Voice Of The Blood Of Abel

6 December 2012

The Voice of the Blood of Abel

The Book of Genesis tells the story of the first two sons of Adam and Eve: Cain who was a "tiller of the ground" and builder of the first city, and Abel who was a "herder of sheep".

In the Bible the "ground" represents the material side of human nature, the city represents civil society, and the builders of cities represent civil authority. The shepherd represents spiritual authority in the form of pastor, priest or minister of God and his flock are the body of believers.

Cain offered up to God the "fruits of the ground" - material wealth - while Abel offered the souls of his flock. The offering of Abel was more pleasing to God than the offering of Cain, by which Cain was provoked to anger. God urged Cain to "do good" and warned that sin “crouches at the door” of civil society. Civil society is at risk of sin because it is concerned with the pursuit of pleasure, personal ambition and the things of the material world. Civil authority aggravates the risk because it has power to enact laws which may not accord with the law of God.

The resentful Cain then killed his younger brother Abel, and when challenged by God, asked "Am I my brother's keeper?". Cain invokes what we now know as the principle of separation of church and state, and denies that it is any part of his duty to protect the church from harm. Cain is being dishonest. He has not merely failed to protect Abel. He has deliberately set out to slay him.

Eight years ago the realm of New Zealand set up the institution of “civil union” as an alternative to marriage, but civil union has not found favor with God. Few couples have chosen to join in civil union and in its disappointment the civil union movement has, like Cain, become "downcast of countenance". In response Parliament now proposes to redefine marriage so as to embrace homosexual relationships. The secular press has depicted Christians opposed to this move as racist bigots and child molesters, while secularists on “talk-back radio” have celebrated the concept of "gay marriage" as a "poke in the eye" for religion in general and Christianity in particular,

Those who have eyes to see the newspaper cartoons and ears to hear the talk-back hosts know that “gay marriage” is an attack on religion. What will be the consequences if it succeeds?, Civil society sees in gay marriage an opportunity for profit and progress but like Cain it will find its “profit” laid to waste and its “progress” nothing more than aimless wandering in the land of Nod.

Cain pleaded that his banishment would mean “anyone who finds me will kill me”, To prevent this, and to protect the civil authority from the threat of popular insurrection, God placed upon Cain the mark of sovereignty which we know as “the mark of Cain”. However, the Bible tells that the“voice of the blood” of Abel "cried out” to God from the ground where it fell. Blood mediates between the breath (the spirit) and the body (the earthly manifestation). The “blood of Abel” signifies those who communicate the Spirit of God to the body of believers, and the “voice of the blood” signifies the Word of God. Parliament may enact law but it can not still the voice of the blood of Abel and it cannot protect the people from the consequences of an assault upon the religion of God.

Correspondence:

Mark Jessum 12 December 2012

The bible and marriage equality

The story of Cain and Abel is not very relevant to the gay marriage debate and this particular interpretation of the story (as a metaphor for the relationship between the state and religion) is convoluted and a hindrance to understanding the core issues. Far better to just get straight to the point. Here is my response to your claims:

There is a claim that "The secular press has depicted Christians opposed to this move as [racist?] bigots". Firstly, Some commentators have depicted some opponents as bigots. This is because some opponents are bigots. Are all opponents bigots? No clearly not. A lot of antagonism to marriage equality has however come from people who still see homosexuality as unnatural and/or morally wrong and who refuse to budge from this view. Naturally these people become the focus for gay marriage proponents who see them as them as being at the core of entrenched gay prejudice and discrimination. Unfortunately some churches still insist that homosexuality is wrong and so they are the target of criticism for encouraging discrimination and prejudice.

You claim that "The secular press has depicted Christians opposed to this move as child molesters. Really? You'll need to give an example. I don't recall anyone being labeled a child molester let alone claiming all christians who are opposed are child molesters. This seems a distortion of your oppositions' argument.

Clearly, Christianity is not the same as religion so the two terms should not be confused. Some religious groups and some christians actually support gay marriage so this is not an attack on Christianity or religion per se. I think its fair to say though that this change challenges those Christians who think their religion is the only valid religion and it challenges any christian who thinks that their church has the right to define what marriage is or isn't.

This debate is about the relationship betwen church and state. It is part of an assertion that the state should be neutral in matters of religion and spiritual belief. Marriage should therefore be defined by statute and the state should remain neutral with regard to sexuality or gender. The state will sanction any two adults who are in a committed relationship (and who are of legal age etc) and who wish to have that legally recognised . The state does not mind what the religion is of the people getting married. All religions are entitled to marry people ( so long as the person performing the marrige ceremony is recognised as legally allowed to perform a marriage). The aim of the legislation is that the state will no longer care what the gender is of the married people and will be more interested in ensuring that the marriage is 'real' (ie not a fraud perpetrated toget a student allowance or to qualify for a change in immigration status).

Some people see marriage as a spiritual thing ordained by their gods but others do not. The state does not care what a couple's spiritual beliefs are. Marriage equality asserts that no particular spiritual grouping should be able to define what marraige is or isn't.

You claim that "Few couples have chosen to join in civil union". About 300 couples a year have entered into a civil union including some heterosecual couples (who did not want to be part of 'marriage' if it excluded gay people). The number of people making use of the legislation is not important. It is there primarily to give legal recognition to same sex relationships. The legislation was aimed at giving legal protection to same sex relationships and at allowing the public to get used to the idea of gay marriage. I don't think that is any revelation or anything to get worked up abbout. People are now used to the idea of gay marraige. They are accepting of it and two thirds of voters now support it. So its time to move on to just unifying the legislation and calling a civil union what it is - it is a marriage.

I ask you these questions? Are you a Christian and are your views on homosexuality shaped by your spiritual beliefs? Is homosexuality or marriage an an assault upon the religion of God? Is Hindiusm the religion of God? Should one religion or one church be able to define what the spiritual meaning of pair-bonding is ? Or should each couple be free to decide for themselves whether their relationship has a metaphysical implication?

Geoff Fischer 15 December 2012

Below, MJ=Mark Jessum, GF= Geoff Fischer

MJ: The bible and marriage equality: The story of Cain and Abel is not very relevant to the gay marriage debate

GF: The Cain and Abel story relates to the relationship between church and state, which is central to the debate over the incorporation of homosexuality into the institution of marriage. Therefore it is relevant. Whether it is "very relevant" is for the individual to judge.

MJ: and this particular interpretation of the story (as a metaphor for the relationship between the state and religion) is convoluted and a hindrance to understanding the core issues.

GF: "this particular interpretation" is the orthodox interpretation, and there is no other more meaningful interpretation of which I am aware. Biblical scriptures may be noted or ignored, but neither way do they hinder understanding. Another's different point of view is never an obstruction to one's own understanding.

MJ: Far better to just get straight to the point. Here is my response to your claims:
There is a claim that "The secular press has depicted Christians opposed to this move as [racist?] bigots". Firstly, Some commentators have depicted some opponents as bigots. This is because some opponents are bigots. Are all opponents bigots? No clearly not.

GF: The press (APN and News Media) has actually depicted all opponents as bigots, through the use of classic propaganda techniques adopted from the Third Reich. They have not depicted specific individuals as bigots - which would be justifiable if it was true and actionable if it was not - but both the New Zealand print media empires have depicted opponents of homosexual marriage as bigots and paedophiles in a general sense.

MJ: A lot of antagonism to marriage equality has however come from people who still see homosexuality as unnatural and/or morally wrong and who refuse to budge from this view. Naturally these people become the focus for gay marriage proponents who see them as them as being at the core of entrenched gay prejudice and discrimination. Unfortunately some churches still
insist that homosexuality is wrong and so they are the target of criticism for encouraging discrimination and prejudice.

GF: You would expect opposition from people who see homosexual acts as morally wrong. Those people can only be called prejudiced if they have come to a judgement without considering all the relevant facts and arguments available to them. In every other case, you might take issue with their judgement, but you cannot call them prejudiced. People can also be expected to discriminate against those who they believe to be a bad influence, and whose behaviours they believe to be wrong. Having said that, they should discriminate with judgement, wisdom, compassion and humility. My personal view is that the practice of homosexuality is socially destructive, and that is a view to which I will hold until persuaded otherwise. Criticism of that point of view is acceptable. Libel, slander, and black propaganda are not.
"People who still see homosexuality as unnatural and/or morally wrong" are at the crux of the problem for the homosexuals, who want to be accepted as people, and want homosexual acts to be accepted as "natural" and "good". The first desire is unexceptionable. The second is quite unrealistic, and even though homosexual marriage will provide state sanctification of homosexual acts, it will fall short of the absolute sense of social approbation sought by homosexuals.
.
MJ: You claim that "The secular press has depicted Christians opposed to this move as child molesters. Really? You'll need to give an example. I don't recall anyone being labeled a child molester let alone claiming all christians who are opposed are child molesters. This seems a distortion of your oppositions' argument.

GF: Yes, really, and no, it is not a distortion of the propaganda campaign in favour of homosexual marriage. One example is the cartoon in the Dominion Star Times which depicted a Catholic priest (obviously intended to be representative of the Catholic church as a whole) denouncing homosexual marriage while concealing a bunch of small children beneath his clerical robes. Another is the cartoon in the New Zealand Herald which depicted a Christian pastor as a malevolent opponent of Rosa Park's campaign for civil rights for black people in the United States.

MJ: Clearly, Christianity is not the same as religion so the two terms should not be confused. Some religious groups and some christians actually support gay marriage so this is not an attack on Christianity or religion per se. I think its fair to say though that this change challenges those Christians who think their religion is the only valid religion and it challenges any christian who
thinks that their church has the right to define what marriage is or isn't.

GF: Marriage has been defined from time immemorial. It is the state which is taking upon itself to change the fundamental meaning of words, in this case the word "marriage". That is wrong, it is arrogant, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Many proponents of homosexual marriage do see this as an opportunity to "have a go" at religion. The fact that some representatives of the churches are prepared to go along with them does not change what they feel in their own hearts - that religion is getting its come-uppance.

MJ: This debate is about the relationship betwen church and state. It is part of an assertion that the state should be neutral in matters of religion and spiritual belief. Marriage should therefore be defined by statute and the state should remain neutral with regard to sexuality or gender.

GF: When the state offends the sensibilities of religious believers it cannot claim to be neutral in matters of religion, even if it believes that it has right and justice on its side. In this case, the state is violating the fundamental tenets of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and many other religious traditions by taking up and promoting the homosexual cause. It is taking the side of those within the churches who endorse homosexuality against those who remain vehemently opposed to the practice. It is disingenuous for the homosexuals to argue otherwise. They know that the state is not neutral, but is their friend and ally in this enterprise.

MJ: The state will sanction any two adults who are in a committed relationship (and who are of legal age etc) and who wish to have that legally recognised . The state does not mind what the religion is of the people getting married. All religions are entitled to marry people ( so long as the person performing the marrige ceremony is recognised as legally allowed to perform a marriage). The aim of the legislation is that the state will no longer care what the gender is of the married people and will be more interested in ensuring that the marriage is 'real' (ie not a fraud perpetrated toget a student allowance or to qualify for a change in immigration status).

GF: The state is not so impartial. It will continue to discriminate against Muslim and old-order Mormon polygamists.There has been a fundamental change in the attitude of the state towards homosexuality, but it goes deeper than simply "not caring" The state stopped caring about homosexual practices in 1986 when homosexual acts were decriminalised. It has moved from "not caring" about homosexuality to actively promoting those practices.
How will the state judge whether a homosexual relationship is "real" and not "fraudulent"? Historically, the way of determining whether a marriage is genuine is to obtain evidence that sexual intercourse has taken place. The comparable test of a "genuine" homosexual marriage would be whether sodomy or some other specifically homosexual act - something more than hugging, or kissing - has taken place. Emotional commitment will not cut the mustard. So if the state is to take its obligations seriously it will once again be involved in determining whether homosexual acts have taken place, with the difference that this time the state will be demanding that people give proof of having engaged in those acts, rather than demanding that they refute allegations of homosexuality.

MJ: Some people see marriage as a spiritual thing ordained by their gods but others do not.

GF: Marriage has been a religious institution for millennia. Secularists may choose civil union, or a non-religious marriage.

MJ: The state does not care what a couple's spiritual beliefs are.

GF: That is not strictly true. The New Zealand state is based on the British model, in which there is a tacit understanding between church and state, rather than an absolute separation. Hence the Queen is both Head of State and Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith, and marriage is administered by the state in accordance with the tenets of the church (to this point in time).

MJ: Marriage equality asserts that no particular spiritual grouping should be able to define what marraige is or isn't.

GF: Marriage is already defined, as it has been for millennia. Neither the state, nor any "particular spiritual grouping", nor militant homosexuals should be allowed to redefine it.

MJ: You claim that "Few couples have chosen to join in civil union". About 300 couples a year have entered into a civil union including some heterosecual couples (who did not want to be part of 'marriage' if it excluded gay people). The number of people making use of the legislation is not important. It is there primarily to give legal recognition to same sex relationships.

GF: Over the last three years homosexual civil unions have been running at a rate of just under 100 per year, compared with over 20,000 marriages. If homosexuals constitute no more than 1% of the population, then the number of homosexual civil unions would be in proportion to heterosexual marriages. But if, as some suggest, homosexuals constitute up to 4% of the population, then the number choosing to commitment through civil union would be disproportionately low and would suggest that homosexuals do not really seek exclusive committed relationships akin to marriage. Their real aim, as Mark has conceded, is to have their sexual practices sanctified by the state, and that object underlies the campaigns for both civil union and homosexual marriage. That is the significance of the low takeup of civil unions by homosexual couples.

MJ: The legislation was aimed at giving legal protection to same sex relationships and at allowing the public to get used to the idea of gay marriage. I don't think that is any revelation or anything to get worked up abbout. People are now used to the idea of gay marraige. They are accepting of it and two thirds of voters now support it. So its time to move on to just unifying the legislation and calling a civil union what it is - it is a marriage.

GF: Parliamentarians never told the public that civil union was "aimed at.... allowing the public to get used to the idea of gay marriage". On the contrary, they said that civil union was an alternative to marriage and that there would be no interference with the institution of marriage. Parliament and its homosexual caucus have deceived the public - and not for the first time..

MJ: I ask you these questions? Are you a Christian and are your views on homosexuality shaped by your spiritual beliefs? Is homosexuality or marriage an an assault upon the religion of God? Is Hindiusm the religion of God?

GF: Different religious tendencies differ on the question of what it is to be Christian, but in this context it does not matter whether I am a Christian or Mark is a homosexual. You don't need to be able put a label on someone in order to address their arguments. Views on homosexuality may be shaped by one's spiritual beliefs, upbringing, experiences in life, or by what one is told through the mass media. These may be interesting questions, but views on homosexual marriage must be based on reason, regardless of religious affiliation or spiritual or ideological influences.

MJ: Should one religion or one church be able to define what the spiritual meaning of pair-bonding is ? Or should each couple be free to decide for themselves whether their relationship has a metaphysical implication?

GF: No religion, and no militant homosexual political grouping should be able to redefine the institution of marriage, if that is what you mean by "pair-bonding". Couples can decide the nature of their own relationship, but they should not expect others to endorse their choices when they depart from accepted social norms.