Pro-gay theology tends to fall into one of three categories. They are all wrong, but for varying reasons. Sometimes they overlap categories. I’ll cover the first type today.
- The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t. This view claims that we can ignore the prohibitions against homosexual behavior because they were written by homophobic Jews.
- The Bible is the Word of God, but it doesn’t really say homosexual behavior is wrong. This view holds that people just aren’t reading the Bible properly, and that God’s Word is actually affirming of gay relationships.
- The Bible is the Word of God and does clearly and emphatically condemn gay behavior as sinful. However, the Holy Spirit has given additional revelations such that this behavior is now acceptable. This view holds that God has changed his mind on this moral issue and not only is it now acceptable, but it is sinful if you don’t affirm this behavior and same-sex relationships.
Regarding the first view, many liberal theologians deny that part or all of the Bible is the Word of God. Unlike those in the second view, these folks seem to understand that the Bible does describe homosexual behavior as being sinful. They just dismiss those parts.
Some appear to believe in Dalmatian Theology, the false notion that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots. If God wasn’t capable of inspiring all of the original writings of the Bible to be error-free, then why should we trust him to communicate with such clarity to these people regarding what is inspired and what isn’t?
The problem is that this view is very hard to reconcile with the 2,000 year tradition of the church and of the clear text of the Bible itself. People are certainly entitled to hold that view, but it doesn’t seem logical for them to refer to themselves as Christians.
The Bible claims to speak directly for God roughly 3,000 times, so if someone believes that all of those are mistakes then why on earth would he take this faith seriously? Why would he want to be a leader in the Christian church?
Note that many of these church “leaders” are liars: They either lied at their ordination vows about believing the essentials of the faith, or they changed their minds later and didn’t do the honest thing and resign. Their views are usually not just a little different than historic Christianity, they are the opposite. I believe in religious freedom, so they are entitled to their beliefs. I also believe in honesty: HP salesman shouldn’t sell Dell products, and Christians shouldn’t promote non-Christian beliefs about the Bible.
It is challenging to argue with those who hold the first view, because you tend to go in circles. They claim to be Christian, which should mean we can refer to the Bible as a “final court of arbitration” of sorts. But whenever you find a passage they don’t like they’ll claim it was written just by men, not God, or they’ll pull out the false argument that you are being a Biblical literalist.
They may say things like, “But Jesus never said anything about homosexual behavior.” That is called arguing from silence and it is poor reasoning. Jesus generally taught principles, not an exhaustive set of do’s and don’ts. He reiterated that God created man and woman and that they should become one flesh. He didn’t even hint at other possibilities. He authored the Old Testament moral laws and didn’t attempt to reiterate them all. He primarily focused on those that the Pharisees were abusing at the time. There are other serious sins He never mentioned, but they are still sins. This view is also part of the 2nd type of theological error noted above.
They may jump through hoops trying to dismiss the plain reading of verses like Leviticus 18:22 (”Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”) yet gladly take other plain passages literally. They may claim there were “only a few verses” but are quick to make all sorts of firm statements on other topics with less verses. And just how many times does God have to clearly say something before we believe it?
They may try to dismiss passages like that by misreading other passages, such as saying that “God said that eating shellfish was an abomination, so why aren’t you opposed to that?”
To have a rational discussion on the verses referencing homosexuality you have to convince people in this group that the Bible is reliable and authoritative first. And that may be impossible.
Here’s a sample quote from a person in this camp:
A 21st century [Martin] Luther would surely recognize that the few biblical proscriptions against “sodomy”-shaky in themselves as condemnations of same-sex love and rooted in a worldview vastly different from our own-should not bar the loving union of two gay or lesbian persons. Equally, a 21st century Luther would affirm the ordination of such persons, as in line with his theology of the ‘priesthood of all believers.’
Mary Zeiss Stange, professor of women’s studies and religion at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, NY, responding to the recent decsion by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to expel a minister who admitted to a physical homosexual relationship-a violation of the denominations “Visions and Expectations” statement.
She really tips her hand with the “worldview vastly different from our own” comment. The worldview she is referring to is that of Middle East Jews and Christians a couple thousand years ago or more. But she misses the obvious: The Biblical commands weren’t always the Jews’ worldview – they rebelled against that view over and over! The worldview is God’s, and Ms. Stange is absolutely right that it is vastly different from hers. She apparently doesn’t believe the Bible is the Word of God. And if she ends up in Heaven I think Martin Luther will have a few things to clarify with her.
The verses aren’t “shaky,” and there are plenty showing God’s plan for human sexuality and his disapproval of homosexual behavior. Some (but not all) people in this category may be predisposed to only consider verses that affirm their views, and they typically don’t have a problem drawing all sorts of conclusions from less clear passages. Therefore, they won’t like these facts:
- 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
- 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
- 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
- 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
More on those in part 3.
Comments are welcome, but please stick to the topic. We aren’t debating secular views, we aren’t demonizing anyone (pro-gay or orthodox) and we don’t need straw-man arguments (”You just don’t love them,” etc.).
Remember, if homosexual behavior is a sin – and I believe the Bible clearly identifies it as such – then affirming and encouraging that behavior is also a sin and providing the orthodox Biblical view is the loving thing to do.
Filed under: Bible, Christian worldview, Sexuality | Tagged: Bible, Bible study, christianity, gay, GLBT, God, homosexual, Jesus, LGBT, religion, sex
Sounds a lot like the “living, breathing Constitution” adherents.
Either way, ridiculous. Find another religion if you don’t like Christianity. There’s a lot of them out there. The Buddhists would love to have you.
“Either way, ridiculous. Find another religion if you don’t like Christianity. There’s a lot of them out there. The Buddhists would love to have you.”
EXACTLY, though I would plead; try to objectively look at the evidence and accept it first.
If God created us, then I don’t see how you can logically avoid the fact that the Bible is His Word. After all, compared to creation, inspiring the authors of the Bible seems realtively easy.
“They just dismiss those parts.”
But we all dismiss parts. In Deuteronomy, God commands Israel thusly:
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife,you may take her home to your house.”
The literal meaning here is, after wiping out your enemies, you may find a woman from the enemy and forcibly take her home and make her your wife. The passage goes on to describe how you must treat her first…
But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother [that you just killed] for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. [imagine her joy - she "gets" to have sex with the man who helped kill her mum and pop!]
Anybody here taken home a good Iraqi wife lately?
Oh, don’t forget that it goes on to say:
However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion. [passage from Deuteronomy 21]
What a great out! If you don’t like your sex-slave…oops! I mean wife, you can “give her her freedom.” If YOU don’t like her. Doesn’t matter much what she wants, as she’s a sex-slave of the man who killed her parents!.
Great family values that god has, right? IF you take that passage literally. If, on the other hand, you DON’T think that is a direct command from God (I sure don’t – even though that’s the way it’s worded), then you might choose to say, “That particular passage does not fit in with the God I know, as described elsewhere in the Bible.”
Does that mean we’re picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to believe? If you want to look at it that way. I look at it as being discerning and not taking the Bible as a document to be read word-for-word literally, but rather as a book of Truth to be revealed by God’s leading.
That’s not nearly so neat as saying one believes the Bible cover to cover, word for word, but no one believes the Bible thusly. As you’ve alluded to elsewhere, there are analogies, hyperbole, figures of speech, place and time specific examples and stuff that just plain shouldn’t be taken literally.
So, how about it? Do you dismiss that passage or is it God’s Word forever?
I don’t know if you caught the great quote at my place yesterday, but it was noted that it was St. Augustine of Hippo (and 85% of what most conservative evangelicals believe goes back to Augustine, whether they know it or not) who said that if anything we read in Scripture would bring dishonor to God’s Name if interpreted literally, we must reinterpret said passage.
“She really tips her hand with the “worldview vastly different from our own” comment. The worldview she is referring to is that of Middle East Jews and Christians a couple thousand years ago or more.”
Well, the worldview IS significantly different. For instance, we don’t treat women as chattel as God commands in the OT (Note: NOT just as the people of the OT did, aside from God’s command, but AT god’s command, as see in the Deuteronomy passage above and many others.)
I really think this gets down to whether or not one accepts that we ALL – you, I, Luther, Calvin, Jesus – in our efforts to “rightly divide the Word of God,” set aside parts of the Bible as not to be taken literally.
No one is advocating taking the Jubilee Laws literally (although I argue that we ought to take the spirit of the Jubilee Laws very literally), no one is arguing that we ought to stone “men who lay with men” or disrespectful children, no one is arguing that we ought to treat women as chattel and that we can forcibly take women from nations where we’ve conquered (and killed their parents in the process!) as our wives.
Very few people are advocating that we ought to truly love our enemy or try to overcome evil with good (at least few conservatives are arguing that our nation should do that – even though we’re a nation of self-professed Christians largely).
We, none of us, take the Bible word for word literally. And that’s not a strawman argument in this context (it CAN be in other contexts, if someone is pointing out passages that you think are metaphors, hyperbole or parables, for instance – but not in the context I’m offering above).
Thoughts?
Dan,
Your comments on Deuteronomy, and your comparison to what the Bible teaches on homosexuality, demonstrates your flawed hermeneutics, which I believe will be the topic of tomorrow’s post according to Neil’s outline.
Specifically, you don’t seem able to recognize the difference between historical narrative writings as compared with other styles of Biblical language. This is often a tactic of those who don’t want to address issues the Bible speaks too, but instead yell “literalist” as an opposition to the claims. The ad-hom shall not be permitted without answer.
In Deuteronomy, God spoke to Israel as a specific nation, at a specific time, with specific instructions. God is just and holy and all He does or commands is as well. There are answers as to why He commanded the things he did, but that would be another blog post and beyond the scope of this one. Let’s just say it certainly wasn’t for the pleasure of the individual as you claim. But the point is that there is a reason for recognizing the historical narrative of the OT as historical narrative, and not literal commands to be followed today. And it isn’t picking and choosing. Proper hermeneutics of the Scriptures would clear things up for you and demonstrate their congruency.
Pro-gay theologians often say “well you eat shrimp or wear polyester don’t you?” Again, the same issue comes up here with their misunderstanding of the different types of laws in the OT and why some continue today and some don’t. Their hermeneutic is flawed and they are unable to see the continuity of the progressive revelation of the Scriptures and how Jesus became the final sacrifice and did away with the ceremonial law system. Again, no understanding of how to properly read the Scriptures leads to these wrong conclusions (looking forward to the next post on this Neil!)
However, not only does the OT condemns the practice of the homosexuality, but the NT continues to condemn it as well. As Neil pointed out, Jesus endorsed the man-and-women doctrine of Genesis, endorsed all of the OT Scriptures, and didn’t refute any of it. Paul explains in Romans 1 that homosexuality is a condition that becomes present when God gives over a nation for ungodly attitudes and practices. Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 6, he explains that their Christian church is comprised of people who were former homosexuals, but had changed when they were born again.
Your linking of these two things completely ignores the reasons for both, which the Bible describes in perfect harmony; and demonstrates your one-sided view of going to the Scriptures to pull things out of context in order to “refute” what others proclaim the Bible clearly states regarding this sin.
tr
“I look at it as being discerning and not taking the Bible as a document to be read word-for-word literally, but rather as a book of Truth to be revealed by God’s leading.”
And how do I discern which one of God’s “leadings” is right – yours, mine, someone else’s? Why trust those leadings if God couldn’t convey his Word to us right the first time, as you claim?
Please see the link on the literalist straw-man argument. Here are some
Bible study tips I have found helpful in understanding the Bible in context.
Of course there are different types of literature in the Bible. That doesn’t mean the teachings on homosexuality aren’t clear.
Are there difficulties in the Bible? Yes. Does that mean we should ignore them or remove them? No. There are lots of resources that help explain them. But that doesn’t mean we can’t discern God’s teachings on human sexuality.
[...] you’d like to read, click over to his site. I’ll update these links to part two, three, and four as they are posted on his [...]
Dan, you might want to look into the distinction of civil / ceremonial laws (Israelites only) vs. moral laws (everybody).
In Deuteronomy, God spoke to Israel as a specific nation, at a specific time, with specific instructions. God is just and holy and all He does or commands is as well.
So, at that specific time and place, it was okay to rape and commit genocide? But now, it’s not? At that time and place it was okay to kill “men who lay with men” and disrespectful children? Really?
I agree with the notion that God is just and holy. I disagree that a just and holy God commands rape, or forcible taking and dismissing of “wives,” or murder.
Was Augustine right? Ought we reject any teachings that would bring disrespect to God?
Y’all are accusing me here of “not getting it,” and then ignoring the difficult (I say “impossible”) teachings. If you want people to take you seriously in your opposition to gay marriage as a valid christian stance, you’ll have to explain how you get around the fact that – even for you! – some parts of the Bible are not valid teachings or representations of God.
Another question: Who decided what parts of the OT are “ceremonial laws” and which are “eternal truths”? Does the Bible tell us this? No, it doesn’t. So, you’re going outside of the Bible to reach your conclusion? Imposing extrabiblical criteria upon reading and interpreting the Bible?
demonstrates your one-sided view of going to the Scriptures to pull things out of context in order to “refute” what others proclaim the Bible clearly states regarding this sin.
You’ll have to explain how the laws to rape and commit genocide are taken out of context, because I don’t get it.
Again, my contention is that we ALL – you and I – pick and choose things we believe to be more valid and less valid out of the Bible. And rightly so.
Dan:
Sometimes I think I’m the only Christian who has read this section, since it never seems to get mentioned, but the answer to your conundrum is found in Acts 15. “Some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said “The Gentiles must … obey the law of Moses”. This was at the Council of Jerusalem, a meeting of all the apostles and elders of the church. [note plural]. After discussion and prayer they sent the following letter out. It said “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements. You are to abstain from food sacrified to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality”. That is why we don’t have to ollow those verses you cited from Deuteronomy. (Even though I’m not sure we would anyway, since I think they fall under the catagory of God saying “If you’re gong to take women captive in war, follow these rules”, not as a mandated act. See what Jesus said about divorce in Matthew 19. God set rules for a lot of what the Isrealites were doing anyway). We can eat those yummy shrimp and fried pork chops. We don’t have to make all those sacrifices. However we are to avoid sexual immorality. Notice they didn’t identify “sexual immorality”. The question was “What part of the Law should gentile coverts have to keep, if any? The answer was clear to them, as it should be to us without need of elabotarion. “Sexual immorality” is those practices forbidden by the law, including homosexual practices. The arguement about Christians “picking and choosing” which part of the Old Testament law to keep is a very red herring. God has told us which parts to keep.
Sorry for the poor spelling.
No porlbem on the spelling.
“The arguement about Christians “picking and choosing” which part of the Old Testament law to keep is a very red herring.”
Except that I’m not posing that argument. I’m asking, Did God command the Israelis to kidnap and rape women, forcibly taking them as their wives after killing their parents? Because that’s what that passage says.
I’m saying that God didn’t command that, that this passage would be one that represents God poorly. Do you think this is a literal reading of God’s will – even at that time?
Dan,
It seems you’re reading a lot more into the passage than I am because I’m not seeing kidnap or rape in there. In fact, it seems that God even instituted a 30 “cooling off” period which may have also helped prevent any passions of the moment leading to actions (rape). Also, why are you assuming that taking them as wives was bad when the alternative may have been even worse since their families were wiped out.
Not looking for an argument Dan, just adding a different perspective on how the passage could be interpreted.
WOZ
Dan – From what I can see, God didn’t command it, but he sure condoned it. However, if you are going to be literal about it, then it is not ok for us all “to have [a conquered woman] as wife.” It is only ok for Isreal, as that is to whom He was directing those comments.
So *we* are not allowed to act in that manner. A good point, though, Dan. Why would He condone such behavior by Israelis and clearly condemn for everyone else? Then again, who are we to question His authority. I mean, He *is* perfect, right? Either you believe that or you don’t. If you don’t, then why call yourself a Christian?
Ivan – Your point is deeply flawed. You end with this statement: “The arguement about Christians “picking and choosing” which part of the Old Testament law to keep is a very red herring. God has told us which parts to keep.” But in making your point, you clearly missed the point that, at least in your example, it was not God who told us which parts to keep. It was “the apostles and elders of the church.” Leaders of the church – yes. God – no.
WOZ – Oh brother. Please tell me you did not actually try to pass that off as a valid interpretation! Wow. Just – wow.
Okay, let’s set aside rape (I think that’s a fair reading of the passage and others like it, but let’s set aside that for now).
Do you think that God endorsed Israel forcibly taking the women of defeated countries (just the virgins! How did they know that?) back as their wives, whether the women wanted to be the wives of the people who killed their parents or not? Do you think that is an accurate representation of God?
Mark:
Why would He condone such behavior by Israelis and clearly condemn for everyone else? Then again, who are we to question His authority. I mean, He *is* perfect, right? Either you believe that or you don’t. If you don’t, then why call yourself a Christian?
Not all Christians think that we were ever intended to read the Bible as a literal, word-for-word representation of God’s nature. So, at least some of us would reject the notion that God condones the sort of horrifying behavior found if you take a literal translation of the historical tales.
That leaves us with Neil’s question, though: How are we to determine what’s right and what’s wrong if we’re going to start saying we have to sort it out ourselves?
Well, we do it the way humans have always done it: the best we can, by God’s help and grace and hopefully with a bit of humility on our part. Or, in the words of the NT writer, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling.
The truth is, that is what we are all doing – including the ones who say they take the Bible literally. We figure out which laws are “ceremonial” and which are eternal truths. Using resources outside the Bible, including our own God-given reason.
But wait! you may say…Doesn’t that mean we might get it wrong??
It’s worse than that. We WILL get it wrong. We’re not perfect. We don’t have perfect knowledge and even if we had perfect knowledge in a book somewhere, we’d still have to use our faulty reasoning to sort it out, right?
Mark:
You missed this part. “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”. They specifically noted that in their letter that they had received a message? vision? I don’t know how you want to put it, from the Holy Spirit about this. They didn’t just make it up. also, As I pointed out it was all the apostles and all the elders agreed on it. When all the leaders of the church agree thy’ve gotten a message from the Holy Spirit, I for one would be very reluctant to disregard it.
Dan:
Look at Matthew 19 again. What Jesus is saying here is that it was God’s original design that marriage [between one man and one woman!] should be for life and only end in cases of adultery. However, since Israel was violating this rule, in the Law God gave rules on the order of ” if you’re going to do this anyway, do it this way”. Looking at the passage it appears what the Israelites were doing was raping female captives for a while then when they got tired of them, then selling them into slavery. God said, no you’re going to wait thirty days and then you can marry her and if you get tired of them, divorce her, not sell her as a slave.
Also the theory of “progressive revelation’ does come in here. God in the past did tolerate Israelite cultural practices [while enacting rules designed to alleviate the worst abuses]. ” In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent” Acts 17:30. God put up with a lot in the past that he would not tolerate now at all.
God said, no you’re going to wait thirty days and then you can marry her and if you get tired of them, divorce her, not sell her as a slave.
Do you not agree that, while your guess here may be less horrifying than what you were guessing was happening earlier (and I’m not saying I think that’s a bad guess, just that we don’t really know), it is still a horrifying thing for god to say? To allow?
But, progressive revelation, huh? So, if gays are going to have sex anyway, they ought to at least get married and be faithful in their commitments?
Is that a fair comparison?
Mark,
Definitely not trying to pass off as valid. Just like I said – a different perspective on how it could be interpreted. Maybe an example of how we can make it say whatever we want when rules of interpretation are ignored.
And why would we assume that God won’t “put up with” more than God put up with in the past? Has God changed?
These aren’t accusatory questions, just trying to understand the reasoning.
“Maybe an example of how we can make it say whatever we want when rules of interpretation are ignored.”
So, what are the rules of interpretation? Who invented them/what is their source? Is there unified agreement on these rules?
I’m not disagreeing at all that it helps to have such rules, just trying to clarify.
Oh gosh, I got caught up on an old thread and missed out on all this discussion. Gonna take me a while to catch up.
Ivan – I didn’t miss that part. It’s the “and to us…” that’s the problem. Yes, they DID just make it up. That’s my whole point. Religion in general, at least from what I can tell, is a bunch of people just making things up. That’s my whole beef with all of it.
Dan – “So, if gays are going to have sex anyway, they ought to at least get married and be faithful in their commitments?” Yeah, man! That is definitely a fair comparison. You are making a very strong argument, Dan.
Perhaps it is useful to consider how we go about interpreting the Bible – what matrix do we use for sorting it all out?
I would like to point out that the Bible itself has no such matrix – anything that says, “Interpret every historic tale as 100% literal and factual, in fact, interpret everything as literal except for those things that are obviously not literal…” (that seems to be the hermeneutic I’m hearing from some of y’all).
So, we must begin, I think, with that point: That any system we have to interpret the bible is itself extrabiblical and prone to being wrong. Are we agreed upon that?
Myself, having been raised Southern Baptist (although now I identify as an anabaptist), I’m comfortable with what used to be one of their tenets:
“The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ,”
That is, they acknowledged that, for Christians, it made sense and was imperative that we interpreted the whole of the Bible based first and foremost on Jesus’ teachings found in the NT. (The So Bapts have since rejected that statement as part of their “Faith and Message,” back during the so-called “conservative takeover”).
So, what I’ve grown up with and feel comfortable with might be:
1. We interpret the individual verse thru the whole of the Bible
2. We interpret the whole Bible thru the lens of Jesus (or with Jesus’ teachings as a criterion – meaning if there seems to be a conflict between Jesus’ direct teaching and some other biblical passage, go with Jesus’ direct teaching)
3. We acknowledge that the Bible was written for a particular people in a particular time – context matters
4. We further acknowledge that we may not always fully understand the context, but should do our best to do so
5. I listen to, but am not bound by, traditional interpretations (which, being of humans, is prone to being wrong)
…For starters. What sort of criteria would y’all be talking about when you go about ciphering out the Word of God?
there is No sound argument for legitimizing what God himself called an abomination..great stuff Neil!
Eating shrimp?
Dan,
Good questions. I know for myself, I have been trying to figure out what laws we follow from the OT. Obviously, it is still wrong to kill people, but we don’t follow the dietary laws. I’ve heard some say that it is the moral laws we should follow (though not necessarily with the same penalties), and not laws on cleanliness, diet, and the like.
As I’ve right now, I use the NT as my guide for morality. It seems that the NT renders the dietary laws as currently null, but reinforces the moral laws. Concerning this particular issue on homosexuality, I look at Romans 1 as my guide, and also, Jesus seems to offer two possibilities – one man, one woman, or celibacy.
“I know for myself, I have been trying to figure out what laws we follow from the OT.”
I have been working on a way to incorporate the Hebrew customs of Jubilee and gleaning the fields into my own life- and our family’s charitable practices. When we start our farm such will be much easier- as we will have plenty of milk, fruit, etc. to bring to the local soup kitchen (or to the doorsteps of those we know). For now I have a few ideas I won’t disclose for fear of being labeled as full of myself.
Also, as the Lord has provided when we were in need, we are hoping to find ways to provide of others. We will be including the biblical custom of not charging interest when lending money to those in need. We will however expect interest when we loan to the bank
Except for the moral laws, which as Chance correctly points out are reinforced in the NT, why would you think you had to follow any of the OT laws-unless you’re Jewish? They were specifically given to the Jews to set them apart as a holy people. These laws were not given to the Gentiles.
Paul discusses the purpose of the law quite a bit in his letters.
Well, the question that I still wait to see answered is not so much whether or not we ought to be following the rules that God gave to the Israelites (and I agree, some we ought to and some we ought not), but whether or not those rules represented what God thinks/thought was right and wrong?
Does/did god command the Israelites or anyone else to commit genocide, rape, infanticide, as is stated in places in the OT or is that not a fair/accurate representation of God?
A question as old as Plato. Read the Euthyphro, if you have time.
If I recall correctly, Rob Bell said that the Bible progressively pushes culture forward. After the Fall, humanity was in a mass of turmoil and sin. The Old Testament improved upon it, with the idea that it would push people forward. (Obviously, you can’t look at tribal cultures that enslave their enemies, rape and subjugate women, and expect them to become something like the modern West overnight – people would just laugh.) Then, once the culture moved forward enough to accept the laws of the New Testament, God demanded more of people.
We realise that, in two hundred years, a culture may look back upon ours and think it remarkably barbaric. Does that mean that we are not acting in as moral a way as we know? I doubt that many of the slave owners who also “owned” their wives thought they were committing the worst acts possible, but they did it anyway. The Constitution, when written, was the best possible document the Founding Fathers could produce, yet we’ve amended it 27 times since to improve on it. Does that mean that the Founders were not expressing what was “right,” or that they were lacking in morals?
I’m not trying to go all relativist on anyone, just pointing out that humans are able to see the mistakes and consequences of others, and, by doing so, improve ourselves morally.
Dan, I’m not familiar with the Bible analysis method you propose (“The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ”). Nothing seems wholly objectionable at first glance but I’d have to see it in action first.
I heartily recommend this list of
Bible study tips I’ve gathered here.
Context is crucial. The context of Leviticus 18 is obviously that of moral laws. Read the whole thing: It starts and ends with admonitions not to be like the Canaanites. God obviously wasn’t about to annihilate the Canaanites because they didn’t follow Israelite ceremonial laws.
Dan, you have written extensively about Bible difficulties. We get it. There are some difficult passages. Your solution is to get out the scissors. Mine is to wrestle with them and give God the benefit of the doubt (I say that tongue in cheek). Some people find “love your enemies” to be a difficult passage, but I think we should leave it in.
You seem think the Bible isn’t God’s Word in all places, but that you can rely on personalized revelations from him to discern what He thinks. I find that to be un-Biblical and impractical.
But Leviticus and Romans 1, among others, aren’t unclear. In fact, they are spectacularly clear once you blow away the pro-gay theology smokescreens. Just as every command about marriage is clear: One man and one woman.
I don’t have too much problem with your approach to studying the Bible, although, again, as Christians, it makes sense to me that we weigh every verse not only against the whole Bible but through Jesus’ teachings particularly.
If a teaching is found in many places in the Bible but Jesus has something to say against that teaching, I’d lean towards the more obvious teaching of Jesus over the obvious teaching in the rest of the Bible.
Actions towards one’s enemies might be an example. There are many instances of horrifying violence against one’s enemies in the OT – even apparently endorsed by God (although not as often) – but Jesus’ teachings would seem to preclude that. “A new command I have given you, Love your enemy…”
For example. Otherwise, at first glance your list of criterion doesn’t seem bad.
The context of Leviticus 18 is obviously that of moral laws.
Says who? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with that statement, but why are these particular verses more obviously “moral laws” than the ones you think of as “ceremonial laws”?
Do you have a list of which laws are ceremonial and which are “moral”? Where’d the list come from? Is it someone’s guess? Or is it a matter that someone said “these laws are obviously moral laws and these are obviously ceremonial”? Or did the Israelites divide them specificially into moral laws and ceremonial laws?
Why is it a forever and abiding law that “men may not lay with men,” but the next line – “if they do, kill ‘em” isn’t – is that part a ceremonial law?
None of these questions are meant to be disrespectful, just trying to determine your criterion.
“you have written extensively about Bible difficulties. We get it. There are some difficult passages. Your solution is to get out the scissors. Mine is to wrestle with them and give God the benefit of the doubt”
But if you can’t address difficult verses – ones as spectacularly large as “God commands rape, genocide and infanticide” – then there’s a huge hole in your logic. It’s an insurmountable one to folk out here who are concerned with logic.
Your reasoning is:
1. Every historical story in the Bible is literally true.
2. Stories where it says “and God said…” mean that God said or commanded whatever followed.
3. Therefore, if God commands genocide, or other actions that are “wrong” elsewhere, then…
a. That tells us morality is firm UNLESS God tells one to do something.
b. Which means that all bets are off – “I’m going to marry a goat and have some kids…” “You can’t do that! It’s wrong.” “Normally, yes. But God told me to.” “No, God didn’t! God wouldn’t command us to do something that’s wrong!” “That’s not what Neil et al tell me.”
c. If morality is conditional on whether or not “God tells us” then there is no criteria for what is and isn’t wrong – this is an accusation that you tossed my way at one point, but here is where there is no other logical conclusion IF you believe the way you do.
And that’s only one insurmountable logical problem with your belief structure. I had others earlier but they escape me now – I’m just waking up…
My point is, if you can’t address this problem, then many logical and moral minded folk are going to take another direction to biblical interpretation – that every line where it says “God said…” need not be assumed to be a literally accurate description of God.
Some may also explain it (as some have here) as a gradual revelation of God, in which God had different expectations for tribal peoples than God had for people of Jesus’ time, than God has for people of our time.
“I’m not necessarily disagreeing with that statement, but why are these particular verses more obviously “moral laws” than the ones you think of as “ceremonial laws”?”
Hi Dan – please read what I wrote in my comment: The context of Leviticus 18 is obviously that of moral laws. Read the whole thing: It starts and ends with admonitions not to be like the Canaanites. God obviously wasn’t about to annihilate the Canaanites because they didn’t follow Israelite ceremonial laws.
Here is the text from the end of the chapter which mirrors that of the beginning. Read it carefully. These are strong words against pagans who broke God’s moral laws. He is not vomiting them out of the land for eating shellfish. He called all these things “detestable.”
Leviticus 18:24-29 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people.
Have you noticed that you don’t argue that bestiality (Lev. 18:23) is OK because there are so “few” verses about it, that Jesus was silent about it, etc.? Why the inconsistency? I realize the bestiality lobby is not as well-heeled and well-formed as the gay lobby, but all the arguments you use to support pro-gay theology could be used by them. Just sayin’.
The punishment (Lev. 21) was Israelite-specific, as they were living in a theocracy. It was one of the 15 or so offenses that God told them to use capital punishment for. I think that gives an indication of how seriously the offense is to God, regardless of how other societies treat it. And no, I’m not suggesting we bring back those penalties. I just think we should quit calling pretending it isn’t a sin.
Yes, it would have been tidier if Moses had just made three lists of laws – civil, ceremonial and moral. But in this case I think it is crystal clear.
“The punishment (Lev. 21) was Israelite-specific,”
Says who??
Do you not see that these distinctions thus far are ones you’re simply cooking up in your head because “they’re obvious”? Obvious to whom? To you, perhaps. Not to me.
To me, the Jubilee laws are obviously meant to be carried over in spirit but that’s not obvious to others, who’d say that it was a civil law for Israel.
Whose view shall we set as the norm for what is obvious and what isn’t?
Do you understand how this is the same arbitrary distinction you are accusing me of, at least as far as I can tell? Are you saying that there is no list of ceremonial, civil and “forever” laws? Must we arbitrarily guess at which ones “seem” obviously to fit in one category or another?
By the way, I happen to agree with that. We have no list, no criteria telling us which parts of the Bible are to be taken as literally applicable to us and which parts aren’t.
We have to use a bit of reasoning, Jesus’ testimony and humble consideration of context to reach conclusions.
The difference is that I admit that, while it seems you are condemning we who admit the obvious for that which you are doing as well.
“But if you can’t address difficult verses – ones as spectacularly large as “God commands rape, genocide and infanticide” – then there’s a huge hole in your logic. It’s an insurmountable one to folk out here who are concerned with logic.”
I’m sure you didn’t mean it as a dig, but I laughed at the insinuition that I’m not concerned with logic. Please.
I’ll say this one last time: God is sovereign over life and death. He gets to do things that we don’t. He can delegate those to us if He likes, just as He delegated some responsibilities to governments but not citizens in Romans 13.
My point is that there are many resources out there addressing Bible difficulties. Liberal theologians didn’t just catch these in the 21st century. Many of us have wrestled with them.
But your strategy of getting out the scissors every time you can’t completely comprehend something is not a traditional Christian practice. That’s all I’m saying. If you to wrestle with or debate the meaning, that is fine. But don’t expect me to take your Biblical views seriously when you insist that certain passages lied when claiming to speak for God. You are creating a God in your own image whether you realize it or not.
“Do you understand how this is the same arbitrary distinction you are accusing me of, at least as far as I can tell? Are you saying that there is no list of ceremonial, civil and “forever” laws? Must we arbitrarily guess at which ones “seem” obviously to fit in one category or another?”
No, Dan. This is much different. I’m simply reading the verses in context. It is the same way we should approach all literature. I leave the verses in the Bible even if I don’t understand them completely. You cut them out. That is a huge difference. It is Dalmatian Theology, and it is wrong.
“We have to use a bit of reasoning, Jesus’ testimony and humble consideration of context to reach conclusions.”
Yes, and that is exactly how I approach the text. I just don’t consider deleting or adding rules to be options, especially if the changes just happen to help conform the Bible to the sensibilities of 21st century U.S. liberals.
You have decided that gay marriage is OK, and that concept is 100% foreign to what the Bible teaches. 100%. You dismiss things you don’t understand and/or don’t like, and you insert things that are fabricated.
I’m sure you didn’t mean it as a dig, but I laughed at the insinuition that I’m not concerned with logic.
No disrespect intended at all with the logic comment. I’m quite sure you are concerned about logic.
That being the case, then, surely you can understand that there is a flaw in one of your premises as you make your case and you can’t really expect us to follow along until you address the flaw.
That is, if you said, “If A is true and B is true, then A and B are true” but you had not demonstrated that even you believe A to be true, how can we accept the conclusion?
Your premise:
The Bible is God’s Word (fine)
As God’s Word, these stories containing laws from God are literally true (you don’t believe this and neither do I*)
Therefore, where it says men shall not lay with men means that gay marriage is wrong.
Your premises have to be true for your conclusion to be true, right?
*Actually, I think you’re saying that yes, you believe that God does – or did – command people to do what was otherwise forbidden, but then you have the unresolved quandary of, how do we know what is Right and what is Wrong, if God can set it all aside – short of answering these sorts of questions, you’re not prepared to move on to your conclusion.
So, no disrespect intended with the logic comment, I’m just stating the reality that if you can’t get past that inconsistency, then what you have to say from here on doesn’t hold much sway for some of us.
Neil said:
“I leave the verses in the Bible even if I don’t understand them completely. You cut them out.”
and:
“our strategy of getting out the scissors every time you can’t completely comprehend something is not a traditional Christian practice.”
Well, there are no gaping holes in my Bible. I haven’t physcially cut any verses out any more than you have.
I am saying that I don’t think the teaching of the whole Bible, as well as our conscience on which God writes God’s law supports the belief that God sometimes commands us to do what God has already forbidden. And so those verses remain as a reminder of perhaps God’s mystery (that I don’t understand everything about God) or as a reminder of humanity’s desire to get God’s stamp of approval on their actions, or to demonstrate God’s gradual revelation of God’s will to us. But not that God literally may command us to break God’s commandments.
I wonder, for those who think that the verses represent God’s reality, is there a limit to what that sort of god might theoretically command a follower to do? If god commanded a father to kill his son, might god also command a father to rape his son? To eat his son? Is that all within the realm of possibility?
I would say, No, that is not within the realm of possibility. Wouldn’t you? I would say, along with Augustine of Hippo (a traditional Christian source), that any verse that seems to so disrespect God needs to be re-interpreted. (I need to find the source for that quote…)
Let me clarify your premise:
- The Bible is God’s Word (fine)
- As God’s Word, these stories containing laws from God are literally true (Neil believes that but Dan does not, because Neil has examined countless Bible difficulties and found acceptable answers so He trusts the overall text. Dan doesn’t understand or agree with them, so He assumes they are wrong.)
- Therefore, where it says men shall not lay with men means that homosexual behavior and gay marriage are wrong. This is true because 1) the overall Bible is trustworthy and 2) this and other passages are clear.
Dan, your premise appears to be this:
- Some passages are unclear to me or bother my sensibilities
- Therefore, they are not from God
- Some passages are clear, but since others are not clear then the clear ones aren’t from God, either.
You use difficult passages to cast doubt on simple passages. The end result is just picking and choosing what you like.
I have stated several times that God is sovereign over life and death and that He has prerogatives that we don’t. I’m not sure how many other ways to say it. You are either not understanding this or ignoring it. That doesn’t mean I am not being logical. It means you are putting your reason on a par with God’s. It is not an “unresolved quandry,” it is a case of not fully understanding the text and/or forgetting that God has a different role in the universe than we do.
“Well, there are no gaping holes in my Bible. I haven’t physcially cut any verses out any more than you have.”
I didn’t mean you physically cut them out. You are such a literalist! (kidding!)
Re. the Augustine quote – I trust that you have properly characterized it, so don’t worry about the source. I think there is a difference in how you are interpreting and what he probably meant, though. I doubt he was saying that the verse wasn’t from God. I think he was saying you might not be understanding it properly.
So that would point us to wrestle with the text itself rather than say, “The Bible is sometimes wrong, so if something sounds wrong to me (i.e., gay marriage prohibitions) then the Bible must be wrong.” That is way different than saying, “The Bible is all God’s Word so I need to work carefully to understand it properly.”
Memo to self:
Mother was and is correct: Reading is fundamental!
The aphorism that ________ has the patience of Job, should be edited to: that _______ has the patience of Neil!
Respectfully,
Joseph
““The Bible is all God’s Word so I need to work carefully to understand it properly.””
Last one, as I think we’re just going in circles at this point…
I can agree with your statement above, Neil. But understanding it properly and interpreting it literally are two different things. I want to understand it properly but I don’t want to twist it or morality or logic so that I can “make” the Bible make sense literally.
I think I DO understand the verses that has God commanding atrocities properly: They’re not accurate descriptions of God, based upon the whole of the Bible as well as God’s Word written on my heart and in my conscience.
=====
Joseph, dealing with disagreements can take some time going back and forth and requires patient communication from both sides. I, too, commend Neil for his patience in his discussions with this ornery old Christian and Bible-believer.
It sadly is often missing in these kinds of discussions. People prefer that you just simply agree with them, now! darn it!
But merely “agreeing” when we don’t really agree is not ideal for a community of believers, is it?
[...] The second looks at those who deny the portions of Scripture that condemn homosexuality (for a recent example, see here). Unlike those in the second view, these folks seem to understand that the Bible does describe homosexual behavior as being sinful. They just dismiss those parts. [...]
But merely “agreeing” when we don’t really agree is not ideal for a community of believers, is it?
To quote the late Ed McMahon, “you are correct sir”!.
Indeed, my comments above were meant as a compliment to Neil and not as a dig towards you or others that disagree. Neil has the flair(?) of one of my favorite writers – Thomas Sowell – in distilling complex topics in a simple and logical fashion. I barely have the patience and/or time to type three lines worth of my opinions/positions let alone having the patience to sit, compose, and either construct or deconstruct assorted arguments the way Neil and others are able to.
Respectfully,
Joseph
Dan,
Looks like I started a fire storm (Sorry Neil) and I suppose I should give some answers to questions raised.
For starters, God no where commands rape and your assertion to that is taking liberties with the text. Secondly, yes, the Bible does describe for us which laws are ceremonial vs. moral, and which ones are to be followed today. Some text (from Acts) has already been given, but I’ll add the book of Hebrews to the list of things to read in this study. Jesus was the final sacrifice and did away with all of the ceremonial symbolism that was intended to point to Him. Once He showed up, those were no longer necessary. However, moral laws that point to God’s character are still to be observed.
You seem to have a flawed understanding of the historical context of the OT, and I believe that is contributory to your views. God was using Israel, and His blessing of them, as an indicator to others of the evidence of His providential blessing and grace. In this story of history, He was very concerned with sin and the behavior of civilizations that were known for their sinful behaviors. God judged those civilizations, and He did it by using Israel’s army.
You are looking at what God told them to do these nations, as if the nations were innocent and God willy-nilly whacked them for the fun of it. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death, and all have sinned, and God would be right and just if He whacked every one of us right now. His doing so would not be unjust or evil. So when God decides to take away those whom He has created, that is not unjust or evil. God choose to judge these evil civilizations by using Israel’s army to defeat them, for the purpose of demonstrating His blessing on Israel as well as for the purpose of judging those civilizations. It was not unjust for God to kill those who were guilty of sin, and it was not unjust for Him to do it through Israel either. The question isn’t why did God kill them, the question is, why did He gracefully allow some of them to live – including Israel?
The same is true today. We are all sinners and God would be right and just for whacking us all right now. When Jesus was asked in Luke 13 about those whom the tower fell on, and if it happened to them because of their guilt, Jesus said, “no, but unless you repent you will also perish.” The fact that we are still breathing and have not perished means that God is continuing to extend grace to us by extending our opportunity to repent. We don’t look and question why God allowed someone else to die, as if He is unjust in taking that person. The correct perspective is, “why not I when I am just as guilty?”
The difference is how we look at our current condition. If we see ourselves as guilty sinners who deserve death and hell, the correct perspective of grace can be realized. If we think of ourselves as good and deserving to live, then it is easy to accuse God of atrocities when they are witnessed. This is why you see God using Israel to judge wicked civilizations as an unjust action by Him, whereas Christians see it as consistent with his Divine prerogative.
tr
Beautifully said, Tony. Dan, this is what I’ve tried to convey elsewhere. Tony did a better job of it than I did.
“So when God takes away from those he created, that is neither good nor evil…”
So, if God decides to tell someone to do something, that person should do it whether or not we have traditionally thought it was immoral? Is that your point?
So, my gay friends who think God wants them to wed, they are doing the right thing, by your thinking, is that correct?
I addressed in a later comment down below re. Deuteronomy 18 (speaking for God). God doesn’t give personalized messages regarding moral laws. He wrote the Bible for a reason.
As to God no where commanding rape and “taking” of wives forcibly, I agree. But a straightforward reading of the Bible shows that to be the case, nonetheless – that is not taking liberties with the text, but a plain reading of it.
Or, giving you some benefit of doubt, let’s set aside the Rape accusation and just leave it at “God commanded Israelis to forcibly take young women (whose parents they just killed) and make them their wives.” THAT is an absolutely straight reading of the text. There’s no other way that I can see how you could interpret that. Do you?
Tradition never trumps God’s Word. If God says something, it should be obeyed.
God does not contradict himself. If he says homosexuality is an abomination in His revelation, He will not reveal elsewhere to the contrary. The key to your phrase is that they “think God wants them to wed.” The fact that they think it doesn’t make it true. We have to compare our thinking and our feelings to God’s Word, and where our thinking and feelings are opposed to God’s Word it is our thinking and feelings that should change, not God’s Word.
In the examples you have given regarding the OT, God spoke to prophets in the OT, but in these latter days he does not speak that way. We look to the Word of God for His views on matters, not to personal revelation. If anyone “thinks God wants” anything that God is contrary to what He has already spoken on, it is not God speaking that to them.
When Israel was disobedient in the exodus from Egypt, God eventually gave them over to their disobedience and allowed them to wander around in the desert for an entire generation instead of entering the Promised Land. Specifically, He said that none would enter the Promised Land who was old enough to be involved in the rebellion against Him.
God judged the wicked nations for their wickedness and used Israel to do it. The reason for the judgment was because of their wickedness. The purpose was also so that the Israelites would not mingle with them and integrate their wicked practices (such as homosexuality and other sexual sins) into Israel’s lifestyles. For the same reason that he spared the young of the rebellious Israelites and allowed them to enter the promise land, He chose to spare some of the young from some of the nations He judged in this manner. Both reasons were simply: because of His grace He spared them. The girls were married because at that time and in that culture, marriage for a woman was a necessity of life.
The perspective this should be looked at is that He spared them because of His grace and provided them livelihood (marriage) in that culture. God does what He does because He is sovereign. Everything He does is right. We don’t have the prerogative to look back with our ignorance of what He was doing and judge Him for His actions. We are the ones who have incomplete knowledge of all the reasons and therefore don’t have the ability to judge God’s actions by our standards.
By man’s standards it may appear unjust to us, but by God’s standards it is just and right. A good analogy might be to consider that the reason that murder is wrong for humans is because human beings are created by God, in God’s image. We don’t create life and we don’t have the right to murder. It’s God’s property made in God’s image.
However, God on the other hand, is not in the same position as we are. Just as if I build a building in my back yard to shed my mower, if I wanted to tear it down I have the right to because I created it (and it isn’t in the image of God either).
But, God did create humans, and it is not unjust for Him to take what He creates. He is not held to the standard that we are. It is unjust for us to murder humans, but it is not unjust for Him to kill humans for His sovereign purposes.
Your perspective would change 180 degrees if you would realize that we are not talking about innocent humans, but guilty ones and we are talking about their Creator taking them, not humans in their own decisions and from their own desires.
tr
“God does not contradict himself.”
That’s not what Neil says. He says that if God commanded us not to kill, God might still command us to kill. If God commanded the Israelites not to kidnap or rape, God might still command the Israelites to kidnap and rape.
And that seems to be what you’re saying and that’s the problem. You’re saying Yes and No. God won’t contradict God’s Word except when God contradicts God’s word!!
If he says homosexuality is an abomination in His revelation,
God calls eating shrimp an abomination in the OT and then it’s not in the NT. Which is it? Was God in the OT lying and it wasn’t really an abomination? Or was it an abomination then, but not in the NT?
You’re contradicting yourselves, brothers…
Your perspective would change 180 degrees if you would realize that we are not talking about innocent humans, but guilty ones
We’re ALL guilty. You included. So, if God tells me to rape you – I’m sorry, “forcibly take you as my wife/sex slave” – then that’s what I ought to do?
I’m sincerely not being facetious, that seems to be what you’re saying. Except then you say that, No, God won’t tell us to do something that God has said is wrong. But then you say God had the Israelites do it, but then you say God wouldn’t…
Set me straight, fellas.
Dan, you’ve been set straight many times and have chosen to ignore it. Save your keystrokes on this theme from here on out.
You have made your views quite clear: You have pulled off a hat trick and have represented categories 1, 2 and 3 above.
1) You dismiss parts of the Bible you don’t like or don’t understand as not being from God.
2) You refer to it as God’s Word but interpret it in a radically different way (Even though you didn’t respond when challenged multiple times to answer some obvious questions on the Romans 1 post).
3) You take the un-Biblical view that God speaks outside his Word with individual moral messages to people (i.e., telling gay couples should marry).
Neil commenting on Neil’s comment: Don’t be so snippy. Just because it was early in the morning is no excuse.
Hi all. New here. Found your blog via gcm watch.
I think that Dan has not read the “Bible study tips” that Neil has recommended to him several times within these thread. It would be advantageous to Dan in order to get answers to several of his current objections.
If Dan would take the time to read them, he would see that he has violated several of those tips, including:
“Don’t assume that the Bible approves of all its records. The historical portions of the Bible are accurate descriptions of events, even though God may not have approved of the events.”
The Bible records the actions and events of sinful man. It is an honest book.
The situation about the Israelites taking the woman with them was for compassionate reasons. In wars, people die. God’s compassion and mercy towards the woman (who would have otherwise been left destitute) are shown in this command.
Not to get too far off topic, but we see such compassion from God when after Abraham’s wife Sarah gave birth to Isaac, she rejected Hagar and Ishmael, then had them sent away.
God provided for them in the wilderness and proclaimed that the decendants of Ishmael would “be a great nation.” But there were (and currently are) consequences to the original choice when Abraham and Sarah decided to “take matters into their own hands” and have Abraham “lay” with Hagar (because they were becoming impatient with the promised child, Isaac, in their old age). The descendants of Ishmael may be a “great nation,” but they are not “his chosen people.” This promise was reserved for the decendants of Isaac.
But Ishmael and his descendants were also described as being like “a donkey of a man.” They are (and have been) wrecking havoc among God’s chosen people ever since. One sin of adultery (and not being patience with God’s promise) has led to dire consequences in the world.
When people take God’s commands (and/or His Holy Word) and twist it to accomodate their own desires and needs (such as the current gay christian movement) then they are guilty of introducing heresy into the faith. We are warned about this in the book of Jude. In the last days:
Jud 1:3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
Jud 1:4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God[fn2] and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jud 1:5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
Jud 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;
Jud 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jud 1:8 Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.
Note that as Christian believers following Jesus Christ, we are commanded “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. ”
We are to avoid those who “crept in unnoticed” and are “marked out for this condemnation”:
“ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God[fn2] and our Lord Jesus Christ.
It is no coincidence that Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in this section of Scripture:
Jud 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Going after “strange flesh” is a direct reference to the prohibition of sex between two men, two women, animals and people, etc.
I have written about this topic quite extensively at my blog Talkwisdom. In fact, I have been in discussions with a woman (who self-identifies as a lesbian Christian) and claims that homosexual sex is not sin, (so Neil, I know exactly what you are going through here!)
But Neil, I whole-heartedly admire you for posting this. As you stated with these words:
“Remember, if homosexual behavior is a sin – and I believe the Bible clearly identifies it as such – then affirming and encouraging that behavior is also a sin and providing the orthodox Biblical view is the loving thing to do.”
You are, in fact, following the biblical instruction of God through the recordings of Jude (especially Jude 1:23):
Jud 1:16 These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage.
Jud 1:17 But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Jud 1:18 how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts.
Jud 1:19 These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.
Jud 1:20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,
Jud 1:21 keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Jud 1:22 And on some have compassion, making a distinction;[fn4]
Jud 1:23 but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire,[fn5] hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.
1:4 NU-Text omits God.
1:22 NU-Text reads who are doubting (or making distinctions).
1:23 NU-Text adds and on some have mercy with fear and omits with fear in first clause.
turrets syndrome:
hey, I have a typology to present.
NO one can pin point the cause(s) of gay-ness, yet Biblicists keep on judging gay people WITHOUT any helpful cures; most gays are just Banned from the church, or Opressed; and surely have NO place in the church, no hope of membership, no hope of getting anywhere in the ministry….. and sense GOD does not cure the Gay person, and sense OBSTANING does more harm than good; what is the gay christian to do? Sit on the back chairs in the church as a symbol of a cursed abomination, for all else to snear at?
Ok, what about the turrets syndrome victom? One of the symptoms is four cursing language. What about God’s request that we have no foul language come out of our mouth??? Thats a SIN?
turrets syndrome IS A Medical desease.
maybe gaynes is too?
maybe STRAIGHTness and all the justified fornmication going on is too!
maybe all the filthy money made by the church is too!
Why so much HATE towards gay people?
maybe they cannot help it no more than those with turrets syndrome.
Should we take ALL medical problems that have traditional SIn involved, and STONE them to death???/
If you all cannot find a CURE for Gay-ness, then I suggest shut your mouths – ye hypocrits.
ROSS
ooops… I meant TYPEOLOGY….
Homosexuality is = to turrets syndrome
acts of sin is = to verbal sinning
hey, maybe IF we all translate “SIN” = “imperfection”, and de-personalize it, we can all get away from judging each other.
QUOTE:
When people take God’s commands (and/or His Holy Word) and twist it to accomodate their own desires and needs (such as the current gay christian movement) then they are guilty of introducing heresy into the faith. We are warned about this in the book of Jude. In the last days:…..
OK, lets talk about twisting scriptures: yes, we may be guilty, but not as bad as 400 years of KJV mistranslations:
greek “eon” and “eonian” does not translate to “eternal”, eternity, ever, forever, or everlasting. greek = AGE-LASTING. Hell ( hades) is NOT eternal, and even the KJV shows us that God REMOVES all the folks out of hades-hell, those who have the Mark of the Beast, then takes ‘death and hades’ and tosses them into the Lake of fire, and THIS is the second death, where He obolishes death and hades. So, everyone is removed first???? yes. So, where is your ETERNAL BURNING HELL for gays, and etc??? yea, lets talk about TWISTING scriptures. lets talk about the Chruches OUR RIGHT violation os that LAST verse in Revelations that WARNS against ADDINg or SUBTRACTING words: How about Adding and removing words from revelation” Does God have as much against Gays as He obviously does with you folk, who SWALLOW the camel of the KJV perversiopn? Listen to this ADDing and SUBtracting: And the Lake is supposedly to burn “for ever and ever”.
Greek says: “for THE eons of THE eons”.
OK, so Rome / Jerome and Miss protestants foster the KJV on us, and have us believe this:
Change “FOR THE’ to “FOR, then change “OF THE” to “AND”, and we have the perversion “for ever AND ever.” There is NO “and” in this verse in greek. The EONS are NOUNS and not adjectives…
So, who gets cursed with plagues first, the Fag or the ADDer and SUBtractor?
So, the gay is a Sinner; OK
So, the KJV is a SIN too…
It would be easier to CORRECT the BIBLE’s translation by burning all the KJV’s than to CURE gays.
yet, The Chruch Rather get us ALl off on persecuting the Gay to Stand corrected WHEN he cannot; while the very thing we SHOULD correct keeps on being used as a TEXT to have infallible faith in…
GIVE ME A BREAK!!! Hypocrits!
Blind Leading the Blind!!!
ROSS
If you KJV’ers who like to Shove 5-point Calvanistic Satanism on us, using the KJV-Only crude, then I am ready to argue!
I would rather be a sinner and a gay and teach the real truth as in the original Greek, than to be a so-called straight, who blindly teaches 400 years or more of foul hatred, judgement, and mis-represting God’s Nature and Destiny for man. I would rather teach the truth of the greek and UNIVERSAL RECONCILIATIOn of ALL mankind, than to promote that the word ”ALL” does not mean ‘ALL’; that the greek word “eon” means eternal, rather than gr. “age-lasting”; that hades lasts for eternity, rather than see it destroyed in the Lake of Fire – an obvious blunder on the part of stupid dogmatists! And the list goes on for 100’s of pages!
So, lets say EVERYTHING IS A SIN: And some sins are wiorse than others. Lets count up verses by God warning us; and maybe we find a small handful about sodomy, gayness, gay love, etc, v. the 100’s against FALSE TEACHINGS, LIARS, WOLVES in sheeps clothing, devils who parade around as preschers of the truth, con men and those who sell Christ for a BUCK in book stores! We might find, in the last days, that a GAY has more right to being a faithful steward of the Word, that those who are faithful steward’s of the Anti-Gay Word persecution….
I am not saying Gay is right, or God is gay, but I will say that YOU all are part of a 1500 year old movement who cares NOTHING about what the greek truth of God really says. Liars, cheats, cons, dumb-mules, blind bats!…
KJV’ers knopw NOTHING of Greek “tense” forms…. where we see present things made future, future things made present or past, … and the list is huge!!!!!!! 400 years of protestant translation perversions, on TOP of Romanism’s 1500 years of Latin perversions!!!! … and you all want US to run after a small minority of poor sexually identity crisis victoms, and be BLIND to 2000 years of BAD translations!!!! ???? Who the rotten SINNER? Now?
ROSS
Hmmm?
God tells us in the 10 Commandments: Thou shalt not kill (murder).
OK, what about God telling Israel to go into canaan and butcher every man, woman and child, and burn and destroy all the gold and silver, etc…. ( ? somewhere in scripture?? I forgot.) So, don’t KILL unless God tells us to? OK, so lets build STANDING ARMIES and go to the Middle East and force Towel heads to hate us, when before they did not? Then we christians blame them and then kill them, and have the Jews justify it for us….
One thing to remember, all the Lev Laws were given to Israel ONLY! Not us gentiles! Ha, ha, Ha,. ( If ya want to swallow this Jew v. Gentile crude too.)
hey what about Old Test people claiming things and givening God credit for things he takes no credit for, where we see that poor fool save the ”Arc” of the Covenant ( the big communication capacitor) from falling over, and we see the stupid interpreters make it God who strikes the poor fool dead, when it’s obviously the High Voltage that kills the poor idiot. i would have given him credit for trying to help.
Ya know, maybe it was the Devil Satan who struck him dead? After all, was it God or Satan who forced That CENSUS to be taken on Israel? Kings v. Chronicles.
Ross, I’m not a KJVer, so I’m not sure what all this is supposed to mean to me.
You’re new, so I’ll cut you some slack, but in the future please keep your comments on topic.
This post merely points out how people try to ignore the clear word of God. Because in every translation, 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms, 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman, 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children), and 0% of 41,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
This topic is not as morally complex as it is made out to be.
Whew! Thanks Neil! I thought that I was going to have to challenge and discredit all of Ross’ ill conceived rants.
You did it perfectly in that one paragraph!
I came upon this by pure chance, but it is very well-said and concise. Sometimes I get sick and tired of how pro-gay advocates twist words and ignore the truth.
Neil said: Thanks, I appreciate that. I was really pleased with how that series turned out. I just went back and re-edited some things. I may have a rerun week sometime and use that.