Christianity is Jesus' call to self-denial and cross bearing (Luke 9:23). This is counter to the often held Rousseauian notion that we should embrace every desire we discover within ourselves. To follow Christ, one must deny him/herself.
Zachary Mittman I've noticed so many of the younger generation are turning out androgynous in this day. Males are growing up with diminished masculinity... they often choose to adobt gender switch appearance by dressing up, hormones or surgery. I could be wrong but I think many substances in our processed foods are diminishing male testosterone levels. Certain materials too get misinterpreted as estrogenic. And even with the opposite gender, hormones may be getting tossed out of balance by all kinds of new things. These factors cause kids to have vastly different hormonal balances than they would normally have. (and I'm not saying I hate gays but... Why aren't more people even concerned about this?) Healthy, balanced, normal levels of testosterone greatly increase a young boy's growing health. I just think people need to start being aware of this. These differences in hormonal levels also tend to make kids, in many cases, more likely to be attracted to same gender. Then the surrounding populace throws hate at them and then they go off thinking God created them this way. It just annoys me. I know several people that turned out to be attracted to the same sex. I'm not saying I support it or reject it... but these people were at a young age when they knew this or began to notice it and they also grew up in fairly sheltered or Christian homes. I don't necessarily think they actually chose it. Its not always like they suddenly think one day... "hey i'm just going to start going after men". I think it would be nice to let people like this know these factors and let them realize that they can choose to strengthen their original gender if they want instead of hating them when it may feel like they're body is telling them to want it. (I hope i'm not way off... correct me if i'm wrong)
Thank allah for the Enlightenment there are a lot of good reasons why we don't reference the bible when making civil laws, and N T just gave a crash course in them
Well-said. One of my favorite quotes is this: "The battle for truth is always a battle over the definition of words." Another is this: "When words lose their meaning, people lose their lives." The Third Reich definitely proved that.
@@ArnoldArchives That's probably item 100 on a list of things proved by the Third Reich. In any case, marriage was never codified as something between a man and a woman, it was just that way by custom. So there's no redefinition happening. In additional, vastly more common is the marriage of very young girls against their will to older men around the world. I don't see America's conservative Right all in a twist about that. Meanwhile the religious right in the US and its political representatives have always had a massive closeted gay male subset, which frequently gets found out because some tie-wearing Republican decides to try to pick up a guy in a gas station bathroom. The hypocrisy on the right on this issue is unfathomable.
*+ Ken Zeier* You're right in the extreme, but this isn't a case of a word being redefined to mean anything. Marriage is adapted to mean the unity of any two adults in love, just like many words change over time. Is it irrational to stop excluding others?
Originally, marriage was an agreement between a man and another man over the other man's property, and by property I mean daughter. In the US, marriage was originally defined as the union of one man and one woman... of the same skin color. We have changed the definition of marriage many times. I'm sorry, comparing defining a person as no longer being human to saying that maybe gay people should have the right to marry too is ludicrous.
Very few states prohibited interracial marriage in the US. Of those that did even fewer made it absolute, in most white/Native American marriages were permitted.
to all those who are defending his position do you think slavery should be legal? or that women should have to marry their rapists because the bible says both those things
this is incorrect. we changed the meaning of marriage among interracial relationships several times in history, once banning it and once legalizing it. so Wright is ignoring and not applying a huge part of history bc if he were to apply then his argument falls apart.
Changing the definition of marriage does not change its basic distinction. Legalizing anything is also not the touchstone of what is morally correct. Slavery used to be legal too, but most would agree that though it was legal, it was not moral.
@@WienArtist then this guy should remove that as point from his argument. it still doesn't change the fact that terms have in fact changed over time. even more interesting is that slavery was legal because politicians used the bible and scriptures to define it as a moral right. so now your telling me that you are using the same application to define what is morally right? perhaps christianity is such a flawed religion, especially since it caused the genocide of so many african americans through the generations and yet christians still think they have the moral high ground without ever reconciling what they have done through discrimination, hate, fear, prejudice, and deciding who could marry. clearly they continue to do it and haven't learned a lesson. you claim to know "basic distinction" yet clearly christians don't. nothing could be more obvious then race and yet it was colonizers that created slavery the for sake of god and spreading the religion, then completely misunderstood the scriptures on purpose so you could own other people and kill them. but I'm supposed to believe you got right this time??? the same hammer that drove the nails into slavery is the same one driving the nails into marriage laws still, regardless of what the nail is the hammer doesn't give a shit. it just claims religion has justified it. history repeats.
@@phillipschulz4492 You seem like you are genuinely trying to be good and kind, but there is a lot wrong in you claims. It’s important to know history. 1. Remember the US was not a country until 1776. The English monarch and aristocracy ruled the colonies. People living in the US at that time did not get to decide for themselves. While many were for slavery as many were against it. 2. Jane Austen’s novel Mansfield Park goes into the issues, both public and private, regarding slavery in the colonies owned by Britain. 3. There were people who used the Bible to make slavery ok. There were also many railing against that to the point of having free states and creating the Underground Railroad. 4. The colonists did not invent slavery. Neither did Britain. 5. Only 2% of the population in the US owned slaves at the height of slavery. That means 98% did not own slaves. 6. There will always be those who use religious texts to justify their sins. Human beings have done this through out history. This is why rule of law not rule by man is so important, as is every person equal under the law. These are 2 ideas worth fighting for. My hope is that this incentivizes you to learn and grow in your knowledge and understanding of your fellow man.
@@eurodelano your speaking very defensively and not responsibly. while only 2% owned slaves, which isn't true at all bc only 2% owned a plantation with a few hundred slaves but 25% of the population owned at least one slave which was usually a house slave. Then when there was a lynching 10,000 people showed up to watch. So even if one person owns a hundred slaves in a town of 50, the town's economy is also benefiting from that rich white slave owner who is bringing in free income and it means 49 other people looked the other way. so you are grasping at apples and extremely ignorant on systemic problems and the ripple effect it has through a society when they shrug off their morals for the purpose of money and power. your claim to many were against it is laughable. what is "many" to you? because it it was most of the people then why didn't anything at all change until a hundred years after britain ended their slavery. so don't compare britain slavery to the US slavery. when they were wise enough to end in 1780's through somerset v. stewart case. america was one of the last 1st world countries still building itself off of genocide. don't try to play it off, it makes you look white washed. especially since we were talking about marriage and not about slavery at all. you came here to downplay slavery which is extremely jacked up on your moral character. most of all you imply slavery came from someplace else, but don't elaborate on anything. so you are merely avoiding blame, the issue is who enslaved the world, had the worst slavery, and who benefited from slavery and how those effects are still in play today. Also, don't compare chattel slavery to the slaver of the Old or new testament. capitalism of slavery didn't take hold and become rampant until the 1500's. you can't compare the Israelite's slavery to the genocide and slaver of King Leopold III. You are extremely ignorant and shouldn't even speak as if you have any knowledge on this. Have you ever read about the black holocaust, the Devil's Punch Bowl after the civil war? have your read about the disparities of yellow fever and america's treatment of black people vs whites? You are part of the problem when people claim to know something but only read meme's and downplay slavery, go rot in a hole.
@@WienArtist many cultures recognized gay marriage in the past... Definition of marraige didn't originate with christianity, they were also the ones that changed it. What's immoral about gay marriage? Also bible gives clear instructions on how to own a slave and that you can beat them as long ast they don't die...
But notice that Wright doesn’t actually give a substantive answer of why same-sex marriage is bad. You can give your biblical mumbo-jumbo all you want, but you still have to give a clear and convincing answer why same-sex marriage is bad, which he doesn’t do.
"Givenness" begs the question, I think. I think Wright, like Foucault, would say that sexual desire does not reveal some fundamental, essential truth about persons. "Orientation essentialism" is a nonsensical social construct that should be jettisoned.
As an Atheist, and a former Christian, I think NT Wright is right about words. When applied to the Bible, words don't really mean what they say. For example, God is LOVE. Normal people interpret Love as something positive. If you offend a loving person, normally you should not expect that offended loving person to massacre your entire family because you've cursed at them. With God, however, all things are possible! God is the most loving being in the Universe, but God will have no qualms with torturing you in hell forever and ever and ever! While still being Loving! Another quick example deals with money. In Luke 14:33, Jesus plainly says that you cannot be his disciple (or his follower), unless you give up all your possessions. But, again, those are just words. What they actually mean is that you can be a very good follower of Jesus while giving up none of your possessions.
A very weak case is made here. He contradicts himself almost immediately. He starts by saying that marriage is only ever used in history as a term to define the union of a man and woman - then immediately uses the term ‘marriage’ to define the union between ‘Christ and the church’. Language is flexible and evolves - to suggest a whole segment of society should be denied the right to marry based on a linguistic technicality he himself can’t stay true to for 3mins is absurd. It is also absurd to assume your religious values should define that of the whole society. Just because marriage between the same sex offends your interpretation of a particular ancient text - is no basis for us to discriminate and deny citizens and couples equal rights. Our laws and values should rise above religious dogma - seeking to bring equality, fairness, compassion and justice to society.
Language changes naturally, it evolves just like everything else in nature. Otherwise you'd still be speaking Old English or some even more ancient tongue. Words and meanings change because our conception of reality is always changing. Reality is a process always in flux, it is not a static, concrete thing.
@@chrissonofpear1384 The Inquisition was created to STOP cultural change not to make it happen. It was the product of the same dogmatic mentality that promotes religious crusades today against LGBT people, science and legal abortion
"the mystery of marriage" I mean seriously? marriage is a legal arrangement about bloodlines, wealth and property. It always has been, and certainly was back in biblical times.
The problem is that as God gives instructions, people resent it, not realising God's commandments are for our benefit. One of the most ironic labels given to homosexuals is gay, for that lifestyle is built solely upon rebellion.
It's crazy that people will say Christ marries the chruch in the future. Are you not Christ's body right now? Has Christ joined himself to the church before marriage? Or are you not joined to Christ? The answer to all those questions is no. The new Jerusalem is simply not the church. The church is the Body not the Bride.
My apologies Justin, when I was synchronizing the audio and video I lost the last few moments. Basically, Write draws a parallel between the pro-war, mob mentality of England (surely the U S as well) and the mob mentality that would roll over those who do not support homosexual unions. Write is saying that the "You better get on board with us or you'll be on the wrong side of history" message of the pro-homosexual marriage side is dangerous. That about sums up what was lost. I'll try to post another video complete with the last few seconds of this point. Thanks.
So Marriage has always meant the union between a man and a women? Then you say Jesus was Married to the Church? That seems to contradict the previous statement. Marriage existed before Christianity and its meaning changes with time as it is a man made artificial construct which changes as society's ideas change. I would expect most modern Christians are against slavery even though they used to accept it as the God of the Bible gave lengthy accounts of how he was in favour of it. Similar Biblical arguments in favour of Slavery were used to counter Lincoln and those fighting to abolish slavery. Thank goodness reason won the day rather than those citing the Bible's immoral teachings. In a few generations same-sex marriage will be as much of a non-issue as Slavery is today. Although Slavery is still a huge problem so there will always be those holding us all back.
Expanding the definition of marriage is no different than expanding the supply of money by deeming oak leaves to be currency. It cheapens the whole money supply. It cheapens real money. Likewise, expanding the definition of marriage to include before unheard of combinations cheapens the real thing. Now we see a record low number of people being married because there’s nothing distinctive about it anymore.
@@castoramanwab2723 Don’t insult both me and you with your logical non sequitur. Marriage has always be a binary institution between the two sexes, including interracial marriage in antiquity.
@@keithwilson6060 Oh in many areas, marriages were refused on the basis of race. "Marriage has always been a binary institution between the two sexes" Are you joking? For one, it was often not binary but trinary or more, due to the numerous polygamist cultures and couple polyandrist ones. And for two, same sex marriage was already a thing in antiquity in some areas, even a famous Roman emperor had a same sex marriage.
@@keithwilson6060 And you seem to miss the fact that whatever marriage was in antiquity, my point remain totally valid, since the antiquity is not the period that happened a few decades ago?
It is very different. If you redefine leaves to be currency it has a material effect on what you can buy with the currency you had. In what way does two men or two women being married effect your marriage?
Get rid of the tax benefits and spousal privileges and the same-sex marriage issue goes away. Government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage anyway.
I find it interesting that Wright wishes to speak about “a word”; I would speak about people. I find it interesting that Wright speaks about Nazism. He neglects to mention that Nazism attempted to exterminate LGBTs, and in at least a few ways. I find it interesting that Wright speaks about “former persons.” He fails to mention that LGBTs have repeatedly been considered “former” and “nonpersons” as they’ve been beaten, tortured, murdered, and exterminated. I find it more than a bit curious or academic that Wright’s musings contribute to the dehumanization of LGBT people.
Sorry that came out wrong: just because marrriage was ONLY heterosexual in the past does not mean it has to be in the present. And how do you KNOW it never existed: have you met every single human being from the past and every society. I have no problem with homosexual marriage and believe in Jesus. Nothing in his teaching makes think that he would not allow it. Why not? He was FOR people, not against them.
@Happy Days Just because Jesus never directly addressed homosexuality doesn't mean he was never against it. We know he was against it as he affirmed the Law of Moses which unambiguously condemns the act. The fact that homosexuality is a choice and not something that people are born with can be derived from the many instances where we see those engaged in a homosexuality completely abandon that lifestyle and switch to the more natural heterosexual way of life.
Marriage has never been what this man imagines. Marriage has for more than 1000 years had nothing to do with love, and more recently has a complicated relationship to that at best. With society's attitudes towards women, particularly in the 60s and 70s, and divorce and marriage in general, many people were stuck in genuinely awful marriages. If the church was meant to teach that marriage was about love and respect for one's partner (ofc straight partner) then it has actually never succeeded, or come close. For nearly 1000 years before the present, the church married people who were in arranged marriages, and serfs on the recommendation of their Lords. So yeah, I think taking marriage out of the hands of an institution that has systematically failed to uphold moral standards throughout almost its entire history may be a radical change, but it is more than deserved
I expect the legislation for same-sex marriage and civil partnerships to be repealed by the end of 2021. All the ridiculous marriages so far and partnerships will then be annulled.
@@Matiyahu I'll give it a listen to. Well Matt, I don't agree with "gay marriage". It is a hijacking of a Biblical ceremony that was intended for a man and a woman. Why would they want to do that anyway? However, I am for civil unions. I wish gays would have pushed for that instead of something that's meant for heterosexuals.
@@ianfrancis777, they did, initially, at least in the USA. There were all the demonstrations which made Christians look hateful. We don’t have to approve of Adam & Steve but....this is a slippery slope we’re on
No sir. The remaining comments Wright gives only intensifies what you see here. It was cut short by an editing mistake. You can watch the whole thing at Facing the Canon with Tom Wright and see for yourself.
Not English! neither am I anymore. I just assumed you were when you mentioned George Gently. I worked in the community most of my life and we always used to say to each other, never assume anything about people because you will almost always be wrong, just shows. This thread has made me think about myself, am I resentful? What have I got to be resentful about? Do I come across as resentful? Which brings me back to my point that one should never make assumptions about people assuming someone to be resentful is a judgmental assumption and a bit subjective. Judge ye not lest ye be judged is good advice (I'm an athiest SURPRISE!!!). I don't think I am resentful I would say I have a healthy contempt for authourity and religion. Religious people often make assumptions and judgements and, for too many years have been telling other people how to live their lives however this is tinged with pity for their stupidity in accepting what they are told to believe. I probably did resent the influence people like that had on me when I was young. Now I have worked out what works for me I feel a sense of superiority to these people. Being Gay has given me the ability to experience a life from a slightly different perspective, if I was religious I would probably say it was God's gift to me. That's just me I wouldn't assume to speak for other people, we're all different and have had different experiences . I too have enjoyed this thread but I think it best to leave it here. Cheers John.
I've met him. He's not against explaining his ideas and I've taken him to task at one convention for something he said. I think he is excellent, but I think he misses the current reality of the specific question asked of him here. Any further discussion to be continued is cut off.
You can find the whole interview at th-cam.com/video/8sCoF4uNLWQ/w-d-xo.html. Also, when it comes to homosexuality in the church, Wright often refers folks to Richard Hays's "Moral Vision of the New Testament" which Wright regards as the best treatment of the subject" that he's found.
It's not redefining terms. Use words however you see fit. Gay marriage is about marriage rights and prosecuting discrimination. The legal institution of marriage (which enjoys certain benefits and rights etc.) has been extended to same-sex couples. The word "marriage" hasn't been redefined. Anyone who agrees with him is simply a homophobe.
The common excusatory phrase is "committed relationship", which wrongly suggests the right to marry in a homosexual context. One often hears the excuse, "It cannot be wrong, since I love this person!" The problem with that reasoning is in using one definition of love to encompass all definitions. The word, "love", is a polysemous term. For example, to say that because I have brotherly love (philia), that I have the liberty or license to engage in sexual love (eros). I may love my dog or my cat, but that type of love does not suggest that I should pursue a marital relationship with it, and certainly not a bestial relationship either. The deepest issue is maintaining the original intention of God in the true definition of marriage. The creation account is replete with examples of God created most living organisms as male and female, which constitutes a definite distinction between two similar living things becoming one as a matter of purpose, as in procreation. Male/male or female/female marriages are an insult to God because it is an attempt to destroy His original intention, purpose and symbolism pertaining to spiritual matters. Besides, the male/female partnership is biologically complementary, especially regarding procreation. There is nothing biologically complementary with same sex marital relationships for the purpose of sexual gratification. It's like trying to put together a picture puzzle with a hammer because the pieces don't match. You might end up with a picture in the end, but it certainly does not look like it was intended. And some might add that the hammered out picture looks rather fetching as an abstract. And that is also what a male/male or female/female sexual relationship is - an aberration from the intention of true marriage and yes, totally abstract. Logically, one should realize that such partnerships do not serve the best development of the human race. Incidentally, attempting to change one's original sexual orientation (male to female or vice versa) does nothing to solve the problem of same sex marriages. One may have himself castrated, have breast implants, his Adam's apple removed, ribs removed, and pumped full of estrogen to become a transfigured disguise of a true woman, but that does not solve the deeper issue, which is purely a psychological one. And doing so also does nothing to improve the quality of married life as God intended, and certainly deleterious regarding creating a natural family since obviously a transwoman cannot bear children, since she is still a biological male in the truest sense of the word. The same goes for female to male transgender.
@@terryschofield1922 First you presume that there is no God. Then you attempt to know what he thinks. Your thinking is quite contradictory and self-defeating at best.
@@WienArtist Dear Richard, I presume nothing. I study the evidence and find that there is insufficient evidence for any god. If you have some please supply it. The bible says or the koran says or whichever scripture you follow says is not evidence. I don't presume to know what god thinks because I don't believe in such bizarre nonsense. My point was if there was a god why would your god give a damn who anybody marries. Come on provide your evidence or shut up.
@@terryschofield1922 Dear Terry, but of course you are making presuppositions/presumptions simply because you claim there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any God or gods. It is more evident to me that either you have a cognitive dissonance or an a priori rejection of any evidence, or that you choose to reject any evidence based upon personal reasons like your homosexuality for example. It cannot possibly be that there is no evidence because very educated persons (myself included) have examined a plethora of evidence, followed it where it has led, and came to the opposite conclusion as you. According to the Law of Non-contradiction, God can either exist or he cannot - both conclusions cannot be correct. However, those who are theists usually adhere to what is the more rational and reasonable conclusion that God does indeed exist. Again, you most certainly are presuming the thoughts of God when you think he cannot care to whom anyone marries. How could you know that he would not care, if you are not projecting your own biased thoughts on his? My rejection of your assertion would be this: God does indeed care whether a man and a woman marry or whether same sex marriages occur because same sex marriages violate his original purpose and intention of the creation of male and female not only between a human, but everywhere in nature. This is evident in the obvious distinctions in all of nature - you see male/female connections everywhere for the purpose of procreation, otherwise each biological species would eventually cease to exist because the mode of procreation/reproduction would be disconnected and discontinued, leading to the obvious extinction of that species. There are many creatures who choose a mate of the opposite sex for life. Why is it that they do not choose a mate of the same sex? I have already answered that question. Heterosexual marital connections are self-evident and an innate part of life, regardless of your rejection that it matters. Regarding your comment about Biblical or otherwise evidence from other holy books, I never made such a claim that all the evidence is found in a book. There is a mountain of evidence apart from any book, if one is open-minded to accept it. I know certain atheists who became Christians because they recognized the evidence of God in nature, not from reading the Bible or the Quran, etc.
@@WienArtist Dear Richard, well I appreciate your response. I accept that, and I am guessing a bit, there are probably millions of people who are more intelligent than me who believe in a god. There is not one iota of evidence in you reply, you simply suggest that because many people have studied that it must be true. Bishop Barron, a catholic, defines faith as a response to the revealing god. What does that mean? William Lane Craig claims that there are 4 facts that prove the resurrection, not facts at all. There may be billions of christians, but there are at least 5 billion who don't agree with you. Perhaps you should all get together and figure out which is the real one. Muslims are just as convinced as you that there god is true. I suppose at least christians have a sense of humour. So should I believe in anecdotal evidence of let's say a virgin birth and a bloke coming back from the dead. Medical science has moved on Richard, we know those events don't happen. You have no evidence. Perhaps better to believe in a prophet who flew to heaven on a winged horse, was that before or after he split the moon in two. Again no evidence. Basically it's down to generations of indoctrination with a few exceptions of those who switch horses or come to faith later in life. But as I always say you believe whatever you like. I'll pass on the rant about peadophile priests, female genital mutilation, religious wars, discrimination against women & gays etc..but you get the point. There are people today who are on death row for blasphemy and other nonsense. Religion just seem to ignore the bad stuff, how can you support an organisation that routinely fucks kids. Anything bad is god working in mysterious ways. No Richard you are welcome to your hallucinations. I don't need a supernatural sky daddy to know how to behave. If it keeps you in check then good. By the way I am straight, but we are all equal. Stay safe Richard, maybe if you lot would pray a bit harder the virus would go away, as if.
What Wright doesn't tell you, and perhaps may either not know or simply uncomfortably reject, is that the change in meaning of words in discourse, happens all the time. The appeal to an eternal basis grounding most of the abstract terms we use is a lost cause. This is particularly true for many (but not all) of social conventions mentioned in the Bible. Those who affected great change in the past, whether it is Paul, Jesus, MLK, and others, quite simply didn't care that they were promoting Newspeak, because they cared more about their vision than arguing with people on a neutral playing field.
@@Sinleqeunnini Jesus didn't affect great change, he didn't even mean to inspire a new religion, he just got executed, which is no great accomplishment. Paul succeeded in founding a new religion than became an ancient institution, but that affected only cosmetic change, the same changes to Western civilization would have happened if Islam had won the religion sweepstakes in Europe. MLK and the Civil Rights movement did affect actual change, because they had real goals for real life policies, not pie in the sky rewards in the Afterlife.
Does he say that from a Biblical standpoint, Gay marriage is wrong? He so eloquently says that some things don't naturally fit, but no direct quotes, other than the Genesis example, I see. Although I love every person, as does our Heavenly Father, some things are contrary to God's acceptance (Romans 1:24-27).
cubs0110 point is....that is what marriage is....man and woman....just like when you marry up a hose connection ....they are opposite complementary ends of a water hose. You can't marry up the ends that are alike. You would have to use a special adapter just for that purpose. ..but it would but an unnatural connection against the design of the hose. so whatever civil unions or relationship associations homosexual folks are free to engage in...they are not married...even if the state redefines their relationship as such. it's a forced arrangement against natural design that requires a special adapter because it's unnatural. I mean no offense to those that are homosexual oriented, and I'm not promoting a ban of whatever legal contract they want with each other...that's between them and God...however it isn't marriage. all that said...I prefer Government to not even be involved in marriage period :)
@@interpretingscripture8068 so you say it's about producing offspring But some Straight married couples Can't have offspring whether the male does not have enough sperm to produce or the femal can't carry. There is such thing as a prostate in a man's Rectum that if tickled helps The male Orgasm but gets some time to get used to, and for a female to female contact the Clit is stimulated which is on the outside part of the Vagina making Vaginal to Vaginal sex Do able.
Magic Mike a broken water pump on a car does not negate the function and purpose of a water pump and just because you can jerry rig something to kinda work doesn't mean that was it's intended design homosexual sex is not God' original design and cannit produce children and only kinda works (jerry rigged) no offense to those tempted by same sex attraction but it's a perversion from God's original design and intent. God bless
His argument is that because Genesis 1 contains lots of pairs of complimentary things, like heaven and earth, and sea and dry land, and man and woman is one of these pairs, only men and women should be allowed to marry. It is a pompous expression of 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'. Ridiculous
Can a "pastor" be female? Is that "changing the meaning of a key word"? Can "loving your neighbour" mean "transporting them in a metal pollution box to their desired destination"? "For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life"
NT Wright is one of the most respected scholars of the New Testament alive today. There shouldn't be any surprise that he maintains orthodox views on marriage.
@@deaconbilcarter5210 And that's because he always goes back to the context of when the Scriptures were written in. Brilliant man. We would all do well to follow his scholarly example.
If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married. But keep your religion away from the legality of my relationship. Your religious opinions have no right to affect mine or anyone else’s life. Marriage has been redefined by the church plenty of times like this man says himself, and marriage is no longer purely a religious institution. Your religious freedoms end at the door of the courthouse
@@wishusknight3009 There's a question inherent in your question...who decides what is wrong? Now, if there is an absolute morality it must come from something, be grounded in something more than mere speculation. We cannot draw morality out of observation of what exists, because simply being is not a demonstration of rightness.(the is-ought problem) For me, the question is a Biblical one because the Bible reveals the absolute morality from the sovereign of the universe. Whether I understand the reasoning or not, if that sovereign who knows more intricately the details of my creation says that something is wrong, as he says sex outside of marriage is, then it follows that it is wrong. Can you tell me where your standard that it is only wrong if people aren't "consenting adults" comes from?
@@brandonbennett2776 The bible's morality was a concept of sheep herders 2000+ years ago and is not an absolute authority. AT ALL. It belongs no where in modern society, and what is beneficial is rather obvious. When you are interacting with people in the general public, and have a keen sense of how your actions affect others, and you want to minimize negative effects on yourself and others, then what is good or not becomes pretty apparent really fast. You don't need ancient sheep herders to tell you that. No god needed. Whatever god it happens to be among the thousands of gods around, let alone an individual's interpretation of what that god should be. This doesn't answer what is inherently wrong with two consenting males who love each other. Try again.
@St Benaiah You meant to say that certain interpretations of the bible don't agree with it. And that does not answer my question. What is wrong about it? The bible does not have that answer other than "My interpretation of a god in a book doesn't like it".
@Stuart K So you have anal sex on the brain? Who the fuck are you to determine what is "natural" or not. Your supposed "god" is unnatural. And what is unique about gay sex? hetero couples have STD's at similar rates, Hetero couples have anal sex. Have you even thought about this more than the disgusting and bigoted talking points you are parroting from some pastor? You seem to think about gay sex more than actual gay people do. Maybe that is telling you something. You realize about 80% of gay male couples don't even have anal sex. So answer my question? What is wrong with two consenting males having sex when proper precautions are taken? YOu may wish to do a bit of research before giving me an ignorant answer again.
Wright is correct to point out how words can change their meaning in contemporary discourse, sometimes consciously by a certain group, sometimes unconsciously. But what he doesn't address is the more important consequence of this observation, that most of the basic assumptions in our way of life and outlook on the world have been achieved by those who forcefully push those shifts in language and its attendant thought patterns, independent of what impartial consideration might warrant. Paul, the Deuteronomist, the authors of the Gospels all promoted messages using the same strategies Wright seems to call unfair (e.g. the Newspeak argument). One can take the cynical view and say this means all the basic principles articulated the Bible were never divinely inspired, but the better thing to do is simply realize there is no broad fundament undergirding our morals. There might be a starting point, call it God, or Nature, or whatever, but time and again appeals to scripture without some cognitive backing end up being quite brittle. That is where the changes in knowledge about how the world works, understanding our mistakes and sins of the past become more relevant than what is literally said in some verse of the Bible. Regarding Wright's appeal to the 'natural order' spoken of in Genesis, this is basically a rehash of the argument over whether Paul hates homosexuals and whether that matters today. It doesn't matter whether you point to Romans written by Paul or the story of Adam and Eve written by some priest in the Exilic Period. Same set of assumptions about what sexuality is and about heteronormative culture. Same arguments about what is biologically natural versus what humans can adapt to culturally. In the end, the same conclusion is reached: are you basing your argument on the antiquity and suitability of a social institution (traditionally defined marriage) or upon God's principle of love, incorporating what we currently know about ourselves and the world, understanding that our position might change when we find out more, but continuing to believe that the principle itself is not a 'fact' but rather an enduring attitude that supersists on said currents of knowledge?
Paul did not use newspeak. He did combine words to create phrases or ideas in his mind to express a thought. That’s not newspeak. The biblical writers used Polemics and took concepts that were found in culture to describe in a certain mode of communication what the gospel was doing in our lives. It’s not like they were redefining what a man is or what society should think about grace. What they were saying is our God has grace and this is what this grace is like. Or our God not only gives agape but is agape. Jesus on things like the sabbath and messianic prophecies didn’t go with newspeak but rather Christ bringing those things to fulfillment
@@kingbeast777 Why not call it with something more illustrating expression? For example, "bullcoupling" a pair of bulls, expresses the nature of the union most accurately.
@@pastorbri yeah but marriage Is one man one women But now some men can't produce enough sperm and Some women can't have Babies. Most say Marriage is for family. But my post is When someone falls in love deeply with each other the union between them is Marriage, Marriage in definition IS COMBINE TO JOIN.
I don't care how you dress up the argument, denying people who attracted to people of the same sex the same rights as those attracted to their so called opposite sex is discrimination. And since the bible wasn't actually written at the dawn of time I doubt it actually defined sex and marriage to begin with. Would anyone here like to assume they know what Jesus would have to say on this matter?
People who say that Marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman fascinate me. Denotations of words change throughout time, and saying that Marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively is absurd. You are saying that heterosexuality is marriage because that was its original denotation. Just like denotations, society CHANGES over time. Stop fighting it, because it's moving along whether you stuck-up Christians like it.
Several great books for knowing the truth: Crossing The Tiber, by Stephen Ray. Surprised by Truth, by Patrick Medrid. And if you are Jewish, a great book is Honey from the Rock by Roy Schoeman. God bless you all. He is Risen! Praise God.
I have watched about 4 videos asking NT Wright pointed questions..he never actually answers questions any of them! He seems like a theologian/politician. Where he stands seems ambiguous at best.
Now, here is what the law says about homosexual people, including pastors that call themselves Christians! 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV) “I wrote to you in my letter that you should not associate with people who sin sexually. But I did not mean the people of this world. You would have to leave the world to get away from all the people who sin sexually, or who are greedy and cheat each other, or who worship idols. I meant you must not associate with people who claim to be believers but continue to live in sin. Don’t even eat with a brother or sister who sins sexually, is greedy, worships idols, abuses others with insults, gets drunk, or cheats people. It is not my business to judge those who are not part of the group of believers. God will judge them, but you must judge those who are part of your group. The Scriptures say, “Make the evil person leave your group.” Below in 1 Corinthians chapter 6 verse’s9 &10(ERV) it says: “Surely you know that people who do wrong will not get to enjoy God’s kingdom. Don’t be fooled. These are the people who will not get to enjoy his kingdom: those who sin sexually, those who worship idols, those who commit adultery, men who let other men use them for sex or who have sex with other men, those who steal, those who are greedy, those who drink too much, those who abuse others with insults, and those who cheat.” It should be obvious to anyone reading this message that homosexual pastors, priests, or any minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ should never be in a Pulpit!
This is a totally specious argument . To use the Bible, an ancient book of myths, legends and questionable stories , as an excuse to argue against same sex marriage is intellectually dishonest . You can use the Bible as an excuse to justify anything ,or to to demand it be illegal .
What is the locus of morality for you Robert? You condemn Wright's argument; I assume you have some ethical standard by which you do so. From what moral platform do you denounce the Biblical view?
555catnap Sir, the Bible does not "support" slavery, infanticide, genocide, or murder. If you are referring to the wars of Israel, and ignoring the overall narrative of scripture you have simply posited an argument out of theological/scholarly ignorance. A lot of people make your claims without knowledge of Scripture--usually riffing off of what they're hear second and third hand from others just as in the dark as themselves. For your proposed foundation of morality there are two major issues to address. First is the ontological question: How can "good"or "bad"exists? Are these values objectively real or subjective? If the former, what establishes such objective categories as good and bad? If the latter, how can any subjective moral system be considered a real foundation of morality at all--said categories would simply be subject to the whims and opinions of each person. Second, "The well being of conscious creatures" is recklessly broad. Are you arguing for utilitarianism as well? Would support the extermination of some people if it would benefit the whole? Again, the greater question for all of this is your ontological basis for the notions of good and evil. This is not just an epistemological question (though one is there), but an ontological question. Both questions may only find an answer in the locus of morality: Christ.
555catnap You fail to see his point. Damage to the body is observable but there is not basis on atheism as to why that is bad. Damage to rocks and ice cubes is observable. Just because it is observable, you can't magically conclude that its bad. This is the classic is-ought gap that philosophers have actually posited. I don't know of any philosopher that just takes "damage to conscious creatures is bad" as properly basic and objective. Unless you're referring to like Sam Harris or something in which he is hardly a philosopher.
555catnap Oh well I didn't reply to your comment to argue about same-sex marriage necessarily. You were talking about morals and that's what I responded to. Anyways, your humanist morality or whatever we want to call it still cannot cross the is-ought gap. There is no way we can objectively say "flourishing of conscious is good" without appealing to anything transcendent. Why is the flourishing of conscious creatures any more important than any other animal? What makes humans have any intrinsic moral worth other than what we subjectively assign it? Hopefully you watched the craig vs harris debate and saw that Craig as well as many other philosophers easily show that human flourishing and what we consider to be good are not identical. They just happen to coincide in the world we live in. That makes them relative to human evolution. And therefore not objective.
Correct English (Sorry, I'm a writer, and a Professor, so very priggish. I like to help people with their writing! And, you, Darryl, will help yourself by using proper English, but hurt yourself and your moral, political or theological position when you use improper grammar.) So, what would have been proper? This: "Why are videos like this so low but the nonsense loud?" is proper. Videos is plural, so takes "is" not are, and, it is a question, so requires a question mark at the end of the sentence. And, it would be good to clarify what you meant by "low." Low in volume? Low in content (confusing, wrong?) What did you mean? Now, you're all set! No, no, don't bother to thank me! : ) - Dr. Long
@@JohnWadeLongJr And your point is. It's people like you that open their so educated mouths but so dumb. I asked why was this video so low and others so high.
@@trackmusic252So educated is bad? Oooookay. So sorry I tried to help. I'm a teacher with many eager-to-learn students. Wish you were one of them. Blessings, Johnny
Interesting how he gets to his position versus Ruth badger Ginsberg comments and Christians for Biblical Equality. Creation account can, as Paul Jewett comments, is about relationships. This is so sad as England, starting with Henry vIii break from Rome and the formation of Anglican Church, it was the reformers from Calvin that struggled to free the Church of England from Catholic views replacing the Alter with a communion table, putting English Bibles into churches for all to read, and getting rid of unscriptural Sacraments( means of grace) recognizing Baptism and communion only. The Puritans even refused to wear wedding rings because that was a symbol of the marriage sacrament and Roman Catholicism. Sad sad sad such a mind locked
Not terribly impressed. He’s obviously opposed to “gay marriage” and, as an advocate, is making his case. He’s hardly objective. Here’s why: First, I agree we have to be suspicious of governments, which change the meaning of words for their own purposes. However, and as Mr. Wright knows, the definitions of words change simply because society/culture changes and continues to use those words in a different context. That’s just the history of language. Consider, for example, “transportation”. In the 18th century, it would’ve meant wagons, tall ships, horses, mules and donkeys. In the 19th century, the same term would have incorporated trains, steamships and canal boats-not because of government decree but because technology changed. Of course, in the 20th century, planes, space shuttles and automobiles would’v been added. Of course, given these changes, laws would have changed as well to accommodate those developments. Transportation is just one example, there are thousands of others. I would argue that the term, “marriage” is similar. Society has dramatically changed dramatically with respect to acceptance of a variety of relationships. Indeed, gay marriages have occurred for a number of years. They haven’t been recognized legally until very recently and that’s simply the law catching up. Why is this important? Here’s why, married couples have significant legal and tax benefits. We now (as do other countries) recognize the “marital bonds” between adults should have the same legal and tax benefits and obligations no matter who the parties are. Consider this, until 1967, many States prohibited interracial marriages. One of the supports for this prohibition was the good ol’ Bible. Nevertheless in the Supreme Court case of Loving vs Virginia in 1967, that prohibition was revoked throughout the nation. Again, this reflected a developing view of who should be permitted to be married. Also, Wright’s notion of “complimentary duality” is simply his unique interpretation of his belief in a number of themes he presumes underlie scripture. None of these comments are found in scripture; they’re just his opinion.
Okay so any time that a government "redefines key words" you should watch out? So laws in the U.S. changing the status of Blacks from 3/5ths to 5/5ths concerns you NT Wright? This was a bad thing?
Aidan Wright False equivalence. Wright is pointing to the ontological grounding of marriage in creation and noting the trans-cultural recognition of the necessity of sexual difference for marriage throughout history. The crime against Africans in the US in the 18th and 19th centuries was culturally and historically idiomatic and contrary to any honest consideration of theological anthropology.
No Aidan Wright, you are confused. The great evil was the redefinition of black people from 5/5 of a person to 0/5 of a person upon enslavement. When the U.S. government finally gave men equal protection it wasn't a redefinition, but a corrected definition. All imprecision with language can be harmful, intentional imprecise language is always harmful.
Aidan Wright I believe you mean, 'confirmation bias'? Not sure. I don't see how selection bias applies, but clarify if I'm wrong. If you mean confirmation bias, I don't think that truly applies to my argument, but to yours. My point was not that any definition can go anywhere anyone wants. To the contrary, all enslaved people were once free with inherent human dignity. Slavery stripped them of these (what's a good phrase...) unalienable rights thereby being the original redefiner. You are starting your argument far too late in the story. I believe the stronger argument would be that those who didn't want to give black people the rights to property and the vote during the days of the Atlantic Slave Trade were the ones showing confirmation bias with their 3/5 Rule and not the other way around.
I think part of the problem is the ability to divorce. It’s so easy now compared to in the past. I understand the need for divorce in some instances, but by making marriage “throwaway” as everything is in a materially driven society, you subdue its importance and value. As such, people don’t actually “think” about marriage as an important thing to do before God, but just as a celebration of two people being together and legalising them as a couple. Eventually allowing for anyone to marry anyone because it’s no more than a celebration. The same can be said for the value of sex. By taking away its importance and role in marriages, by turning it into no more than a human instinct, and similarly, by allowing for contraception (which I think is a necessity in today’s society), and birth control pills/abortion, again it makes it throwaway and so it becomes less important and ultimately available to anyone in any kind of couple. It’s about removing responsibility and accountability from marriage and sex, and making it wholly about individual pleasures.
Ugo Cei misses the point, a point that has been made several times over the years about other topics that have nothing to do with marriage. That point is, when administrations redefine fundamental words to mean new things, very bad things often follow. This is exactly the way that Socialist governments of all types work.
No, Richard, don't be silly. We can casually redefine the basic foundational relationship underlying all modern societies, and there will absolutely, positively, without a doubt, NOT be any negative results. I mean, the idea itself is preposterous! Only hate-filled bigots who want to stand with their boots on the necks of homosexuals could even possibly imagine any negative results, let alone honestly think that such results are probable let alone possible.
Joshua Bozeman You are silly. The use of metaphor as psychological buffer against the evil one does is so common that it forms the basis of many works of drama. Its use is famous in Orwell's "1984," which in turn got it from the actual methods of the Soviets. Watch the opening of "Blade Runner," in which running text states, "This was not called execution. It was called retirement." The reason those words have impact is because it is common knowledge that redefining words is a common tactic of oppressive regimes. That's because people who do this are lying to us, and a government that lies to us is up to no good. Calling a homosexual relationship a marriage is a lie!
@@Paolo8772 Humans have been engaging in marriages for tens of thousands of years. Marriage is older than civilization. It is an inherent and instinctual part of being human, a part of human nature, no less so than the desire to have children. That's why the homosexuals are trying to copy it for themselves; on their terms, of course.
All of his reasoning is based on the assumption that the Biblical God exists. If you remove this assumption, he isn't really discussing anything. Nevertheless, let's call it a union or whatever he wants to call it. The problem is that I suspect he may still have an issue with same-sex individuals engaging in sexual activity, which, if true, I find radical and consider morally unacceptable. No one has the moral right to dictate what consenting adults do in their private bedrooms.
Wow! He really gets down to business in raising the fact that we must be careful about changing the meaning of words!
The way I see it, if the government sells you a marriage license, that is a civil arrangement that I can accept. However, do not demand that the church perform a ceremony for you. Some churches might, while others might not.
then don't do any weddings at your church if your gonna hate based on your book
@@robjackson4050 mind your own damned business what a congregation of Christians does or does not do - including whom they marry - you bigoted, fascistic, puritanical zealot.
@@robjackson4050 Not preforming a ceremony becasue of values that we have is not hate. We will not give up our values to please the world. If you think thats hateful then so be it.
@@robjackson4050Christians don’t make the rules of the God we believe in, we just follow them. If you don’t believe in the Christian God, you don’t need to follow his rules. Why would you want to be married in Christian church? There are plenty of churches that call themselves christian that pick and choose the social rules they prefer and ignore the rest. They are just a social club, feel free to join and be married in them. They aren’t following Christ.
The Bible clearly states the rules in both the Old and New Testaments. You can Google them if you want. Marriage from the beginning is between one man and one woman. All sex outside of this arrangement is forbidden. It didn’t change with Jesus. We aren’t haters. We follow our rules, you aren’t a follower of Christ so you don’t need to follow the rules for Christians. I won’t go to your wedding, but not because I hate you, but because I can’t celebrate in an occasion that God says is sin. I still care for people that I know, who are not Christians and that have all sorts of sexual arrangements. I have dinner with them, I don’t go to their weddings.
The meanings of words are not written in the sky or set in stone.
It is infantile to suppose that any words have so to say 'official meaning as if all are children and the grownups decide eveything as the kinderlander appear to supose. Marriage is joining together of sorts for the purpose of breeding which of course sewertites are either not inclined or unable to do.
Wow a sane man speaks! How refreshing! Also a very knowledgable and intelligent man. I wonder what the questioner and audience thought as it’s cut off
The answer may be in the video "Facing the Canon with Tom Wright"
Wow! Where has this guy been in my conscious awareness. He is brilliant!
“When anybody, pressure groups, governments, civilizations, suddenly change the meaning of key words, you really should watch out.”
This is exactly what has happened. It’s not a benign change.
yes specially when those groups or religions condemn minorities like jews,gays, and gypsies.
www.researchgate.net/publication/254079554_No_Kingdom_of_God_for_Softies_or_What_Was_Paul_Really_Sayingquest_1_Corinthians_69-10_in_Context
www.academia.edu/2507704/_An_Argument_Against_the_Use_of_the_Word_Homosexual_In_English_Translations_of_the_Bible_The_Heythrop_Journal_51_no._5_2010_723-729
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0146107915577097
@@robertjsmith ... or majority groups as well.
Redefinition of words...
Very powerful! And previous generations have really failed us in allowing these words to be redefined without any real fight.
I believe in part by normalizing such concepts through television, we have been subject to mass brainwashing, but it is also not too late to say "enough".
I like this N T Wright chap. This is the first time I've come across the man but he is clearly reasonable, thoughtful, wise and a very nice fellow. I shall go and find out more about him.....
How’d that go?
I’m curious too. He is a very helpful thinker and communicates well
Don’t bother. Stick to the Scriptures.
Well I do enjoy listening to NT Wright speak he is intelligent and I love this particular little clip. But the clip on women preachers he is way off base. And says there is women disciples and there should be women preachers. Romans 16 there isn't a woman disciple. Go to the original text and Paul says this person is well known among the Apostles. Big deal i am well known among preachers here in Nicaragua but I am not a preacher. I am here to support local preachers. And the fact the Bible has guide lines for Preachers and Deacons and one of them is to be a Husband of one wife. NT Wright is wrong on that one and is doing the bidding for Satan on that issue which is very sad.
@@davidprice9792 Nonsense Wright has the track record of deep biblical thinking and I can't see for the life of me how Satan would benefit from opening church ministry to gifted and well-taught women. I don't think the Timothy verses exclude women so much as excluding polygamists. He tickles your ears by being against gay marriage so you expect him to just trot out the fundamentalist line on everything.
This cuts off too soon. I want to hear what he had to say about Tony Blair.
I think he was using as an example the parliamentary debate on the eve of war to show how the sombreness and urgency of an occasion can be used to win people over to a (dubious) cause regardless of the actual detail or process presented.
@@Dustshoe ... Or more exactly the downright diabolical lies of a sinister, murderous maniac, in this instance.
The battle for truth is fought over the meaning of words.
Jon Pool, much as the atheist has changed the meaning of faith. Faith means TRUST. It does not mean believing without evidence. These are scary times. I was always for civil unions because of civil rights. The right objected loudly and someone said, well, let’s see if we can get the Supreme Court...now, all the things people projected are happening. Google interesting partnerships. I’m sure I read where a woman married herself. SMH. Marriage was the only thing to survive Adam & Eve being kicked out of the Garden.
Word meanings evolve to suit usage - usage is not constrained by dictionaries. It's facile to point to a disctionary definition and declare that "THIS is what xxx means because the dictionary says so."
@oneconcerned No he's not. Truth is what comports with reality - words are simply the fuzzy tools used to describe, often equally poorly defined things. Saying "right is still right" demonstrates how poorly you've considered yuor own words. What is "right?" By whose standards? People are not rebelling against god because they want to do their own thing - they are rejecting the whole concept because it's patently ridiculous on a thousand different levels.
@@Martial-Mat who mentioned a dictionary?
@@jonpool9030 I did - in response to you saying " truth is fought over the meaning of words." Word meanings are not constrained by definitions, but grow to reflect usage. 100 years ago, "gay" meant jolly, now it is used simultaneously to mean foolish, as an insult, and to mean homosexual. Words have ALWAYS been malleable and contextual.
Orwell warned of the use of words to change meanings and culture in '1984'.
The Religious Right re-defines words in order to promote its ideological dominance. Like calling a zygote a "baby." Or calling Creationism a "science."
@Visto che What about the woman who does not want to give birth? She has different feelings about that zygote. A significant proportion of zygotes never grow into babies anyway, they are flushed out of the woman's body but at that stage it is considered quite different than the death of a baby.
@Visto che Just as an acorn is not the same as an oak tree, a zygote is not the same as a baby. You only want to ignore the difference so you can have an excuse to bully women.
@Visto che Forcing women to give birth against their will is bullying of the worst sort. Abortion is a responsible, courageous decision that women do not enter into lightly.
@Visto che After the woman is already pregnant it is too late to tell her she shouldn't have had sex. Either she has access to abortion or you are forcing her to give birth against her will.
Here is the issue for me: I don't believe anyone should dictate to the Church, the Synagogue, to the Mosque, to the Temple what THEY define as marriage. BUT, when we leave those religious places ALONE to make their own call--why does anyone care if the CIVIL gives the same CIVIL RIGHTS to a gay couple? No one is dictating to the religious who are free to simply NOT recognize that union (a gay union) so I'm not sure I understand the concern. Can someone give me the other side of that argument?
One of the foremost biblical scholars sounds off on a topic that individual United Methodist Bishops are taking actions of a complete opposite nature.
Thank you Sir for your as usual thoughtful response to a question today’s culture has attempted to redefine.
This is absolute? WHAT?!
What was NT Wright going to say about the famous Tony Blair speech?!
Well I will tell you what he getting at: just as the West went to war on false premise and there by destroy many lives not only others but also themselves so is with the new interpretation of marriage. The latter even if declared as acceptable in the eyes of the state, it can't be valid because it is not founded on reality. It is in fact based on false notion of what marriage is all about i.e. simply as a construction of state, simply to appease as in getting more votes. But society without a family, as a nuclear and nucleus, collapse into nothingness. And we know nothing begets nothing. In short, the West will decimate it self slowly---gay marrage, which is different from the natural marriage, is a man made bomb and, in due time, those who are not for life will die out or extinct. Many of us and our Children will suffer as a result of this imposed madness by the oligarchy ruling state and their puppet media and education system. We live by an agenda where not only error has right but also error is right. Yet for those who believe life giving personal God, "when sin abounds grace abounds all the more." Lesson is let not the state rule your life but trust with all your might Christ, the Son of God.
Over all, I find his analysis and analogy quite revealing. I hope you see the connection.
For Wright's response to the invasion of Iraq, see www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/dec/30/iraq.religion
See the ending of this conversation on the video Facing the Canon with Tom Wright.
Sin degrades a nation. Breaks it down slowly. Sin decays the human anyway.
Proverbs 14:34 (CJB)
34 Righteousness makes a nation great,
but sin degrades any people.
Religious fundamentalism destroys civilizations. Homosexuality is a normal part of human life, nothing to be stigmatized.
Fundamentalist religion destroys civilizations.. Look at Americans bible belt and its shameful history of slavery, racism and ignorance.
So what did Leviticus 25:46 do to it?
Or Samuel 15:15?
Being a religious fundamentalist is a sin. Being an anti-gay beigot is a sin. Being gay is not.
The notion of sin degrades the human. That's what it was designed, by theologians, to do. Any person can redress a grievance, even really tortuous things - but, only God can forgive a sin. Even a trivial one (though, a theologian will tell you that there are no trivial sins - and they'll tell you that because, it's their job).
Language changes constantly. why is it an issue that the social definition of marriage has changed?
What is the recommendation for gay and lesbian individuals, specifically gay christians? Celibacy which is Robbing them of the chance to have a loving relationship with a life long partner?
Or maybe have them live a life married to a straight person? It's not healthy or fair to ask two people to live a lie and it can be very damaging.
And what if the person doesn't fit into either category of biological male or female? Is a intersex person who has BOTH male and female characteristics allowed to marry? And which gender should they be allowed to marry? I'm honestly curious as to what most conservative Christians think is the solution. So if anybody wants to comment I am truly curious on your thoughts.
My heart weeps for our country and future generations.😢😢😢
You mean because gay people can get married now? With all the other things you might consider wrong with this country, many demonstrably harmful, I would have thought that would be insignificant.
I’m lesbian and I don’t know why I was even born then? So if god formed me in the womb and formed my brain then I don’t get why and how I will be condemned. It takes a choice to sin but being gay is not something ya choose. No straight person will understand that.
A few things to consider:
1. just because you experience a desire, even intensely, doesn't mean that that desire is who you are. We are taught that whatever we find when we look inside is who we really are. But why do we have to be slaves to those things? Are desires inherently justified simply because they exist?
2. God didn't create you that way just like he didn't create me to do things that I want to do but which are against His will. Sin has poisoned the world. So, my desires, which are broken versions of good desires, are a reflection of that world. It is because creation is messed up that God has set out to establish "New Creation" by His Son. We begin to live in that New Creation before it has fully arrived by surrendering to His Son Christ and putting our trust in Him.
3. God has the power to change us. This doesn't always mean that every toxic desire goes away when we come to Him (though He can do that); it means that we surrender ourselves, declare ourselves His, and allow Him to love us. His love, the same love that drove Him to the cross, the same love that pursues us, is the key to existence. You are created to know Him and know His love. Everything else pales in comparison.
As Bob Dylan said, 'you gotta serve somebody.' It may be the enemy of your soul who will enslave you through desire, despair, and lies. Or it could be your Maker who has been murdered for you, whose love you were born to know.
@@Mayafav1212 lmfao... Bunch of bs.
Homosexuality is proven to be natural sexual variation, god is not proven to exist, so you using that as an argument it's what's irrational.
@@thatbitch3254 Lmao you're missing the point: @mayara favarao is just responding to @Karen's argument, and both arguments are operating under the assumption that God exists.
@@fatbastard7896 and it's still wrong, because if god exists and he made us, ans if he is omniscient and all powerful, then created us to do something/be something he wants, free will is simply nonexistent if god exists. It's simple reasoning.
And not to mention that mayara favarao wants from people to believe in something that nobody has evidence of, which is crazy... I can't convince myself that god exists, just like I can't convince myself that magical fairies and unicorns exist, therefore if I can't convince myself of that then it is immpossible for me to 'come to god'
@@fatbastard7896 and that's why it is simply irrational to argue from such a standpoint..
It's pointless.
Where does it say that a marriage must be between a man and a woman? The Bible does describe when a man and woman are married, but nowhere does it say that a man MUST marry a woman. And it sure as hell does not say ONE man and ONE woman, because it talks about any concubines a man might have while married, and completely condones such behavior.
The divorce rate in the church is the same or higher than outside of the church. Why is it so easy to gloss over the fact that marriage has also been defined as one man, and many wives? It is blatantly inconsistent and dishonest to address the issue of gay marriage as being a departure of the "traditional" definition of marriage while not addressing the same departure from said definition with the rampant polygamy and sexual indiscretion of countless "men of faith" and more importantly, key biblical characters.
Don't use the generic arguments to hold up your disgust for people that you do not even care to get to know, or will not allow in your world(s). Jesus came to seek and save the lost, and it seems to me this is why he never spent time in the temple except to reason. He was with the people you all feel are too sinful to even get to know.
It isn't about protecting marriage. Look deeper. There are individuals underneath and behind the ideas, the thing Christ cares about most. He didnt come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live.
Thank you for defining your evil.
balderdash
@@TesterBoy god is the evil one not the defenders of gay marriage people are just too brainwashed to accept the truth that he is hate not love if i'd compare him to anything it'd be the abusive spouse the person keeps coming back too and eventually they are killed by their spouse's hands
Did you even listen to what Wright said?
Changing the meaning of language is based on arguments against an unfair hegemony that controls discourse, however it also leads to a lack of consensus on meaning if language doesn't necessarily refer to anything.
"Like the government voting that black should be white." Exactly! Or that one plus one can be three sometimes... or that car batteries can come with two positive (or negative) terminals. It's absurd at a dystopian level, and the dystopia is nearly worldwide. That is, as he said, "chilling."
so much red herring bait. Any bites?
Marriage is not a natural law.
@@darkknightsds Of course it is, and those of us who are attentive are witnessing the consequences of violating it.
Thoughtful answer. Beware redefinitionism. 100% agree.
It's a terribly weak case.
Words are redefined and weaponised all the time.
What do you think calling humans who don't agree with you "evil" or "deceived" enables for the church?
'Not wishing to call on anything Christian or religious at all...' followed by 'What is so important about Genesis 1 is God calling into being binaries...' -Hmm. No tension of cases there, especially when called in, conveniently, to support a point of view.
It seems a strange form of inclusiveness to accept that 'marriage' across cultures has not been our (western) accepted paradigm of Husband and Wife and then claim - this same sex deviation is a step too far, because Genesis equates binary complementarity with the way God wants things.
@@stueyapstuey4235 but your assumption that things are binary the way you'd like to believe is not true. The history you're taught is influenced by those who want you have that opinion. There are many examples of non-heterosexual relationships and marriages throughout history. The binary aspect is part of a story and should not be taken so Seriously. It's full of holes and really only makes sense through the narrative lense. Sure that seems like the majority but look at evolution. Many religions denied it or reformed. The same will happen for sexuality and the 'exact definition of marriage' as if that mattered.
So when the definitions of freedom and human rights, were changed to include everyone. When rights went from being rights for some to equal rights... How was that wrong? The only reason you agree is because you already agreed, but apply that argument to anything else and it falls flat.
Definitions change all the time, and words can ave multiple definitions, language is always evolving. Changing the definition has no inherent value nor it signifies anything, what is important is the content of the definition not the act. His example of Nazi Germany is in no way wrong because the definition was changed, but because the definition was changed to something atrocious. His argument amounts to Nazis did it , therefore it is wrong, but if I say that Nazis wore clothes, would you go naked from now on?
@@farrex0 : Redefinitionism does not equate with the gradual change in meaning .
For the first minute or two, he's describing Newspeak
Do note that Orwell was very much a leftist. He even visited Catalonia (in that moment occupied by communist rebels) in the Spanish Civil War
@@somercet1 what I mean is, many right-wingers and alike think that Orwell was right-leaning because of his critique of Stalinism, but he wasn't. I'm pointing that out just in case.
@@crishealingvtuber8626 all you need to know is the scanda countries that are secular and socialist leaning are way happier and less criminalised, better healthcare and social services, the more religious countries become, the bigger the prison populations.
@@HarryNicNicholas I'm a leftist. I'd argue the problem is organized religion, not religion itself. Marx mentioned how the Apostles held things in common, and it is known that the Romans killed Jesus because they saw him as a radical and a political threat, not just because of religion. And you probably know that the Bible has plenty of broadly pro-immigration and pro-poor mandates.
God bless you, Bishop Wright! the more I hear from you,, the more I appreciate your keen insights and faithfulness to orthodoxy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
homosexuality is the norm.
@@HarryNicNicholas ok? That’s clearly not true, but that aside, why does it matter if it’s normal? Doesn’t mean it isn’t a sin.
@@HarryNicNicholas it is not normal... It is tolerated - but marriage of two men is repulsive to the majority of decent thinking people.
People can be anything they wanna be because the word Christian doesn't have it's origin in God. It was at antioch were people started calling followers of Jesus Christ Christians. Whatever people can name they can define and justify. Thank God for the word of God it doesn't change it calls sin abomination. As a young man I grew up being told God loves sinners but hate sin but everything changed the day I came across this verse Psalms 5:4-6 "For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness,
Nor shall evil dwell with You.
5 The boastful shall not stand in Your sight;
YOU HATE ALL WORKERS OF INIQUITY.
6 You shall destroy those who speak falsehood;
The Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man". Romans 1:28 "And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God delivered them over to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong"
N. T. Wright is a brilliant man.
Opinions vary. Greatly. Given that he isn't even aware that marriage has historically, frequently been about more than one man and one woman.
The whole argument is flawed if it includes the marriage of Christ with the church. That is not male and female.
We should not tip toe around this matter. Marriage only applies to man and woman.
i agree why shouldn't everyone be miserable
*+ Elezar* You don't get to define what marriage means to the world at large. Legally (in most of the west) and overarchingly, marriage applies to everyone.
The difference between the way the Nazis and Communists redefined words (in his examples, at least), and the redefinition of marriage, is that they did it to try to limit peoples' rights, reducing equality. The redefinition of marriage to include gay people is to increase the rights of people who have been supressed for centuries. Essentially his argument is: "But we have always been prejudiced against gay people".
That's not what the Nazis and Communists thought. They wanted to give rights to a particular kind of group, because they thought of those groups as opressed.
@@PeterMatthew86
How would the Communists calling certain groups 'former persons' give rights to any group?
@@djhalling As N.T. Wright mentions this was only the first step. After they were a sort of second class citizens, their property could be redistributed among the 'working class', i.e. the loyal members of the party. This was a very common practice in the Communist countries.
Starting this by making comparisons between the broadening of the word marriage to Nazi and Communist Newspeak is extremely manipulative. This man is even more reactionary that I had realised.
It is an interesting answer that doesn't take into context any of the historical redefinitions Christian leaders co-opted or purported. (Providence, the term is not entirely Christian). Jesus called God, Abba, isn't it? That's a redefinition of sorts especially if viewed from a Christian standpoint.
God / Elohim refers to a disembodied spirit. There are many gods, but only one Yahweh. Yahweh is the Father....Abba/Father.
What a majestic and beautiful explanation for marriage between man and woman.
Because NS and Stalin ... yeah beautiful.
Casuistry.
'Semantic deception - redefining terms to get agreement without understanding'. ~ Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt (from her book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America).
We should get the State out of Marriage entirely.
Joey Walsh We should get Marriage out of the State entirely.
but then they couldn't get tax breaks and women couldn't take up to 3/4 th's of a man's money when they split up according to the courts. ;) I'm kinda with the idea of that but I don't know if it would work or not. For me I didn't marry for religious reasons but I suppose culture and to show the world and her my commitment to her. I don't know that needs to be legal either.... As far as LGBT community I'm for them to be as miserable as the rest of us in the institution of marriage. :D
Wes Sturdevant they are free to havr whatever assiciations they want.
however they are trying to beat everyone into submission to accetp same sex marriage and punish and persecute those that disagred. Also where does it stop? Now we have people pushing for incest and other relationships to be sanctioned by Government as "marriage"
Because of child support and issues with the children it may be impossible. Though the exes are wives of the state? What a quandary!
We shouldinstead subirdinate the State to Rational Christian Principles. Rebelion is the problem in todays World.
Ugo Cei since when was this about winning or losing? The deep end of all of this goes down to whether the Christian world view is a credible one to hold, hence why we have particularly different views on certain issues. In the end it is about bringing the world back to rights, and many of us struggle to do so. You have your ideas on how the world works and probably have ideas as well. This is about understanding and coming together in reasoning (yes there are ppl on both sides who have failed to show understanding and proper dialogue). At the end of the day there are differences, so yes we may pretty much subtly saying that we think the other is wrong. Okay, but in the end, if this is about who was right then that will be determined after death.
How can anything be determined for anyone if they're dead? By then it's too late because THEY'RE DEAD! and as I'm sure you like most thinking people in this wold know, dead people cannot think and therefore nothing can be determined for them, other than the way their body gets disposed of. But whatever becomes determined after that time is irrelevant to them because (as I already said): THEY'RE ALREADY DEAD.
Ok we’ve only gone 2 minutes in and already this guy is either ignorant of the vast history of same sex marriages in Asia and Egypt dating back to the dawn of history or he is deliberately lying. Either way he is not someone to be taken seriously .
....Could you please cite specific instances in antiquity? Moreover, although same-sex intercourse has existed for some time, marriage has mostly been a complementary institution across time and culture. The reason, of course, is that procreation is the underlying logic of family. Marriage for "love" or companionship has almost always been secondary (if extant at all) in human history. The luxury of economically free marriage--experienced by modern, mostly Western white cultures--gives rise to a gross anachronism (like the one expressed in your comment).
@@Matiyahu come on, you can not have studied Roman history and not know that at least 13 Roman emperors were at one time or another officially married to other men. Nero famously married two men on separate occasions in officially sanctioned ceremonies. This was not seen as anything other that natural. Get over yourself with this idea that marriage in ancient times was “only for procreation “ because it was more than that. Marriage was a political bond at times, at others it could have been for the combination of wealth and yes sometimes it was for mutual affection , but the point is none of those reasons demanded that one of the partners have a uterus. You can not be a serious student of history and not have known of these same sex arrangements.
@@Matiyahu *"Could you please cite specific instances in antiquity?"*
A number of Native American tribes (including the Cherokee) recognized the union of homosexual relationships- bigoted white observers in the past described a Crow tribe with a female chief who had four wives. Some tribes were even progressive enough to accept third-gender/gender-variant people.
And all of this is besides the point, because marriage has never been monopolized by Abrahamic religions; nor was it ever an invention of them.
*"The reason, of course, is that procreation is the underlying logic of family."*
Really. By that standard you should be _restricting_ marriage between two people who are incapable of having children, like those who are infertile or sterile. I hear counter-arguments to this, namely "but by the grace of god and miracles, that infertile couple could still have a child." To which one could point out that, if it were that god's will, they _could_ make a gay male couple pregnant (the nature of miracles being that they defy natural laws). I don't even mean this as a joke.
In any case- why would same-sex marriage preclude procreation or family? Same-sex spouses can still have children through alternative (and natural) means, or adopt; the latter of which you'd _think_ more religions would get behind.
*"Marriage for "love" or companionship has almost always been secondary (if extant at all) in human history."*
Well, that's depressing, isn't it. No wonder your concept of marriage is an abject, divorce-riddled failure.
@@bonsaitomato8290 And the homosexuality of the gentiles in condemned in the new testament. People did it in the past so that means it must be good?
@@jamesfitzgerald1684 cultures throughout the world accepted same sex relationships in the past which means it exists and is not seen as a negative by everyone. What’s wrong with same sex relationships? Come on, amuse us with some ridiculous answers. 😂
Allowing same sex marriage doesn't damage marriage between men and women, neither does it damage the symbology described. Your interpretation of the institution is not harmed by others taking a slightly different one. No one is being taken away in the middle of the night
It would be hard to marry two pieces of wood together if one was not male and the other not female they would not hold together very good. But with modern glue it could still work for a while. Like sexes could not be married in the biblical sense because there is no way to consummate it. But they should be allowed to be legally married in the secular since. Why would they want to be considered married in the Christian since when they have been condemned by the christian teachings and the God they serve. If you claim you are under Grace them you would be admitting Homosexual marriage is forbidden. I would just stick with "why has God made me thus". Live in Peace.
no one except objective truth.
Wright rightly locates marriage within the narrative arc of creation. From the complementary culmination of creation in Adam and Eve, to the joining of Christ with His Church, marriage both reflects and is defined by a deep-seated principle within God's creational intentions for the world. The aforementioned marriage narrative in scripture, combined with single proof texts (like 1Cor 6:9 and Rom. 1), along with historical Jewish ethos and the writings of the Church Fathers make it impossible for anyone who takes scripture and Christian theology seriously to uphold "gay marriage." (You can find the full interview at th-cam.com/video/8sCoF4uNLWQ/w-d-xo.html.)
That's complete crap!
Marriage has been a social institution all over the world, in different forms, usually for more political reasons, and by far not always between one man and one woman! Not even in the biblical context (AS IF this should carry ANY weight!)
Marriage today is a social contract between two people, that has NOTHING to do with anything christianity-related! This fear of taking away what marriage means for christianity or christians, or their "relationship with god" is completly irrelevant! ALREADY! The redefining of the word won't in any way be anything new, because marriage has lost the place you and Wright want it to have a long, long time ago!
That's why marriage cannot be restricted to heterosexual people, because the state has no right to discriminate based on sexual preferences!
And the christians don't like that, because they still like to pretend that marriage is somehow something that is related to the church and their religion... which is simply not true.
*****
I don't particularly care how you "see" things in this regard.
If you think that marriage is something "god" ordains, then the legal concept of "marriage" should in no way be of issue to ANY religious person. Because then we are talking about two different concepts.
Take these two definitions:
1. The divenly sanctioned bond between a man and a woman
2. The social contract between two people who have decided to spend the rest of their life together.
These are two different concepts. There might be instances, where they could overlap (like e.g. if one of these social contracts was actually considered sanctioned by a god), but the concepts, nevertheles, remain seperate.
If you take these two concepts, then religous people (who usually claim that marriage means the first things) should in no way object to gay marriage (under the second definition) being legal, because it has no effect on THEIR concept of marriage.
And yet, they DO object.
Meaning, that they DO acknowledge the LEGAL concept of marriage and consider it important.
Matt Robinson Then why does god create people born with a homosexual orientation? Nobody chooses to be gay
Zachary Mittman Hey Zach. First, you're begging the question. Who says that God creates people born with homosexual orientation? Does God create people with strong tendencies toward alcoholism? Much of Christian theology would say that homosexual proclivities are the result of sin's effect upon humanity. That is, sin has marred human nature and wounded God's creation so that things like perversion, addiction, hatred, etc. exists though it is not God's intention for them to exist. So, rather than affirming homosexuality simply because it exists, we point to Christ as the healer of the effects of sin. Besides this, the epicenter of Christianity is Jesus' call to self-denial and cross bearing (Luke 9:23). This is counter to the often held Rousseauian notion that we should embrace every desire we discover within ourselves. To follow Christ, one must deny him/herself.
Zachary Mittman I've noticed so many of the younger generation are turning out androgynous in this day. Males are growing up with diminished masculinity... they often choose to adobt gender switch appearance by dressing up, hormones or surgery. I could be wrong but I think many substances in our processed foods are diminishing male testosterone levels. Certain materials too get misinterpreted as estrogenic. And even with the opposite gender, hormones may be getting tossed out of balance by all kinds of new things. These factors cause kids to have vastly different hormonal balances than they would normally have. (and I'm not saying I hate gays but... Why aren't more people even concerned about this?) Healthy, balanced, normal levels of testosterone greatly increase a young boy's growing health. I just think people need to start being aware of this. These differences in hormonal levels also tend to make kids, in many cases, more likely to be attracted to same gender. Then the surrounding populace throws hate at them and then they go off thinking God created them this way. It just annoys me. I know several people that turned out to be attracted to the same sex. I'm not saying I support it or reject it... but these people were at a young age when they knew this or began to notice it and they also grew up in fairly sheltered or Christian homes. I don't necessarily think they actually chose it. Its not always like they suddenly think one day... "hey i'm just going to start going after men". I think it would be nice to let people like this know these factors and let them realize that they can choose to strengthen their original gender if they want instead of hating them when it may feel like they're body is telling them to want it. (I hope i'm not way off... correct me if i'm wrong)
When a word means anything it means nothing. We are in an age of irrationalism.
Yes, this is part of the war on reality.
Thank allah for the Enlightenment
there are a lot of good reasons why we don't reference the bible when making civil laws, and N T just gave a crash course in them
Well-said. One of my favorite quotes is this: "The battle for truth is always a battle over the definition of words." Another is this: "When words lose their meaning, people lose their lives." The Third Reich definitely proved that.
@@ArnoldArchives That's probably item 100 on a list of things proved by the Third Reich. In any case, marriage was never codified as something between a man and a woman, it was just that way by custom. So there's no redefinition happening. In additional, vastly more common is the marriage of very young girls against their will to older men around the world. I don't see America's conservative Right all in a twist about that.
Meanwhile the religious right in the US and its political representatives have always had a massive closeted gay male subset, which frequently gets found out because some tie-wearing Republican decides to try to pick up a guy in a gas station bathroom. The hypocrisy on the right on this issue is unfathomable.
*+ Ken Zeier* You're right in the extreme, but this isn't a case of a word being redefined to mean anything. Marriage is adapted to mean the unity of any two adults in love, just like many words change over time. Is it irrational to stop excluding others?
Originally, marriage was an agreement between a man and another man over the other man's property, and by property I mean daughter. In the US, marriage was originally defined as the union of one man and one woman... of the same skin color. We have changed the definition of marriage many times. I'm sorry, comparing defining a person as no longer being human to saying that maybe gay people should have the right to marry too is ludicrous.
Very few states prohibited interracial marriage in the US. Of those that did even fewer made it absolute, in most white/Native American marriages were permitted.
Homosexuality isn’t a sin
God is a black woman
And if any hot gay black men out there hit me up🥴
Ah heck, it cut off on the Iraq war, right before the big reveal!
Well done - God bless you !!!
to all those who are defending his position do you think slavery should be legal? or that women should have to marry their rapists because the bible says both those things
this is incorrect. we changed the meaning of marriage among interracial relationships several times in history, once banning it and once legalizing it. so Wright is ignoring and not applying a huge part of history bc if he were to apply then his argument falls apart.
Changing the definition of marriage does not change its basic distinction. Legalizing anything is also not the touchstone of what is morally correct. Slavery used to be legal too, but most would agree that though it was legal, it was not moral.
@@WienArtist then this guy should remove that as point from his argument. it still doesn't change the fact that terms have in fact changed over time. even more interesting is that slavery was legal because politicians used the bible and scriptures to define it as a moral right. so now your telling me that you are using the same application to define what is morally right? perhaps christianity is such a flawed religion, especially since it caused the genocide of so many african americans through the generations and yet christians still think they have the moral high ground without ever reconciling what they have done through discrimination, hate, fear, prejudice, and deciding who could marry. clearly they continue to do it and haven't learned a lesson. you claim to know "basic distinction" yet clearly christians don't. nothing could be more obvious then race and yet it was colonizers that created slavery the for sake of god and spreading the religion, then completely misunderstood the scriptures on purpose so you could own other people and kill them. but I'm supposed to believe you got right this time??? the same hammer that drove the nails into slavery is the same one driving the nails into marriage laws still, regardless of what the nail is the hammer doesn't give a shit. it just claims religion has justified it. history repeats.
@@phillipschulz4492 You seem like you are genuinely trying to be good and kind, but there is a lot wrong in you claims. It’s important to know history.
1. Remember the US was not a country until 1776. The English monarch and aristocracy ruled the colonies. People living in the US at that time did not get to decide for themselves. While many were for slavery as many were against it.
2. Jane Austen’s novel Mansfield Park goes into the issues, both public and private, regarding slavery in the colonies owned by Britain.
3. There were people who used the Bible to make slavery ok. There were also many railing against that to the point of having free states and creating the Underground Railroad.
4. The colonists did not invent slavery. Neither did Britain.
5. Only 2% of the population in the US owned slaves at the height of slavery. That means 98% did not own slaves.
6. There will always be those who use religious texts to justify their sins. Human beings have done this through out history. This is why rule of law not rule by man is so important, as is every person equal under the law. These are 2 ideas worth fighting for.
My hope is that this incentivizes you to learn and grow in your knowledge and understanding of your fellow man.
@@eurodelano your speaking very defensively and not responsibly. while only 2% owned slaves, which isn't true at all bc only 2% owned a plantation with a few hundred slaves but 25% of the population owned at least one slave which was usually a house slave. Then when there was a lynching 10,000 people showed up to watch. So even if one person owns a hundred slaves in a town of 50, the town's economy is also benefiting from that rich white slave owner who is bringing in free income and it means 49 other people looked the other way. so you are grasping at apples and extremely ignorant on systemic problems and the ripple effect it has through a society when they shrug off their morals for the purpose of money and power. your claim to many were against it is laughable. what is "many" to you? because it it was most of the people then why didn't anything at all change until a hundred years after britain ended their slavery. so don't compare britain slavery to the US slavery. when they were wise enough to end in 1780's through somerset v. stewart case. america was one of the last 1st world countries still building itself off of genocide. don't try to play it off, it makes you look white washed. especially since we were talking about marriage and not about slavery at all. you came here to downplay slavery which is extremely jacked up on your moral character. most of all you imply slavery came from someplace else, but don't elaborate on anything. so you are merely avoiding blame, the issue is who enslaved the world, had the worst slavery, and who benefited from slavery and how those effects are still in play today. Also, don't compare chattel slavery to the slaver of the Old or new testament. capitalism of slavery didn't take hold and become rampant until the 1500's. you can't compare the Israelite's slavery to the genocide and slaver of King Leopold III. You are extremely ignorant and shouldn't even speak as if you have any knowledge on this. Have you ever read about the black holocaust, the Devil's Punch Bowl after the civil war? have your read about the disparities of yellow fever and america's treatment of black people vs whites? You are part of the problem when people claim to know something but only read meme's and downplay slavery, go rot in a hole.
@@WienArtist many cultures recognized gay marriage in the past... Definition of marraige didn't originate with christianity, they were also the ones that changed it. What's immoral about gay marriage?
Also bible gives clear instructions on how to own a slave and that you can beat them as long ast they don't die...
But notice that Wright doesn’t actually give a substantive answer of why same-sex marriage is bad. You can give your biblical mumbo-jumbo all you want, but you still have to give a clear and convincing answer why same-sex marriage is bad, which he doesn’t do.
Wright ignores the givenness of being gay, or that not everybody finds the opposite sex to actually be complementary.
"Givenness" begs the question, I think. I think Wright, like Foucault, would say that sexual desire does not reveal some fundamental, essential truth about persons. "Orientation essentialism" is a nonsensical social construct that should be jettisoned.
Says a lot about our government doesn't it?
As an Atheist, and a former Christian, I think NT Wright is right about words. When applied to the Bible, words don't really mean what they say.
For example, God is LOVE. Normal people interpret Love as something positive. If you offend a loving person, normally you should not expect that offended loving person to massacre your entire family because you've cursed at them.
With God, however, all things are possible! God is the most loving being in the Universe, but God will have no qualms with torturing you in hell forever and ever and ever! While still being Loving!
Another quick example deals with money. In Luke 14:33, Jesus plainly says that you cannot be his disciple (or his follower), unless you give up all your possessions. But, again, those are just words. What they actually mean is that you can be a very good follower of Jesus while giving up none of your possessions.
A very weak case is made here.
He contradicts himself almost immediately. He starts by saying that marriage is only ever used in history as a term to define the union of a man and woman - then immediately uses the term ‘marriage’ to define the union between ‘Christ and the church’. Language is flexible and evolves - to suggest a whole segment of society should be denied the right to marry based on a linguistic technicality he himself can’t stay true to for 3mins is absurd.
It is also absurd to assume your religious values should define that of the whole society. Just because marriage between the same sex offends your interpretation of a particular ancient text - is no basis for us to discriminate and deny citizens and couples equal rights.
Our laws and values should rise above religious dogma - seeking to bring equality, fairness, compassion and justice to society.
Changing language always precipitates forced culture changes and the motives behind that have NEVER been good throughout history.
Language changes naturally, it evolves just like everything else in nature. Otherwise you'd still be speaking Old English or some even more ancient tongue. Words and meanings change because our conception of reality is always changing. Reality is a process always in flux, it is not a static, concrete thing.
Calling yourself "The Truth Channel" is as Orwellian as "The Ministry of Truth." The irony is over your head, of course.
*YOURE A FRAUD*
I don't like forced cultural change, myself.
Still, the Inquisition attempted it too, so...
@@chrissonofpear1384 The Inquisition was created to STOP cultural change not to make it happen. It was the product of the same dogmatic mentality that promotes religious crusades today against LGBT people, science and legal abortion
"the mystery of marriage" I mean seriously? marriage is a legal arrangement about bloodlines, wealth and property. It always has been, and certainly was back in biblical times.
The problem is that as God gives instructions, people resent it, not realising God's commandments are for our benefit. One of the most ironic labels given to homosexuals is gay, for that lifestyle is built solely upon rebellion.
Is the full conversation available I’m intrigued
Absolutely: th-cam.com/video/8sCoF4uNLWQ/w-d-xo.html
It's crazy that people will say Christ marries the chruch in the future. Are you not Christ's body right now? Has Christ joined himself to the church before marriage? Or are you not joined to Christ? The answer to all those questions is no. The new Jerusalem is simply not the church. The church is the Body not the Bride.
Hey! Where's the rest of his answer to this...? :P
My apologies Justin, when I was synchronizing the audio and video I lost the last few moments. Basically, Write draws a parallel between the pro-war, mob mentality of England (surely the U S as well) and the mob mentality that would roll over those who do not support homosexual unions. Write is saying that the "You better get on board with us or you'll be on the wrong side of history" message of the pro-homosexual marriage side is dangerous. That about sums up what was lost. I'll try to post another video complete with the last few seconds of this point. Thanks.
Thanks. I actually watched the full vid and got filled in. Appreciate it! :D
Justin... where did you find it. The full video.
So Marriage has always meant the union between a man and a women? Then you say Jesus was Married to the Church? That seems to contradict the previous statement. Marriage existed before Christianity and its meaning changes with time as it is a man made artificial construct which changes as society's ideas change. I would expect most modern Christians are against slavery even though they used to accept it as the God of the Bible gave lengthy accounts of how he was in favour of it. Similar Biblical arguments in favour of Slavery were used to counter Lincoln and those fighting to abolish slavery. Thank goodness reason won the day rather than those citing the Bible's immoral teachings. In a few generations same-sex marriage will be as much of a non-issue as Slavery is today. Although Slavery is still a huge problem so there will always be those holding us all back.
Expanding the definition of marriage is no different than expanding the supply of money by deeming oak leaves to be currency. It cheapens the whole money supply. It cheapens real money. Likewise, expanding the definition of marriage to include before unheard of combinations cheapens the real thing. Now we see a record low number of people being married because there’s nothing distinctive about it anymore.
You do realise that a few decades ago, your point would have been (and probably was) used to argue against interracial marriages?
@@castoramanwab2723
Don’t insult both me and you with your logical non sequitur. Marriage has always be a binary institution between the two sexes, including interracial marriage in antiquity.
@@keithwilson6060
Oh in many areas, marriages were refused on the basis of race.
"Marriage has always been a binary institution between the two sexes"
Are you joking? For one, it was often not binary but trinary or more, due to the numerous polygamist cultures and couple polyandrist ones.
And for two, same sex marriage was already a thing in antiquity in some areas, even a famous Roman emperor had a same sex marriage.
@@keithwilson6060
And you seem to miss the fact that whatever marriage was in antiquity, my point remain totally valid, since the antiquity is not the period that happened a few decades ago?
It is very different. If you redefine leaves to be currency it has a material effect on what you can buy with the currency you had. In what way does two men or two women being married effect your marriage?
Get rid of the tax benefits and spousal privileges and the same-sex marriage issue goes away. Government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage anyway.
I find it interesting that Wright wishes to speak about “a word”; I would speak about people.
I find it interesting that Wright speaks about Nazism. He neglects to mention that Nazism attempted to exterminate LGBTs, and in at least a few ways.
I find it interesting that Wright speaks about “former persons.” He fails to mention that LGBTs have repeatedly been considered “former” and “nonpersons” as they’ve been beaten, tortured, murdered, and exterminated.
I find it more than a bit curious or academic that Wright’s musings contribute to the dehumanization of LGBT people.
Sorry that came out wrong: just because marrriage was ONLY heterosexual in the past does not mean it has to be in the present. And how do you KNOW it never existed: have you met every single human being from the past and every society.
I have no problem with homosexual marriage and believe in Jesus. Nothing in his teaching makes think that he would not allow it. Why not? He was FOR people, not against them.
Happy Days -you don’t believe in Jesus or know the Bible
@Happy Days Just because Jesus never directly addressed homosexuality doesn't mean he was never against it. We know he was against it as he affirmed the Law of Moses which unambiguously condemns the act. The fact that homosexuality is a choice and not something that people are born with can be derived from the many instances where we see those engaged in a homosexuality completely abandon that lifestyle and switch to the more natural heterosexual way of life.
Happy Days www.focusonthefamily.com/faith/10-things-everyone-should-know-about-a-christian-view-of-homosexuality/
Marriage has never been what this man imagines. Marriage has for more than 1000 years had nothing to do with love, and more recently has a complicated relationship to that at best. With society's attitudes towards women, particularly in the 60s and 70s, and divorce and marriage in general, many people were stuck in genuinely awful marriages.
If the church was meant to teach that marriage was about love and respect for one's partner (ofc straight partner) then it has actually never succeeded, or come close. For nearly 1000 years before the present, the church married people who were in arranged marriages, and serfs on the recommendation of their Lords.
So yeah, I think taking marriage out of the hands of an institution that has systematically failed to uphold moral standards throughout almost its entire history may be a radical change, but it is more than deserved
I think you have an imaginery history, real people in history did generally marry for a covenantal relationship.
If marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman, why does NT say that marriage is also Christ and his church? How is that combination a marriage?
It's a symbol of the covenant between them.... Try thinking?
This guy's just grumpy "marriage" isn't defined as "a man and his multiple slave-wives" anymore, like in the Old Testament...
I expect the legislation for same-sex marriage and civil partnerships to be repealed by the end of 2021. All the ridiculous marriages so far and partnerships will then be annulled.
Ill subscribe to your channel, so that on December 31st of this year, i can tell you how ridiculous you sounded.
How did that go? Fucking idiot.
Thank you so much for posting this! Do you know where I can see/find the rest of the interview?
Thank you! You can find the entire interview here: th-cam.com/video/8sCoF4uNLWQ/w-d-xo.html
@@Matiyahu I'll give it a listen to. Well Matt, I don't agree with "gay marriage". It is a hijacking of a Biblical ceremony that was intended for a man and a woman. Why would they want to do that anyway? However, I am for civil unions. I wish gays would have pushed for that instead of something that's meant for heterosexuals.
@@ianfrancis777, they did, initially, at least in the USA. There were all the demonstrations which made Christians look hateful. We don’t have to approve of Adam & Steve but....this is a slippery slope we’re on
@@michaelbrickley2443 Yeah, I guess.
@@ianfrancis777 toiugh luck isn;t it, payback for the inquisition mate.
This conversation was cut short...I don't think his conclusion is what people think it is. Look at his other comments about homosexuality on TH-cam.
No sir. The remaining comments Wright gives only intensifies what you see here. It was cut short by an editing mistake. You can watch the whole thing at Facing the Canon with Tom Wright and see for yourself.
Not English! neither am I anymore. I just assumed you were when you mentioned George Gently. I worked in the community most of my life and we always used to say to each other, never assume anything about people because you will almost always be wrong, just shows.
This thread has made me think about myself, am I resentful?
What have I got to be resentful about?
Do I come across as resentful?
Which brings me back to my point that one should never make assumptions about people assuming someone to be resentful is a judgmental assumption and a bit subjective.
Judge ye not lest ye be judged is good advice (I'm an athiest SURPRISE!!!).
I don't think I am resentful I would say I have a healthy contempt for authourity and religion. Religious people often make assumptions and judgements and, for too many years have been telling other people how to live their lives however this is tinged with pity for their stupidity in accepting what they are told to believe. I probably did resent the influence people like that had on me when I was young. Now I have worked out what works for me I feel a sense of superiority to these people.
Being Gay has given me the ability to experience a life from a slightly different perspective, if I was religious I would probably say it was God's gift to me.
That's just me I wouldn't assume to speak for other people, we're all different and have had different experiences .
I too have enjoyed this thread but I think it best to leave it here.
Cheers John.
I've met him. He's not against explaining his ideas and I've taken him to task at one convention for something he said. I think he is excellent, but I think he misses the current reality of the specific question asked of him here. Any further discussion to be continued is cut off.
You can find the whole interview at th-cam.com/video/8sCoF4uNLWQ/w-d-xo.html. Also, when it comes to homosexuality in the church, Wright often refers folks to Richard Hays's "Moral Vision of the New Testament" which Wright regards as the best treatment of the subject" that he's found.
It's not redefining terms. Use words however you see fit. Gay marriage is about marriage rights and prosecuting discrimination. The legal institution of marriage (which enjoys certain benefits and rights etc.) has been extended to same-sex couples. The word "marriage" hasn't been redefined.
Anyone who agrees with him is simply a homophobe.
"Complimentary pairs." Awesome!
Similar breasts?
euphamisms. this is one step from 1984.
NT Wright makes me proud of the Anglican expression. A leader AND a good man.
not really. i'm so glad religion is on the decline, what a bunch of hypocrits you all are.
It is better to be proud of the Biblical expression
The common excusatory phrase is "committed relationship", which wrongly suggests the right to marry in a homosexual context. One often hears the excuse, "It cannot be wrong, since I love this person!" The problem with that reasoning is in using one definition of love to encompass all definitions. The word, "love", is a polysemous term. For example, to say that because I have brotherly love (philia), that I have the liberty or license to engage in sexual love (eros). I may love my dog or my cat, but that type of love does not suggest that I should pursue a marital relationship with it, and certainly not a bestial relationship either. The deepest issue is maintaining the original intention of God in the true definition of marriage. The creation account is replete with examples of God created most living organisms as male and female, which constitutes a definite distinction between two similar living things becoming one as a matter of purpose, as in procreation. Male/male or female/female marriages are an insult to God because it is an attempt to destroy His original intention, purpose and symbolism pertaining to spiritual matters. Besides, the male/female partnership is biologically complementary, especially regarding procreation. There is nothing biologically complementary with same sex marital relationships for the purpose of sexual gratification. It's like trying to put together a picture puzzle with a hammer because the pieces don't match. You might end up with a picture in the end, but it certainly does not look like it was intended. And some might add that the hammered out picture looks rather fetching as an abstract. And that is also what a male/male or female/female sexual relationship is - an aberration from the intention of true marriage and yes, totally abstract. Logically, one should realize that such partnerships do not serve the best development of the human race. Incidentally, attempting to change one's original sexual orientation (male to female or vice versa) does nothing to solve the problem of same sex marriages. One may have himself castrated, have breast implants, his Adam's apple removed, ribs removed, and pumped full of estrogen to become a transfigured disguise of a true woman, but that does not solve the deeper issue, which is purely a psychological one. And doing so also does nothing to improve the quality of married life as God intended, and certainly deleterious regarding creating a natural family since obviously a transwoman cannot bear children, since she is still a biological male in the truest sense of the word. The same goes for female to male transgender.
A well presented load of bollox. If there was a god, take your pick, god wouldn't give a damn who marries whom. PS, there isn't.
@@terryschofield1922 First you presume that there is no God. Then you attempt to know what he thinks. Your thinking is quite contradictory and self-defeating at best.
@@WienArtist Dear Richard, I presume nothing. I study the evidence and find that there is insufficient evidence for any god. If you have some please supply it. The bible says or the koran says or whichever scripture you follow says is not evidence. I don't presume to know what god thinks because I don't believe in such bizarre nonsense. My point was if there was a god why would your god give a damn who anybody marries. Come on provide your evidence or shut up.
@@terryschofield1922 Dear Terry, but of course you are making presuppositions/presumptions simply because you claim there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any God or gods. It is more evident to me that either you have a cognitive dissonance or an a priori rejection of any evidence, or that you choose to reject any evidence based upon personal reasons like your homosexuality for example.
It cannot possibly be that there is no evidence because very educated persons (myself included) have examined a plethora of evidence, followed it where it has led, and came to the opposite conclusion as you. According to the Law of Non-contradiction, God can either exist or he cannot - both conclusions cannot be correct. However, those who are theists usually adhere to what is the more rational and reasonable conclusion that God does indeed exist.
Again, you most certainly are presuming the thoughts of God when you think he cannot care to whom anyone marries. How could you know that he would not care, if you are not projecting your own biased thoughts on his? My rejection of your assertion would be this: God does indeed care whether a man and a woman marry or whether same sex marriages occur because same sex marriages violate his original purpose and intention of the creation of male and female not only between a human, but everywhere in nature. This is evident in the obvious distinctions in all of nature - you see male/female connections everywhere for the purpose of procreation, otherwise each biological species would eventually cease to exist because the mode of procreation/reproduction would be disconnected and discontinued, leading to the obvious extinction of that species. There are many creatures who choose a mate of the opposite sex for life. Why is it that they do not choose a mate of the same sex? I have already answered that question. Heterosexual marital connections are self-evident and an innate part of life, regardless of your rejection that it matters.
Regarding your comment about Biblical or otherwise evidence from other holy books, I never made such a claim that all the evidence is found in a book. There is a mountain of evidence apart from any book, if one is open-minded to accept it. I know certain atheists who became Christians because they recognized the evidence of God in nature, not from reading the Bible or the Quran, etc.
@@WienArtist Dear Richard, well I appreciate your response. I accept that, and I am guessing a bit, there are probably millions of people who are more intelligent than me who believe in a god. There is not one iota of evidence in you reply, you simply suggest that because many people have studied that it must be true. Bishop Barron, a catholic, defines faith as a response to the revealing god. What does that mean? William Lane Craig claims that there are 4 facts that prove the resurrection, not facts at all. There may be billions of christians, but there are at least 5 billion who don't agree with you. Perhaps you should all get together and figure out which is the real one. Muslims are just as convinced as you that there god is true. I suppose at least christians have a sense of humour. So should I believe in anecdotal evidence of let's say a virgin birth and a bloke coming back from the dead. Medical science has moved on Richard, we know those events don't happen. You have no evidence. Perhaps better to believe in a prophet who flew to heaven on a winged horse, was that before or after he split the moon in two. Again no evidence. Basically it's down to generations of indoctrination with a few exceptions of those who switch horses or come to faith later in life. But as I always say you believe whatever you like. I'll pass on the rant about peadophile priests, female genital mutilation, religious wars, discrimination against women & gays etc..but you get the point. There are people today who are on death row for blasphemy and other nonsense. Religion just seem to ignore the bad stuff, how can you support an organisation that routinely fucks kids. Anything bad is god working in mysterious ways. No Richard you are welcome to your hallucinations. I don't need a supernatural sky daddy to know how to behave. If it keeps you in check then good. By the way I am straight, but we are all equal. Stay safe Richard, maybe if you lot would pray a bit harder the virus would go away, as if.
Orwell predicted "new speak" in 1984. That is what this redefinition is.
The conservative movement is very Orwellian in its propaganda-- Trump has carried it to new lows.
What Wright doesn't tell you, and perhaps may either not know or simply uncomfortably reject, is that the change in meaning of words in discourse, happens all the time. The appeal to an eternal basis grounding most of the abstract terms we use is a lost cause. This is particularly true for many (but not all) of social conventions mentioned in the Bible. Those who affected great change in the past, whether it is Paul, Jesus, MLK, and others, quite simply didn't care that they were promoting Newspeak, because they cared more about their vision than arguing with people on a neutral playing field.
@@Sinleqeunnini Jesus didn't affect great change, he didn't even mean to inspire a new religion, he just got executed, which is no great accomplishment. Paul succeeded in founding a new religion than became an ancient institution, but that affected only cosmetic change, the same changes to Western civilization would have happened if Islam had won the religion sweepstakes in Europe. MLK and the Civil Rights movement did affect actual change, because they had real goals for real life policies, not pie in the sky rewards in the Afterlife.
Does he say that from a Biblical standpoint, Gay marriage is wrong? He so eloquently says that some things don't naturally fit, but no direct quotes, other than the Genesis example, I see. Although I love every person, as does our Heavenly Father, some things are contrary to God's acceptance (Romans 1:24-27).
If it was Adam & Steve, instead of Adam & Eve, none of us would even be here to discuss the question of homosexual "marriage".
No one's saying straight marriage isn't allowed...
cubs0110 point is....that is what marriage is....man and woman....just like when you marry up a hose connection ....they are opposite complementary ends of a water hose. You can't marry up the ends that are alike. You would have to use a special adapter just for that purpose. ..but it would but an unnatural connection against the design of the hose.
so whatever civil unions or relationship associations homosexual folks are free to engage in...they are not married...even if the state redefines their relationship as such. it's a forced arrangement against natural design that requires a special adapter because it's unnatural.
I mean no offense to those that are homosexual oriented, and I'm not promoting a ban of whatever legal contract they want with each other...that's between them and God...however it isn't marriage.
all that said...I prefer Government to not even be involved in marriage period
:)
@@interpretingscripture8068 so you say it's about producing offspring But some Straight married couples Can't have offspring whether the male does not have enough sperm to produce or the femal can't carry. There is such thing as a prostate in a man's Rectum that if tickled helps The male Orgasm but gets some time to get used to, and for a female to female contact the Clit is stimulated which is on the outside part of the Vagina making Vaginal to Vaginal sex Do able.
Magic Mike a broken water pump on a car does not negate the function and purpose of a water pump and just because you can jerry rig something to kinda work doesn't mean that was it's intended design
homosexual sex is not God' original design and cannit produce children and only kinda works (jerry rigged)
no offense to those tempted by same sex attraction but it's a perversion from God's original design and intent.
God bless
Uh, Who pronounced Adam and Eve man and wife?
His argument is that because Genesis 1 contains lots of pairs of complimentary things, like heaven and earth, and sea and dry land, and man and woman is one of these pairs, only men and women should be allowed to marry. It is a pompous expression of 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'. Ridiculous
I live in San Francisco and can safely say the good bishop would lose his Bishopric here straightaway as you Brits say.
Can a "pastor" be female? Is that "changing the meaning of a key word"? Can "loving your neighbour" mean "transporting them in a metal pollution box to their desired destination"? "For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life"
Wow, he actually affirmed the biblical definition of marriage, I am very very very surprised.
rorshakks so am I, most Anglican clerics are quite liberal on the topic
he seems fairly orthodox to me
NT Wright is one of the most respected scholars of the New Testament alive today. There shouldn't be any surprise that he maintains orthodox views on marriage.
@@deaconbilcarter5210 And that's because he always goes back to the context of when the Scriptures were written in. Brilliant man. We would all do well to follow his scholarly example.
Well you can't win an argument with someone who is obviously WRIGHT!
If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married. But keep your religion away from the legality of my relationship. Your religious opinions have no right to affect mine or anyone else’s life. Marriage has been redefined by the church plenty of times like this man says himself, and marriage is no longer purely a religious institution. Your religious freedoms end at the door of the courthouse
What we think of gay marriage ? Everyone should be happily married.
@KY Chan You mean you are bi-sexual... And what is wrong with two consenting adults having sex (so long as precautions and protections are used)?
@@wishusknight3009 There's a question inherent in your question...who decides what is wrong? Now, if there is an absolute morality it must come from something, be grounded in something more than mere speculation. We cannot draw morality out of observation of what exists, because simply being is not a demonstration of rightness.(the is-ought problem) For me, the question is a Biblical one because the Bible reveals the absolute morality from the sovereign of the universe. Whether I understand the reasoning or not, if that sovereign who knows more intricately the details of my creation says that something is wrong, as he says sex outside of marriage is, then it follows that it is wrong. Can you tell me where your standard that it is only wrong if people aren't "consenting adults" comes from?
@@brandonbennett2776 The bible's morality was a concept of sheep herders 2000+ years ago and is not an absolute authority. AT ALL. It belongs no where in modern society, and what is beneficial is rather obvious. When you are interacting with people in the general public, and have a keen sense of how your actions affect others, and you want to minimize negative effects on yourself and others, then what is good or not becomes pretty apparent really fast. You don't need ancient sheep herders to tell you that.
No god needed. Whatever god it happens to be among the thousands of gods around, let alone an individual's interpretation of what that god should be.
This doesn't answer what is inherently wrong with two consenting males who love each other. Try again.
@St Benaiah You meant to say that certain interpretations of the bible don't agree with it. And that does not answer my question. What is wrong about it? The bible does not have that answer other than "My interpretation of a god in a book doesn't like it".
@Stuart K So you have anal sex on the brain? Who the fuck are you to determine what is "natural" or not. Your supposed "god" is unnatural. And what is unique about gay sex? hetero couples have STD's at similar rates, Hetero couples have anal sex. Have you even thought about this more than the disgusting and bigoted talking points you are parroting from some pastor?
You seem to think about gay sex more than actual gay people do. Maybe that is telling you something. You realize about 80% of gay male couples don't even have anal sex. So answer my question? What is wrong with two consenting males having sex when proper precautions are taken?
YOu may wish to do a bit of research before giving me an ignorant answer again.
Wright is correct to point out how words can change their meaning in contemporary discourse, sometimes consciously by a certain group, sometimes unconsciously. But what he doesn't address is the more important consequence of this observation, that most of the basic assumptions in our way of life and outlook on the world have been achieved by those who forcefully push those shifts in language and its attendant thought patterns, independent of what impartial consideration might warrant. Paul, the Deuteronomist, the authors of the Gospels all promoted messages using the same strategies Wright seems to call unfair (e.g. the Newspeak argument). One can take the cynical view and say this means all the basic principles articulated the Bible were never divinely inspired, but the better thing to do is simply realize there is no broad fundament undergirding our morals. There might be a starting point, call it God, or Nature, or whatever, but time and again appeals to scripture without some cognitive backing end up being quite brittle. That is where the changes in knowledge about how the world works, understanding our mistakes and sins of the past become more relevant than what is literally said in some verse of the Bible.
Regarding Wright's appeal to the 'natural order' spoken of in Genesis, this is basically a rehash of the argument over whether Paul hates homosexuals and whether that matters today. It doesn't matter whether you point to Romans written by Paul or the story of Adam and Eve written by some priest in the Exilic Period. Same set of assumptions about what sexuality is and about heteronormative culture. Same arguments about what is biologically natural versus what humans can adapt to culturally. In the end, the same conclusion is reached: are you basing your argument on the antiquity and suitability of a social institution (traditionally defined marriage) or upon God's principle of love, incorporating what we currently know about ourselves and the world, understanding that our position might change when we find out more, but continuing to believe that the principle itself is not a 'fact' but rather an enduring attitude that supersists on said currents of knowledge?
Paul did not use newspeak. He did combine words to create phrases or ideas in his mind to express a thought. That’s not newspeak. The biblical writers used Polemics and took concepts that were found in culture to describe in a certain mode of communication what the gospel was doing in our lives.
It’s not like they were redefining what a man is or what society should think about grace. What they were saying is our God has grace and this is what this grace is like. Or our God not only gives agape but is agape.
Jesus on things like the sabbath and messianic prophecies didn’t go with newspeak but rather Christ bringing those things to fulfillment
Marriage is man and woman. That's it folks!
Jesse Nope!
Marriage is between 2 loving committed adults.
not acording to the old testiment its not! Marriage is 1 man and many wives there.
@@kingbeast777 Why not call it with something more illustrating expression?
For example, "bullcoupling" a pair of bulls, expresses the nature of the union most accurately.
@@pastorbri yeah but marriage Is one man one women But now some men can't produce enough sperm and Some women can't have Babies. Most say Marriage is for family. But my post is When someone falls in love deeply with each other the union between them is Marriage, Marriage in definition IS COMBINE TO JOIN.
I don't care how you dress up the argument, denying people who attracted to people of the same sex the same rights as those attracted to their so called opposite sex is discrimination. And since the bible wasn't actually written at the dawn of time I doubt it actually defined sex and marriage to begin with. Would anyone here like to assume they know what Jesus would have to say on this matter?
Rwanda: 'cockroaches'. Very scary.
People who say that Marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman fascinate me. Denotations of words change throughout time, and saying that Marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively is absurd. You are saying that heterosexuality is marriage because that was its original denotation. Just like denotations, society CHANGES over time. Stop fighting it, because it's moving along whether you stuck-up Christians like it.
Several great books for knowing the truth: Crossing The Tiber, by Stephen Ray. Surprised by Truth, by Patrick Medrid. And if you are Jewish, a great book is Honey from the Rock by Roy Schoeman.
God bless you all. He is Risen! Praise God.
I pray he finds the Ordinariate
I have watched about 4 videos asking NT Wright pointed questions..he never actually answers questions any of them! He seems like a theologian/politician. Where he stands seems ambiguous at best.
Pastor C.L. Daniels Didn’t Jesus Christ often answer questions in the same manner?
And why can Satan reach Earth...
Now, here is what the law says about homosexual people, including pastors that call themselves Christians!
1 Corinthians 5:9-13 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
“I wrote to you in my letter that you should not associate with people who sin sexually. But I did not mean the people of this world. You would have to leave the world to get away from all the people who sin sexually, or who are greedy and cheat each other, or who worship idols. I meant you must not associate with people who claim to be believers but continue to live in sin. Don’t even eat with a brother or sister who sins sexually, is greedy, worships idols, abuses others with insults, gets drunk, or cheats people. It is not my business to judge those who are not part of the group of believers. God will judge them, but you must judge those who are part of your group. The Scriptures say, “Make the evil person leave your group.”
Below in 1 Corinthians chapter 6 verse’s9 &10(ERV) it says:
“Surely you know that people who do wrong will not get to enjoy God’s kingdom. Don’t be fooled. These are the people who will not get to enjoy his kingdom: those who sin sexually, those who worship idols, those who commit adultery, men who let other men use them for sex or who have sex with other men, those who steal, those who are greedy, those who drink too much, those who abuse others with insults, and those who cheat.”
It should be obvious to anyone reading this message that homosexual pastors, priests, or any minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ should never be in a Pulpit!
You might want to use a bible.
Blood Moon
Well put; well said!
This is a totally specious argument . To use the Bible, an ancient book of myths, legends and questionable stories , as an excuse to argue against same sex marriage is intellectually dishonest . You can use the Bible as an excuse to justify anything ,or to to demand it be illegal .
What is the locus of morality for you Robert? You condemn Wright's argument; I assume you have some ethical standard by which you do so. From what moral platform do you denounce the Biblical view?
Halleluyah Matt He won't answer you. He's a trouble maker troll running to and fro!!!
555catnap Sir, the Bible does not "support" slavery, infanticide, genocide, or murder. If you are referring to the wars of Israel, and ignoring the overall narrative of scripture you have simply posited an argument out of theological/scholarly ignorance. A lot of people make your claims without knowledge of Scripture--usually riffing off of what they're hear second and third hand from others just as in the dark as themselves. For your proposed foundation of morality there are two major issues to address. First is the ontological question: How can "good"or "bad"exists? Are these values objectively real or subjective? If the former, what establishes such objective categories as good and bad? If the latter, how can any subjective moral system be considered a real foundation of morality at all--said categories would simply be subject to the whims and opinions of each person. Second, "The well being of conscious creatures" is recklessly broad. Are you arguing for utilitarianism as well? Would support the extermination of some people if it would benefit the whole? Again, the greater question for all of this is your ontological basis for the notions of good and evil. This is not just an epistemological question (though one is there), but an ontological question. Both questions may only find an answer in the locus of morality: Christ.
555catnap You fail to see his point. Damage to the body is observable but there is not basis on atheism as to why that is bad. Damage to rocks and ice cubes is observable. Just because it is observable, you can't magically conclude that its bad. This is the classic is-ought gap that philosophers have actually posited. I don't know of any philosopher that just takes "damage to conscious creatures is bad" as properly basic and objective. Unless you're referring to like Sam Harris or something in which he is hardly a philosopher.
555catnap Oh well I didn't reply to your comment to argue about same-sex marriage necessarily. You were talking about morals and that's what I responded to. Anyways, your humanist morality or whatever we want to call it still cannot cross the is-ought gap. There is no way we can objectively say "flourishing of conscious is good" without appealing to anything transcendent. Why is the flourishing of conscious creatures any more important than any other animal? What makes humans have any intrinsic moral worth other than what we subjectively assign it? Hopefully you watched the craig vs harris debate and saw that Craig as well as many other philosophers easily show that human flourishing and what we consider to be good are not identical. They just happen to coincide in the world we live in. That makes them relative to human evolution. And therefore not objective.
Why is videos like this so low but the nonsense loud.
Are. Are. Why ARE... ? VideoS is plural.
@@JohnWadeLongJr just your question is the answer. Read what I typed.
Correct English (Sorry, I'm a writer, and a Professor, so very priggish. I like to help people with their writing! And, you, Darryl, will help yourself by using proper English, but hurt yourself and your moral, political or theological position when you use improper grammar.) So, what would have been proper? This: "Why are videos like this so low but the nonsense loud?" is proper. Videos is plural, so takes "is" not are, and, it is a question, so requires a question mark at the end of the sentence. And, it would be good to clarify what you meant by "low." Low in volume? Low in content (confusing, wrong?) What did you mean? Now, you're all set! No, no, don't bother to thank me! : ) - Dr. Long
@@JohnWadeLongJr And your point is. It's people like you that open their so educated mouths but so dumb. I asked why was this video so low and others so high.
@@trackmusic252So educated is bad? Oooookay. So sorry I tried to help. I'm a teacher with many eager-to-learn students. Wish you were one of them. Blessings, Johnny
Interesting how he gets to his position versus Ruth badger Ginsberg comments and Christians for Biblical Equality. Creation account can, as Paul Jewett comments, is about relationships. This is so sad as England, starting with Henry vIii break from Rome and the formation of Anglican Church, it was the reformers from Calvin that struggled to free the Church of England from Catholic views replacing the Alter with a communion table, putting English Bibles into churches for all to read, and getting rid of unscriptural Sacraments( means of grace) recognizing Baptism and communion only. The Puritans even refused to wear wedding rings because that was a symbol of the marriage sacrament and Roman Catholicism. Sad sad sad such a mind locked
Not terribly impressed. He’s obviously opposed to “gay marriage” and, as an advocate, is making his case. He’s hardly objective. Here’s why: First, I agree we have to be suspicious of governments, which change the meaning of words for their own purposes. However, and as Mr. Wright knows, the definitions of words change simply because society/culture changes and continues to use those words in a different context. That’s just the history of language. Consider, for example, “transportation”. In the 18th century, it would’ve meant wagons, tall ships, horses, mules and donkeys. In the 19th century, the same term would have incorporated trains, steamships and canal boats-not because of government decree but because technology changed. Of course, in the 20th century, planes, space shuttles and automobiles would’v been added. Of course, given these changes, laws would have changed as well to accommodate those developments. Transportation is just one example, there are thousands of others. I would argue that the term, “marriage” is similar. Society has dramatically changed dramatically with respect to acceptance of a variety of relationships. Indeed, gay marriages have occurred for a number of years. They haven’t been recognized legally until very recently and that’s simply the law catching up. Why is this important? Here’s why, married couples have significant legal and tax benefits. We now (as do other countries) recognize the “marital bonds” between adults should have the same legal and tax benefits and obligations no matter who the parties are. Consider this, until 1967, many States prohibited interracial marriages. One of the supports for this prohibition was the good ol’ Bible. Nevertheless in the Supreme Court case of Loving vs Virginia in 1967, that prohibition was revoked throughout the nation. Again, this reflected a developing view of who should be permitted to be married. Also, Wright’s notion of “complimentary duality” is simply his unique interpretation of his belief in a number of themes he presumes underlie scripture. None of these comments are found in scripture; they’re just his opinion.
And there is the key word, is there not? ...Presumes...
Ur gay
Do you have the rest of this?
Okay so any time that a government "redefines key words" you should watch out? So laws in the U.S. changing the status of Blacks from 3/5ths to 5/5ths concerns you NT Wright? This was a bad thing?
Aidan Wright The fallacy of category error . . .
Aidan Wright False equivalence. Wright is pointing to the ontological grounding of marriage in creation and noting the trans-cultural recognition of the necessity of sexual difference for marriage throughout history. The crime against Africans in the US in the 18th and 19th centuries was culturally and historically idiomatic and contrary to any honest consideration of theological anthropology.
No Aidan Wright, you are confused. The great evil was the redefinition of black people from 5/5 of a person to 0/5 of a person upon enslavement. When the U.S. government finally gave men equal protection it wasn't a redefinition, but a corrected definition. All imprecision with language can be harmful, intentional imprecise language is always harmful.
Mike Williams Ah so "re-definition" is not a "Re-definition" as long as it is the "correct one" hmm.. Selection bias? You seem to be the confused one
Aidan Wright I believe you mean, 'confirmation bias'? Not sure. I don't see how selection bias applies, but clarify if I'm wrong. If you mean confirmation bias, I don't think that truly applies to my argument, but to yours. My point was not that any definition can go anywhere anyone wants. To the contrary, all enslaved people were once free with inherent human dignity. Slavery stripped them of these (what's a good phrase...) unalienable rights thereby being the original redefiner. You are starting your argument far too late in the story. I believe the stronger argument would be that those who didn't want to give black people the rights to property and the vote during the days of the Atlantic Slave Trade were the ones showing confirmation bias with their 3/5 Rule and not the other way around.
I think part of the problem is the ability to divorce. It’s so easy now compared to in the past. I understand the need for divorce in some instances, but by making marriage “throwaway” as everything is in a materially driven society, you subdue its importance and value. As such, people don’t actually “think” about marriage as an important thing to do before God, but just as a celebration of two people being together and legalising them as a couple. Eventually allowing for anyone to marry anyone because it’s no more than a celebration.
The same can be said for the value of sex. By taking away its importance and role in marriages, by turning it into no more than a human instinct, and similarly, by allowing for contraception (which I think is a necessity in today’s society), and birth control pills/abortion, again it makes it throwaway and so it becomes less important and ultimately available to anyone in any kind of couple.
It’s about removing responsibility and accountability from marriage and sex, and making it wholly about individual pleasures.
Ugo Cei misses the point, a point that has been made several times over the years about other topics that have nothing to do with marriage. That point is, when administrations redefine fundamental words to mean new things, very bad things often follow. This is exactly the way that Socialist governments of all types work.
No, Richard, don't be silly. We can casually redefine the basic foundational relationship underlying all modern societies, and there will absolutely, positively, without a doubt, NOT be any negative results. I mean, the idea itself is preposterous!
Only hate-filled bigots who want to stand with their boots on the necks of homosexuals could even possibly imagine any negative results, let alone honestly think that such results are probable let alone possible.
Joshua Bozeman You are silly. The use of metaphor as psychological buffer against the evil one does is so common that it forms the basis of many works of drama. Its use is famous in Orwell's "1984," which in turn got it from the actual methods of the Soviets. Watch the opening of "Blade Runner," in which running text states, "This was not called execution. It was called retirement." The reason those words have impact is because it is common knowledge that redefining words is a common tactic of oppressive regimes. That's because people who do this are lying to us, and a government that lies to us is up to no good.
Calling a homosexual relationship a marriage is a lie!
Like male and female. Shits getting crazy.
Marriage is NOT a fundamental word. Life, Air, Water, Food, Shelter, Toilet, Sex, Death. Those are fundamental words. Give your head a shake.
@@Paolo8772 Humans have been engaging in marriages for tens of thousands of years. Marriage is older than civilization. It is an inherent and instinctual part of being human, a part of human nature, no less so than the desire to have children. That's why the homosexuals are trying to copy it for themselves; on their terms, of course.
The state is out of marriage , but God is not !
A very well thought out answer given, classic NT at his best.
All of his reasoning is based on the assumption that the Biblical God exists. If you remove this assumption, he isn't really discussing anything. Nevertheless, let's call it a union or whatever he wants to call it. The problem is that I suspect he may still have an issue with same-sex individuals engaging in sexual activity, which, if true, I find radical and consider morally unacceptable. No one has the moral right to dictate what consenting adults do in their private bedrooms.