On September 23, 2016 Yahoo announced to the world that 500 million accounts had been hacked way back in 2014.
I was one of millions that received an email notice of data breach from Yahoo. Always suspicious of such notices, I clicked nothing. Instead I did a quick Google search to confirm the facts. And of course went directly to Yahoo's site and also looked for the lock icon in the address bar.
It had been years since I had done anything active on Yahoo and even more years since I had used their email or other services.
Still, seeing what info might have been compromised then deleting the account seemed logical.
But that was so long ago! I typed in my long standing email address--the one the notice had come to-- but it did not recognize it. Strange. So, the other option they gave was to try my cell phone number, which I've had for many years. Yahoo took it and said it would text me a code. It did, and I entered the code from the text and to gain access to my account.
The account name, gender, DOB, etc was someone I've never heard of before!
Fantastic. Yahoo not only lets a "state-sponsored" hacker get our info, but then Yahoo itself passes out access to a stranger's account like candy at Halloween.
Yahoo associated my long standing cell phone number with another person's Yahoo account and gave me total access. This means there was no verification at the time that cell number was put in to Yahoo's system as a security measure.
I tried to find a real person online at Yahoo to message or talk to, but as you discover there is nothing anywhere. Just support articles and the "community" to post an issue and let thousands of people weigh in casually.
I could just see that: "Hey everyone, Yahoo just gave me full access to someone else's account using nothing more than my own cell phone number as the one and only security ID requirement. Can anyone suggest what to do next?"
Thankfully it looked as if this person had wisely had quite using their Yahoo account long ago and had only their name, gender, and DOB as info. What would I want someone to do if the situation were reversed? Delete the account! So I deleted the account since it was still linked to my own cell phone number. Incredibly dangerous for me too! Thank you Yahoo for creating such chaos!
Goodbye forever and good riddance.
All societies have honored this special union that Christians, Jews, and Muslims rightly recognize to be a gift of the Creator. Even in an atheistic context like Russia during the Communist period, Muscovite couples were married with festal trappings at what passed for a sacred site, Lenin's tomb.
Our generation has introduced a tear in this universal fabric. Same-sex activists are clamoring for the state to grant homosexual couples marital status. These blows to the definition of marriage are landing not only in the North American civil sphere, but within churches. Theological arguments may not hold much sway in public debate, and there are certainly good social reasons for preserving the definition of marriage. But for the defense of marriage in both civil society and church, Christians must look to—and guard—the deep theological foundations of marriage.
This is an excellent article that goes on for several pages and is very well written and in depth.
Humphrey goes on to point out the many convoluted revisionists who try to explain away the clear prohibitions on all homoerotic behaviors. For example, those that claim Paul was simply writing out to the limited culture of his day and that it's like he insistence that women wear head coverings. But Humphrey points out:
[In] Paul's times, in fact, were "gay-positive" or at least "gay-tolerant." Paul and other New Testament writers take a decisive stand against behavior frequently condoned and sometimes idealized in the surrounding cultures. What was wrong then is wrong now.****
Sometimes an appeal is made to contemporary opinions about same-sex relations: "Yes, Paul disapproved of such activity, but he had nothing whatsoever to say about homosexuality as we understand it today." The biblical writers, they claim, assumed that homoerotic behavior was an avoidable moral choice, but if Paul had had the benefit of our psychological studies, he would have taken a different position. If people are born gay, how can it be sinful?
In reality, it makes little difference whether nature or nurture inclines us toward any one sexual behavior. Paul was well aware of the compulsive nature of sin. He put forth the gospel as God's means of dealing with the sin that enslaves us, as well as with sins we deliberately choose.
A bold variation on the argument that Paul was scientifically limited is that he was theologically limited. So Eugene Rogers (Sexuality and the Christian Body, 1999) argues that God's grace is wider even than Paul himself suspected, embracing same-sex couples as well as Jew and Gentile.
Paul, Rogers claims, says that God himself acts "against nature" in "grafting" Gentiles into the olive tree, the people of God (Rom. 11). Similarly, Rogers argues, God can act "against nature" in approving same-sex relations. This, however, reads against the sense of both Romans 1 and 11. Romans 1 speaks about what is contrary to nature in the created order. Romans 11 offers a figure of speech to help the Roman Gentile Christians appreciate their inclusion by God.
Rogers strangely clinches his argument: Same-sex couples find in their union "a means of grace," so it must be holy. This appeal to experience that contradicts Scripture is the most common revisionist position today. We know better than Paul and other writers of Scripture, he says, because they just didn't understand the grace that characterizes the loving union of two men or two women. Wasn't Jesus always welcoming outcasts from Israel among his followers? Now God, Rogers says, is doing something similar but new in the church.****
But what of Jesus' call to repentance? To a woman caught in another sexual sin, adultery, he says, "Go and sin no more." The revisionists remove homoerotic sin from the lists of sins in the New Testament and treat homoerotic relations as though they fit with Paul's list of Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female. They obscure the crucial distinction between characteristics over which one may have little or no control (such as same-sex desires), and actions for which one must answer to God.****
Is the attempt to bless homoerotic relations truly heretical? It is true that this is not an obvious theological attack on, say, the divinity of Christ or the necessity of the Atonement. But it is indirectly heretical because it upholds a corrupt imitation of marriage, which should properly be a living icon of Christ and the church—a theological picture that mediates God's glory and truth, directing us to the greater reality. Paul calls marriage a "great mystery" that speaks of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:32). So, for example, husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Indeed, the relations of husband and wife, and of Christ and the church, illuminate each other.
Husband and wife, representing Christ and the church, can only be parodied in same-sex "marriage."****
God himself enacted the first marriage covenant. A marriage, like the relation of Christ to the church, is not finally a human creation. (Hence the Orthodox insist that a marriage is effected by God himself, and Roman Catholics say the priest is only a witness.) In contrast, God does not join people of the same sex together but calls the behavior they seek to sanctify an abomination. To bless homoerotic relations underscores human willfulness.Edith M. Humphrey is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.