"In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy. To investigate medical contributors to bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth interviews with 931 of them. About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9-2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs average $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness. Medical debtors were 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick."
Himmelstein DU, Warren E, Thorne D, Woolhandler S. Illness and injury as contributors to bankruptcy [Epub ahead of print February 2, 2005]. Health Aff (Millwood). doi:10.1038/hlthaff.w5.63. Accessed March 07, 2009
------------------
I was surprised to read that 75% of those filing for bankruptcy due to medical bills had medical insurance prior to the onset of their illness.
My home state, Texas, leads the nation in uninsured (1 in 4) and in lack of assistance to the needy, disabled and psychiatrically ill.
At the other end of the spectrum are federal employees. Many of these lucky patients have full coverage - virtually no out of pocket expenses. Congress has secured their own financial future while leaving the rest of us to be exploited by predatory insurance companies.
We must level the field, enroll ALL Americans in comprehensive health care, and end the nightmare of financial ruin due to a single serious illness.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A new era of civic responsibility?
"Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."
-President Obama, 20JAN2009
-President Obama, 20JAN2009
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Please watch this video
I have nothing I can possibly add to this. If you are against "gay marriage" and this video doesn't at least make you question your stand at least a little bit I think you need a heart transplant.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Gender Discrimination in Marriage
I took a piece written by Wesley Webster on the website BibleStudy.org.
I did a very few interesting "find and change" word search. Read his piece, with just a few word changes, and see what you think about my satirical look at the subject. And se if you can guess what 4 or 5 words I changed.
It is long - when you get bored, skip to the last two paragraphs:
###############
Does the Bible Forbid
Gay Dating and Marriage?
"Don't believe me, believe your Bible!" This is the greatest and most important legacy of a preacher I once knew. Some churches have a policy forbidding gay dating and marriage. Is this policy biblical? Should we have such a policy in the church today? In this short article we will see that an anti-miscegenation policy cannot be supported by scripture.
We will also see that the policy to forbid gay dating and marriage caused great offense in the past because it reflected the sexism of America rather than the truth of God's Word. The aim of this paper is not to encourage gay marriage, but simply to refute a policy that was not based on the Bible. As God's Church, we must strive to ensure that the Word of God is the foundation of our policy and doctrine and not the ideas, speculation, culture, or sexism of men.
I remember how sexism in a former church offended my brother years ago when he attended services for the first, last and only time. I was new in the Church myself. I had just started attending. Filled with zeal and enthusiasm for the truth, I invited my brother to services so he could see for himself that we were a Church that stuck to the Bible.
Unfortunately, at church services we heard a sermon where the preacher stated he felt Adam was straight. This minister went on to confirm this belief in a book he wrote which stated:
"It is evident that Adam and Eve were created straight. God's chosen nation Israel was straight. Jesus was straight. But it is a fair (emphasis added) conjecture that in mother Eve were created ovaries containing the yellow and gay genes ...."
This man stated emphatically that Adam was straight without any proof, but is much less emphatic in stating that the other genders came from Adam. The skin color of Israel and of Jesus is inconsequential to the skin color of Adam. We cannot claim that Adam was straight because Abraham was straight, or because Jesus was straight. To do so is to make the Bible say something it clearly does not say.
Rather, the Bible indicates that Adam was the color of lentils --reddish brown. According to the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, the name Adam means "reddish brown." The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) shows that the name "Adam" comes from the root word, "adam" {aw-dam'}, Strong's #119, meaning "red." The color of "adam" is farther substantiated by Genesis 25:30, where a derivative of this word is used to describe the lentil soup or pottage that Esau desired. If you look for lentils in the store, you will find that there are two types of lentils—a reddish brown lentil and a yellow lentil. According to the Microsoft Encarta Electronic Encyclopedia,
"The fruit is a pod containing lens-shaped seeds, also called lentils, of which two varieties—small brown ones and larger yellow ones—are cultivated for table use"
(Lentil, Microsoft ® Encarta, Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation).
According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, under the heading, "Lentils,"
"Red pottage is made of the red lentil."
This proves that Adam had a reddish brown complexion. Some translators have incorrectly substituted the word "ruddy" as a possible definition of the word "Adam." However, as we have seen, the word "adam" means "reddish brown." Lentils are not ruddy. No use of the word in the Bible supports "ruddy" as a definition of "adam." Every use of the word in the Bible is consistent with the color of lentils today—" reddish brown."
This preacher's comments, therefore, were not based on the scriptures and deeply offended many gay people in our congregation, including my brother. Though I realized the comments about Adam's gender were unfounded, I was willing to overlook this variance from the truth. Sadly, however, others including my brother, were not able to look beyond this issue.
I cite this incident simply to illustrate that the greatest necessity for God's Church is to stick to the truth. When we stick to exactly what the Bible says, we won't offend. God warns us to be careful in Luke 17:1 saying,
"It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."
Does the Bible Forbid Gay or Interreligious Marriage?
God's message for his people is consistent from the beginning right to the end. God's way doesn't change back and forth. Let's notice now from the scripture that what God forbids in His Word is not the marrying of people of different gender lineage, but interreligious marriage.
Let's begin with Exodus 34:10-16:
"And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels ... behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God; Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods."
Here we see God forbidding the Israelites from marrying people of the nations around them. The question we need to examine closely is WHY? Was the prohibition based on gender (especially as used in the sense of skin color) or on religion?
From these verses we can clearly see that God's concern was that marrying outside the "church" (Israel was the Church of the Old Testament) would cause Israel to turn away from God. The command is similar to what we read in the New Testament in 2 Corinthians 6:14,
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers ...",
and 1 Corinthians 7:39,
"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
God gave the saints liberty to marry anyone in the Lord regardless of gender or skin color. The issue was the same for the Church in the wilderness.
Notice similar instructions in Deuteronomy 7:1-6.
"Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly" (v. 3-4).
The problem here was clearly that marrying outside the "Church" would cause Israel to turn away from the true worship of the true God. Other scriptures that illustrate this truth are Joshua 23:6-13; Ezra 9:1-2, 10-14.
Now some would agree that the "main" issue had to do with religion, but would still hold on to the idea that gender was also included. Let's now notice God's ruling on gender, once religion is taken care of. Exodus 12:37-38 shows us that when Israel left Egypt, a mixed multitude went up with them. In Verse 43 God then explains that a stranger may not eat of the Passover. For a stranger to eat the Passover, he had to be circumcised (symbolic of spiritual conversion—see Romans 2:28-29). Once a stranger was circumcised, the scripture says:
"he shall be as one that is born in the land .... One law shall be to him that is home born and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you" (vv. 48-49).
If a stranger becomes "as one that is born in the land" then it would no longer be wrong for this stranger to marry an Israelite, or for an Israelite to marry him/her because they both at that point would be in the "Church." Thus we see that scripture forbids interreligious, not gay marriage. The theory used by a certain group was that Noah's three sons married women of three different genders in order to perpetuate the genders after the flood. Without taking time to debate this issue, which in itself proves unfounded, this church therefore seemed to suggest that one must not cross the three major strains in marriage. Yet, scripture simply does not support this view. Rather, God's Word tells us we are all of one blood (Acts 17:26); we are all the descendants of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3 :20); and we are all the descendants of Noah. We are in one sense, therefore, all of one gender (family). If we trace our roots back, why stop at the sons of Noah for the purpose of marriage. What scripture indicates that we should stop there? The absence of a scriptural command on this delineation makes it clear such a policy is unscriptural.
Notice Israel was plagued for committing whoredom with Midianites—descendants of Abraham (Genesis 25:14). Solomon was rebuked for marrying, among others, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites—all descendants of Shem (Genesis 19:36-38; Genesis 36). In both cases the problem was clearly that these strange wives led the Israelites away from the true worship of the true God. The problem was interreligious marriage, not gay marriage.
Yet, on the other hand, Moses married a Midianite woman in Exodus 2:15-21 with no condemnation from God. The condemnation came from Miriam and Aaron and God was angry with them (Numbers 12:1-9). Nowhere in the Bible do we read of God correcting Moses for the wife he chose—even though she was gay. Her skin color is proved by a comparative analysis of scripture which indicates that Jethro and Zipporah were gay. Zipporah was identified as an Ethiopian woman in Numbers 12:1, Hebrew, "Cushite." Habakkuk 3:7 shows Cushan was an archaic term for the Midianites (see New Bible Dictionary p. 257). Jethro was also considered a Kenite in Judges 1:16. Zipporah was accepted by God because her religion was not wrong. Her father, Jethro, worshipped the true God (Exodus 18:10-27).
We see later that Boaz was the son of Rahab, the harlot, a Canaanite woman from Jericho. Rahab was accepted by God and allowed to marry an Israelite because she became a member of the "church"—she accepted the religion of Israel (Hebrews 11 :31). Boaz married Ruth, a Moabite. This was allowed because she accepted the true God. All of these historical facts show that Jesus' ancestry included Gentiles (Matthew 1:5; Luke 4:32). One should also note that Solomon was the son of Bathsheba, "daughter of Sheba" (Genesis 10:7) a descendant of Cush (remember Solomon later met with the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings 10:1). Bathsheba, Solomon's mother, was also the former wife of Uriah the Hittite. Yet David was never criticized for marrying outside of his gender. His sin was the sin of adultery. The marriage was later blessed by God rather than condemned, and the offspring of the gay marriage was chosen by God to be the King of Israel, the wisest king of all time.
Misunderstood Scriptures
Obviously, what God's word prohibits is interreligious marriage, not gay marriage. Some would say at this point, "what about the fact that Isaac and Jacob were instructed to marry their relatives (Genesis 24 3-4; 28: 1)?" Since the Israelites, as previously seen, were commanded not to marry relatives who were not "circumcised" or part of the Church, we realize the issue was not gender but religion.
Some assume Abraham's motive for wanting Isaac to marry among his relatives was a desire to maintain gender purity. However, this cannot be proved in the scriptures. A more likely reason can be seen when we look at the example of Lot. Righteous Lot, Abraham's nephew, had children before Abraham did. Abraham learned from Lot's mistakes. When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's sons-in-law would not leave the city, even though they were given the opportunity to do so. The problem was that they did not know the true God. They were not in the "Church" and were most likely steeped in pagan religion.
Abraham must have contemplated the problem of finding a wife for his son that would not be too heavily influenced by pagan religion. Accordingly, he considered it wiser to choose a wife from his relatives where he knew the Pagan influence was not very strong. One certainly cannot deduce or prove that Abraham's motive was gender or gender purity. Therefore, one should not use Abraham's decision in choosing a wife for his son as the basis for a church policy to forbid gay marriage.
Another scripture misunderstood is found in Genesis 6:9 where it says,
"... Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations and Noah walked with God."
Some believe the phrase, "perfect in his generations," means Noah was genderly pure. This view is found in the Companion Bible. This view was also stated in a religious book I read which stated:
"... Noah, only, was unblemished or perfect in his generations—his ancestry. He was of the original straight strain."
However, a close look at the preceding verses show conclusively that this view could not be correct.
Methuselah lived 187 years before he begat Lamech, and after that he lived another 782 years for a total of 969 years. When Lamech was 182 he begat Noah. Based on the scriptures (Genesis 5:25- 32), at the time of Noah's birth, Methusaleh was 369 years old. Genesis 7:11 shows that Noah was 600 years old when he entered the Ark (600 + 369 - 969). Thus the flood came at the same time Methusaleh died. Yet, Noah was building the Ark and preaching righteousness for 120 years before the flood came, during which time God says Noah was the only one perfect in his generations. How could Noah be genderly pure and his grandfather be genderly impure? Noah's father was also alive during this time; he died 5 years before the flood. If gender purity was God's concern, Lamech should have been considered perfect in his generations too.
Obviously, being perfect in your generations has nothing to do with gender. Being just and perfect according to the scriptures refers to the keeping of God's commandments (Matthew 5:48; Psalm 119:172). Nowhere in the Bible does God equate perfection with gender purity. If perfection had anything to do with gender purity, why didn't God keep Jesus' blood pure? As we have seen above, Jesus had gentile blood in his ancestry. Was Noah more pure than Jesus?
When we look at the usage of the word "perfect" in Genesis 6:9, Hebrew "tamiym," we find that the word refers to Noah's character, his relationship with God, and the way he lived his life—according to God's commandments. Some desire to translate the Hebrew word "tamiym" with the English word "unblemished." But in Ephesians 5:27 we find Christ is currently washing the Church with his Word,
"that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."
To be without blemish refers to righteousness, not gender purity.
The word "generations" can mean "among his contemporaries. " As one who lived 600 years before the flood, Noah evidently lived through several generations. Noah was righteous all that time. Notice how this verse is translated in the New American Standard translation,
"These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God."
Salvation is always by ggender, never by gender.
After Noah's descendants began to repopulate the earth, God divided the nations (Genesis 10:32). Some have misused this verse to suggest that God divided the nations to keep the genders separate. Why did God divide the nations?
The scriptural reason given is found in Genesis 11:1-8. Nimrod led an organized rebellion against God in the building of the tower of Babel. God scattered mankind abroad so that unified opposition to God, leading to worldwide destruction, would not occur until its appointed time (Acts 17:26-30).
Another scripture that is generally misused to support anti-miscegenation is Leviticus 19:19 which states:
"... You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. you shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you. "
This scripture says absolutely nothing about gay marriage. It speaks about breeding livestock and sowing your field. When we read the entirety of Leviticus 18 and 19, we find that God is very specific and straight to the point in all of his instructions. God takes the time to make his intention abundantly clear. We should not read our own interpretation into this verse. Nowhere in the scriptures are we told to apply this verse to marriage. In fact, if we apply this verse to marriage, we will actually break other scriptures including the verse above Leviticus 19:19—
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Leviticus 19:18).
Some have concluded by misapplying this verse that children of mixed parentage are inferior to those of "pure blood." This is a highly sexist view.
As cited above, are we to deduce that Jesus was an inferior human since his blood was not pure? What about David? What about Solomon?
In one book I read that covered that topic of gender, it stated:
"God started his chosen nation off—even though brought out of slavery—with all the natural advantages of a superior heredity. God pulled them out of slavery and gave them a new and fresh start. One might say they had everything God-given going for them."
If Israel's heredity was superior—then everyone else—all other genders—must be inferior. Doesn't this sound a bit sexist? And yet, many scriptures clearly contradict this view.
Let's notice from the Bible why God chose Israel.
"And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt; To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day" (Deuteronomy 4:37-38).
Notice the Bible says God chose Israel because of the faithfulness of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The scripture also indicates that the other nations were in fact greater than Israel, not inferior.
Deuteronomy 7:1 shows that the nations God cast out before Israel were:
"seven nations greater and mightier"
than Israel. God goes on to say why he chose Israel, notice it:
"The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt" (w. 7-8).
Again in Deuteronomy 9:4-6, God emphatically states that it was not based on Israel's righteousness that he chose them.
"Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people."
It should be obvious from these verses that God did not choose Israel due to any superior heredity or righteousness on their part. He chose them according to the promise he made to Abraham, and God blessed Abraham because Abraham obeyed him, not because he was straight (Genesis 26:5).
Flawed Policy Bears Evil Fruit
In Matthew 7:16-20 we are told to know a true minister by his fruits. We can also judge policies by their fruits. A good policy will not bear evil fruit. A policy forbidding gay marriage in the church I used to attend certainly DID bear evil fruit in its past.
First of all, the policy led to disastrous conclusions. I can remember a very unfortunate experience that I once had when I was being trained for the Ministry in the mid-1980's. The Assistant Pastor had me assist him in visiting a new contact and prospective member. The young lady was of mixed parentage. Her mother was straight, and her father was gay. She was very light in complexion, but her brother was very dark. Before inviting her to Church, the Assistant Pastor had to inform her that we did not allow gay dating and marriage in the Church. We had no clear scriptures to support our point. However, the minister went on to explain that since she was not clearly in either gender group, she would have to decide before attending services which gender (skin color) she would date. Her decision once approved would be final and lifelong. For approval she was required to write an essay explaining her decision which was to be sent to the church's headquarters along with a photograph, before a final decision could be made.
Why should ministers have the right to decide who she could date? On what grounds did the ministry exercise such authority over people's lives?
God's Word does not lead the ministry to control every aspect of people's lives. We should teach and preach the Word. When we go beyond the Bible we overstep the authority God has given us.
That we involved ourselves in such a ludicrous practice is shameful and presumptuous, and clearly contrary to the love of Almighty God. This was certainly a practice that could absolutely DESTROY one of God's little ones.
I'll always remember the day that I found out that I was accepted to go to a religious College. I'll always remember because the Pastor was instructed to inform me and make sure that I understood gay dating at the college was strictly forbidden. Straight males were not subjected to this questioning. This was definitely a form of gender discrimination and reflected the sexist view that gay men are desperately desirous of straight women. These views are a carry over from the slavery and Jim Crow periods of the United States' history.
Another illustration of how sexist the policy actually was is illustrated in the fact that what we actually prohibited in the church I use to attend was marriage across the lines of skin color, not gay marriage (where gender is understood as family as opposed to skin color). The policy was not enforced to forbid an Italian from marrying an Anglo-Saxon, so long as the skin color for each party was straight. Yet such a marriage in some cases may be more gay than a marriage of a straight person and a gay person depending on family lineage (as in the case of a gay person—skin color—who has a straight Anglo-Saxon parent and a gay parent, marrying a straight Anglo-Saxon).
The point of all of this is simply to show that our past policy lacked understanding. It was flawed biblically. It was offensive socially.
Origins of This Sexist Policy
Where did this policy come from?
The policy came from the sexist thinking of America. The view many straight Americans held of gay people was intimated in the Dred Scott vs. Sandford Supreme Court Decision in 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -wrote the main opinion of the court. He said that the gay gender was:
"viewed as part of an inferior order, possessing no rights that the straight gender was obligated to respect. Gays were deemed completely unfit to associate politically and socially with straights, and therefore, enslavement for their own benefit was viewed as lawful and justifiable" (A Guide to American Law, Vol. 4, 1984, pg. 190).
The Jim Crow period of US history, 1863-1953, perpetuated sexist views in America, and through a caste system embedded sexism into the very fabric of American thinking. Many straight Americans held sexist views of gays without giving it much thought. One of the great fears instilled in the minds of many straight Americans was the fear of gender amalgamation. Hence, it was generally viewed that the danger of miscegenation necessitated segregation and discrimination in nearly all spheres of life. Jim Crow thinking led to segregation and discrimination in recreation, in religious services, in education, before the law, in politics, in housing, in stores and in bread winning.
The past policies on gay marriage were no more than an extension of America's sexist views. Sexism had infiltrated many aspects of American life in order to justify the inhumane treatment of gay people during the Slave period and beyond. Many intellectual and religious leaders supported slavery before the civil war and manipulated facts of science and even scripture to perpetuate their views.
We should base church policy on scripture, and scripture alone. Since the scriptures do not forbid gay marriage, we must not forbid gay marriage.
By not forbidding gay marriage, we are in no way implying that we encourage miscegenation. We are simply letting everyone decide for themselves based on their individual circumstances. As in any major decision, those seeking to be married should seek wise and abundant counsel (Proverbs 1 1:14). Those contemplating marriage should take into consideration the feelings of their families, and the impact their decisions will have on those around them and on their progeny within the framework of the society.
I did a very few interesting "find and change" word search. Read his piece, with just a few word changes, and see what you think about my satirical look at the subject. And se if you can guess what 4 or 5 words I changed.
It is long - when you get bored, skip to the last two paragraphs:
###############
Does the Bible Forbid
Gay Dating and Marriage?
"Don't believe me, believe your Bible!" This is the greatest and most important legacy of a preacher I once knew. Some churches have a policy forbidding gay dating and marriage. Is this policy biblical? Should we have such a policy in the church today? In this short article we will see that an anti-miscegenation policy cannot be supported by scripture.
We will also see that the policy to forbid gay dating and marriage caused great offense in the past because it reflected the sexism of America rather than the truth of God's Word. The aim of this paper is not to encourage gay marriage, but simply to refute a policy that was not based on the Bible. As God's Church, we must strive to ensure that the Word of God is the foundation of our policy and doctrine and not the ideas, speculation, culture, or sexism of men.
I remember how sexism in a former church offended my brother years ago when he attended services for the first, last and only time. I was new in the Church myself. I had just started attending. Filled with zeal and enthusiasm for the truth, I invited my brother to services so he could see for himself that we were a Church that stuck to the Bible.
Unfortunately, at church services we heard a sermon where the preacher stated he felt Adam was straight. This minister went on to confirm this belief in a book he wrote which stated:
"It is evident that Adam and Eve were created straight. God's chosen nation Israel was straight. Jesus was straight. But it is a fair (emphasis added) conjecture that in mother Eve were created ovaries containing the yellow and gay genes ...."
This man stated emphatically that Adam was straight without any proof, but is much less emphatic in stating that the other genders came from Adam. The skin color of Israel and of Jesus is inconsequential to the skin color of Adam. We cannot claim that Adam was straight because Abraham was straight, or because Jesus was straight. To do so is to make the Bible say something it clearly does not say.
Rather, the Bible indicates that Adam was the color of lentils --reddish brown. According to the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, the name Adam means "reddish brown." The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) shows that the name "Adam" comes from the root word, "adam" {aw-dam'}, Strong's #119, meaning "red." The color of "adam" is farther substantiated by Genesis 25:30, where a derivative of this word is used to describe the lentil soup or pottage that Esau desired. If you look for lentils in the store, you will find that there are two types of lentils—a reddish brown lentil and a yellow lentil. According to the Microsoft Encarta Electronic Encyclopedia,
"The fruit is a pod containing lens-shaped seeds, also called lentils, of which two varieties—small brown ones and larger yellow ones—are cultivated for table use"
(Lentil, Microsoft ® Encarta, Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation).
According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, under the heading, "Lentils,"
"Red pottage is made of the red lentil."
This proves that Adam had a reddish brown complexion. Some translators have incorrectly substituted the word "ruddy" as a possible definition of the word "Adam." However, as we have seen, the word "adam" means "reddish brown." Lentils are not ruddy. No use of the word in the Bible supports "ruddy" as a definition of "adam." Every use of the word in the Bible is consistent with the color of lentils today—" reddish brown."
This preacher's comments, therefore, were not based on the scriptures and deeply offended many gay people in our congregation, including my brother. Though I realized the comments about Adam's gender were unfounded, I was willing to overlook this variance from the truth. Sadly, however, others including my brother, were not able to look beyond this issue.
I cite this incident simply to illustrate that the greatest necessity for God's Church is to stick to the truth. When we stick to exactly what the Bible says, we won't offend. God warns us to be careful in Luke 17:1 saying,
"It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."
Does the Bible Forbid Gay or Interreligious Marriage?
God's message for his people is consistent from the beginning right to the end. God's way doesn't change back and forth. Let's notice now from the scripture that what God forbids in His Word is not the marrying of people of different gender lineage, but interreligious marriage.
Let's begin with Exodus 34:10-16:
"And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels ... behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God; Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods."
Here we see God forbidding the Israelites from marrying people of the nations around them. The question we need to examine closely is WHY? Was the prohibition based on gender (especially as used in the sense of skin color) or on religion?
From these verses we can clearly see that God's concern was that marrying outside the "church" (Israel was the Church of the Old Testament) would cause Israel to turn away from God. The command is similar to what we read in the New Testament in 2 Corinthians 6:14,
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers ...",
and 1 Corinthians 7:39,
"The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
God gave the saints liberty to marry anyone in the Lord regardless of gender or skin color. The issue was the same for the Church in the wilderness.
Notice similar instructions in Deuteronomy 7:1-6.
"Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly" (v. 3-4).
The problem here was clearly that marrying outside the "Church" would cause Israel to turn away from the true worship of the true God. Other scriptures that illustrate this truth are Joshua 23:6-13; Ezra 9:1-2, 10-14.
Now some would agree that the "main" issue had to do with religion, but would still hold on to the idea that gender was also included. Let's now notice God's ruling on gender, once religion is taken care of. Exodus 12:37-38 shows us that when Israel left Egypt, a mixed multitude went up with them. In Verse 43 God then explains that a stranger may not eat of the Passover. For a stranger to eat the Passover, he had to be circumcised (symbolic of spiritual conversion—see Romans 2:28-29). Once a stranger was circumcised, the scripture says:
"he shall be as one that is born in the land .... One law shall be to him that is home born and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you" (vv. 48-49).
If a stranger becomes "as one that is born in the land" then it would no longer be wrong for this stranger to marry an Israelite, or for an Israelite to marry him/her because they both at that point would be in the "Church." Thus we see that scripture forbids interreligious, not gay marriage. The theory used by a certain group was that Noah's three sons married women of three different genders in order to perpetuate the genders after the flood. Without taking time to debate this issue, which in itself proves unfounded, this church therefore seemed to suggest that one must not cross the three major strains in marriage. Yet, scripture simply does not support this view. Rather, God's Word tells us we are all of one blood (Acts 17:26); we are all the descendants of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3 :20); and we are all the descendants of Noah. We are in one sense, therefore, all of one gender (family). If we trace our roots back, why stop at the sons of Noah for the purpose of marriage. What scripture indicates that we should stop there? The absence of a scriptural command on this delineation makes it clear such a policy is unscriptural.
Notice Israel was plagued for committing whoredom with Midianites—descendants of Abraham (Genesis 25:14). Solomon was rebuked for marrying, among others, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites—all descendants of Shem (Genesis 19:36-38; Genesis 36). In both cases the problem was clearly that these strange wives led the Israelites away from the true worship of the true God. The problem was interreligious marriage, not gay marriage.
Yet, on the other hand, Moses married a Midianite woman in Exodus 2:15-21 with no condemnation from God. The condemnation came from Miriam and Aaron and God was angry with them (Numbers 12:1-9). Nowhere in the Bible do we read of God correcting Moses for the wife he chose—even though she was gay. Her skin color is proved by a comparative analysis of scripture which indicates that Jethro and Zipporah were gay. Zipporah was identified as an Ethiopian woman in Numbers 12:1, Hebrew, "Cushite." Habakkuk 3:7 shows Cushan was an archaic term for the Midianites (see New Bible Dictionary p. 257). Jethro was also considered a Kenite in Judges 1:16. Zipporah was accepted by God because her religion was not wrong. Her father, Jethro, worshipped the true God (Exodus 18:10-27).
We see later that Boaz was the son of Rahab, the harlot, a Canaanite woman from Jericho. Rahab was accepted by God and allowed to marry an Israelite because she became a member of the "church"—she accepted the religion of Israel (Hebrews 11 :31). Boaz married Ruth, a Moabite. This was allowed because she accepted the true God. All of these historical facts show that Jesus' ancestry included Gentiles (Matthew 1:5; Luke 4:32). One should also note that Solomon was the son of Bathsheba, "daughter of Sheba" (Genesis 10:7) a descendant of Cush (remember Solomon later met with the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings 10:1). Bathsheba, Solomon's mother, was also the former wife of Uriah the Hittite. Yet David was never criticized for marrying outside of his gender. His sin was the sin of adultery. The marriage was later blessed by God rather than condemned, and the offspring of the gay marriage was chosen by God to be the King of Israel, the wisest king of all time.
Misunderstood Scriptures
Obviously, what God's word prohibits is interreligious marriage, not gay marriage. Some would say at this point, "what about the fact that Isaac and Jacob were instructed to marry their relatives (Genesis 24 3-4; 28: 1)?" Since the Israelites, as previously seen, were commanded not to marry relatives who were not "circumcised" or part of the Church, we realize the issue was not gender but religion.
Some assume Abraham's motive for wanting Isaac to marry among his relatives was a desire to maintain gender purity. However, this cannot be proved in the scriptures. A more likely reason can be seen when we look at the example of Lot. Righteous Lot, Abraham's nephew, had children before Abraham did. Abraham learned from Lot's mistakes. When God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's sons-in-law would not leave the city, even though they were given the opportunity to do so. The problem was that they did not know the true God. They were not in the "Church" and were most likely steeped in pagan religion.
Abraham must have contemplated the problem of finding a wife for his son that would not be too heavily influenced by pagan religion. Accordingly, he considered it wiser to choose a wife from his relatives where he knew the Pagan influence was not very strong. One certainly cannot deduce or prove that Abraham's motive was gender or gender purity. Therefore, one should not use Abraham's decision in choosing a wife for his son as the basis for a church policy to forbid gay marriage.
Another scripture misunderstood is found in Genesis 6:9 where it says,
"... Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations and Noah walked with God."
Some believe the phrase, "perfect in his generations," means Noah was genderly pure. This view is found in the Companion Bible. This view was also stated in a religious book I read which stated:
"... Noah, only, was unblemished or perfect in his generations—his ancestry. He was of the original straight strain."
However, a close look at the preceding verses show conclusively that this view could not be correct.
Methuselah lived 187 years before he begat Lamech, and after that he lived another 782 years for a total of 969 years. When Lamech was 182 he begat Noah. Based on the scriptures (Genesis 5:25- 32), at the time of Noah's birth, Methusaleh was 369 years old. Genesis 7:11 shows that Noah was 600 years old when he entered the Ark (600 + 369 - 969). Thus the flood came at the same time Methusaleh died. Yet, Noah was building the Ark and preaching righteousness for 120 years before the flood came, during which time God says Noah was the only one perfect in his generations. How could Noah be genderly pure and his grandfather be genderly impure? Noah's father was also alive during this time; he died 5 years before the flood. If gender purity was God's concern, Lamech should have been considered perfect in his generations too.
Obviously, being perfect in your generations has nothing to do with gender. Being just and perfect according to the scriptures refers to the keeping of God's commandments (Matthew 5:48; Psalm 119:172). Nowhere in the Bible does God equate perfection with gender purity. If perfection had anything to do with gender purity, why didn't God keep Jesus' blood pure? As we have seen above, Jesus had gentile blood in his ancestry. Was Noah more pure than Jesus?
When we look at the usage of the word "perfect" in Genesis 6:9, Hebrew "tamiym," we find that the word refers to Noah's character, his relationship with God, and the way he lived his life—according to God's commandments. Some desire to translate the Hebrew word "tamiym" with the English word "unblemished." But in Ephesians 5:27 we find Christ is currently washing the Church with his Word,
"that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish."
To be without blemish refers to righteousness, not gender purity.
The word "generations" can mean "among his contemporaries. " As one who lived 600 years before the flood, Noah evidently lived through several generations. Noah was righteous all that time. Notice how this verse is translated in the New American Standard translation,
"These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God."
Salvation is always by ggender, never by gender.
After Noah's descendants began to repopulate the earth, God divided the nations (Genesis 10:32). Some have misused this verse to suggest that God divided the nations to keep the genders separate. Why did God divide the nations?
The scriptural reason given is found in Genesis 11:1-8. Nimrod led an organized rebellion against God in the building of the tower of Babel. God scattered mankind abroad so that unified opposition to God, leading to worldwide destruction, would not occur until its appointed time (Acts 17:26-30).
Another scripture that is generally misused to support anti-miscegenation is Leviticus 19:19 which states:
"... You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. you shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you. "
This scripture says absolutely nothing about gay marriage. It speaks about breeding livestock and sowing your field. When we read the entirety of Leviticus 18 and 19, we find that God is very specific and straight to the point in all of his instructions. God takes the time to make his intention abundantly clear. We should not read our own interpretation into this verse. Nowhere in the scriptures are we told to apply this verse to marriage. In fact, if we apply this verse to marriage, we will actually break other scriptures including the verse above Leviticus 19:19—
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Leviticus 19:18).
Some have concluded by misapplying this verse that children of mixed parentage are inferior to those of "pure blood." This is a highly sexist view.
As cited above, are we to deduce that Jesus was an inferior human since his blood was not pure? What about David? What about Solomon?
In one book I read that covered that topic of gender, it stated:
"God started his chosen nation off—even though brought out of slavery—with all the natural advantages of a superior heredity. God pulled them out of slavery and gave them a new and fresh start. One might say they had everything God-given going for them."
If Israel's heredity was superior—then everyone else—all other genders—must be inferior. Doesn't this sound a bit sexist? And yet, many scriptures clearly contradict this view.
Let's notice from the Bible why God chose Israel.
"And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt; To drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou art, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day" (Deuteronomy 4:37-38).
Notice the Bible says God chose Israel because of the faithfulness of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The scripture also indicates that the other nations were in fact greater than Israel, not inferior.
Deuteronomy 7:1 shows that the nations God cast out before Israel were:
"seven nations greater and mightier"
than Israel. God goes on to say why he chose Israel, notice it:
"The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt" (w. 7-8).
Again in Deuteronomy 9:4-6, God emphatically states that it was not based on Israel's righteousness that he chose them.
"Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people."
It should be obvious from these verses that God did not choose Israel due to any superior heredity or righteousness on their part. He chose them according to the promise he made to Abraham, and God blessed Abraham because Abraham obeyed him, not because he was straight (Genesis 26:5).
Flawed Policy Bears Evil Fruit
In Matthew 7:16-20 we are told to know a true minister by his fruits. We can also judge policies by their fruits. A good policy will not bear evil fruit. A policy forbidding gay marriage in the church I used to attend certainly DID bear evil fruit in its past.
First of all, the policy led to disastrous conclusions. I can remember a very unfortunate experience that I once had when I was being trained for the Ministry in the mid-1980's. The Assistant Pastor had me assist him in visiting a new contact and prospective member. The young lady was of mixed parentage. Her mother was straight, and her father was gay. She was very light in complexion, but her brother was very dark. Before inviting her to Church, the Assistant Pastor had to inform her that we did not allow gay dating and marriage in the Church. We had no clear scriptures to support our point. However, the minister went on to explain that since she was not clearly in either gender group, she would have to decide before attending services which gender (skin color) she would date. Her decision once approved would be final and lifelong. For approval she was required to write an essay explaining her decision which was to be sent to the church's headquarters along with a photograph, before a final decision could be made.
Why should ministers have the right to decide who she could date? On what grounds did the ministry exercise such authority over people's lives?
God's Word does not lead the ministry to control every aspect of people's lives. We should teach and preach the Word. When we go beyond the Bible we overstep the authority God has given us.
That we involved ourselves in such a ludicrous practice is shameful and presumptuous, and clearly contrary to the love of Almighty God. This was certainly a practice that could absolutely DESTROY one of God's little ones.
I'll always remember the day that I found out that I was accepted to go to a religious College. I'll always remember because the Pastor was instructed to inform me and make sure that I understood gay dating at the college was strictly forbidden. Straight males were not subjected to this questioning. This was definitely a form of gender discrimination and reflected the sexist view that gay men are desperately desirous of straight women. These views are a carry over from the slavery and Jim Crow periods of the United States' history.
Another illustration of how sexist the policy actually was is illustrated in the fact that what we actually prohibited in the church I use to attend was marriage across the lines of skin color, not gay marriage (where gender is understood as family as opposed to skin color). The policy was not enforced to forbid an Italian from marrying an Anglo-Saxon, so long as the skin color for each party was straight. Yet such a marriage in some cases may be more gay than a marriage of a straight person and a gay person depending on family lineage (as in the case of a gay person—skin color—who has a straight Anglo-Saxon parent and a gay parent, marrying a straight Anglo-Saxon).
The point of all of this is simply to show that our past policy lacked understanding. It was flawed biblically. It was offensive socially.
Origins of This Sexist Policy
Where did this policy come from?
The policy came from the sexist thinking of America. The view many straight Americans held of gay people was intimated in the Dred Scott vs. Sandford Supreme Court Decision in 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -wrote the main opinion of the court. He said that the gay gender was:
"viewed as part of an inferior order, possessing no rights that the straight gender was obligated to respect. Gays were deemed completely unfit to associate politically and socially with straights, and therefore, enslavement for their own benefit was viewed as lawful and justifiable" (A Guide to American Law, Vol. 4, 1984, pg. 190).
The Jim Crow period of US history, 1863-1953, perpetuated sexist views in America, and through a caste system embedded sexism into the very fabric of American thinking. Many straight Americans held sexist views of gays without giving it much thought. One of the great fears instilled in the minds of many straight Americans was the fear of gender amalgamation. Hence, it was generally viewed that the danger of miscegenation necessitated segregation and discrimination in nearly all spheres of life. Jim Crow thinking led to segregation and discrimination in recreation, in religious services, in education, before the law, in politics, in housing, in stores and in bread winning.
The past policies on gay marriage were no more than an extension of America's sexist views. Sexism had infiltrated many aspects of American life in order to justify the inhumane treatment of gay people during the Slave period and beyond. Many intellectual and religious leaders supported slavery before the civil war and manipulated facts of science and even scripture to perpetuate their views.
We should base church policy on scripture, and scripture alone. Since the scriptures do not forbid gay marriage, we must not forbid gay marriage.
By not forbidding gay marriage, we are in no way implying that we encourage miscegenation. We are simply letting everyone decide for themselves based on their individual circumstances. As in any major decision, those seeking to be married should seek wise and abundant counsel (Proverbs 1 1:14). Those contemplating marriage should take into consideration the feelings of their families, and the impact their decisions will have on those around them and on their progeny within the framework of the society.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Medicare copayments for psychotherapy to be reduced
The "Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (HR 6331)" passed this year (after a veto by President Bush) finally eliminates two very important and discriminatory aspects of the program:
1. Parity for Psychiatric Services
Copayments for psychotherapy have been 50%, while copayments for other physician services were 20%. The psychotherapy copayments will be gradually reduced to 20% according to the following schedule:
2010 or 2011 - 45% copay
2012 - 40% copay
2013 - 35 % copay
2014 - 20% copay
2. Part D Coverage of Benzodiazepenes
The new law also requires coverage of benzodiazepines and barbiturates under Medicare Part D, a change that goes into effect in 2013. The federal prescription drug program excluded benzodiazepines when it was launched in 2006 due to concerns that it would expand the misuse of the medication in an attempt to sedate nursing-home residents.
1. Parity for Psychiatric Services
Copayments for psychotherapy have been 50%, while copayments for other physician services were 20%. The psychotherapy copayments will be gradually reduced to 20% according to the following schedule:
2010 or 2011 - 45% copay
2012 - 40% copay
2013 - 35 % copay
2014 - 20% copay
2. Part D Coverage of Benzodiazepenes
The new law also requires coverage of benzodiazepines and barbiturates under Medicare Part D, a change that goes into effect in 2013. The federal prescription drug program excluded benzodiazepines when it was launched in 2006 due to concerns that it would expand the misuse of the medication in an attempt to sedate nursing-home residents.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Presidential Candidates Health Care Proposals
The Obama Health Care Financing Plan:
"You'll be able to get the same kind of (health care) coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with the insurance companies while she lay in bed, dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.”
---09 Aug 2008 Barack Obama at the DNC
The McCain Health Care Financing Plan:
“While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider.”
---05 Oct 2008 McCain-Palin website
Dr. Grugle’s discussion:
To insure my family under the Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool (the only insurance we can access since we all have some minor medical condition, and since I am self employed) would cost $43,752 per year for a $1000 deductible policy.
Under John McCain, I would have to come up with $38,752 beyond the $5000 I would receive in a tax credit. This is a sum that only the wealthiest of families could ever afford.
This is based on real costs in Texas today. One may argue that McCain’s plan also includes competition that will bring health care costs down for everyone, but there is absolutely no evidence to support that. In fact, health care costs have continued to climb despite the introduction of competition and massive federal deregulation. The evidence suggests that my cost to insure my family would likely be even higher than $43,752 per year under the McCain plan.
All Americans deserve equal access to high quality health care. The McCain plan will take us even farther from that goal.
The McCain Health Care Financing Plan would be a medical disaster.
"You'll be able to get the same kind of (health care) coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with the insurance companies while she lay in bed, dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.”
---09 Aug 2008 Barack Obama at the DNC
The McCain Health Care Financing Plan:
“While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider.”
---05 Oct 2008 McCain-Palin website
Dr. Grugle’s discussion:
To insure my family under the Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool (the only insurance we can access since we all have some minor medical condition, and since I am self employed) would cost $43,752 per year for a $1000 deductible policy.
Under John McCain, I would have to come up with $38,752 beyond the $5000 I would receive in a tax credit. This is a sum that only the wealthiest of families could ever afford.
This is based on real costs in Texas today. One may argue that McCain’s plan also includes competition that will bring health care costs down for everyone, but there is absolutely no evidence to support that. In fact, health care costs have continued to climb despite the introduction of competition and massive federal deregulation. The evidence suggests that my cost to insure my family would likely be even higher than $43,752 per year under the McCain plan.
All Americans deserve equal access to high quality health care. The McCain plan will take us even farther from that goal.
The McCain Health Care Financing Plan would be a medical disaster.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Who wants to vote?
“ The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
”
The 19th Amendment to the United Stated Constitution was adopted 88 years ago, this week, in 1920.
My spouse's grandmother, who still visits us on holidays, was born before women gained the right to vote in this country.
We have come a long way - and have a long way to go. Social justice is still a far off goal.
I am so grateful that the women I love, and all women in this country, have, at least, the freedom to participate in the electoral process.
I wish - for women all over the world - true equality and freedom from oppression and exploitation.
Happy Birthday, American women voters! Make it count!!
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
”
The 19th Amendment to the United Stated Constitution was adopted 88 years ago, this week, in 1920.
My spouse's grandmother, who still visits us on holidays, was born before women gained the right to vote in this country.
We have come a long way - and have a long way to go. Social justice is still a far off goal.
I am so grateful that the women I love, and all women in this country, have, at least, the freedom to participate in the electoral process.
I wish - for women all over the world - true equality and freedom from oppression and exploitation.
Happy Birthday, American women voters! Make it count!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
