Pro-gay theology tends to fall into one of three categories. They are all wrong, but for varying reasons. Sometimes they overlap categories. Today were covering the second type.
- 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 obviously 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.
The second view is generally better than the first (”the Bible is not the Word of God”) with respect to being able to guide people towards the truth, because you have a common authority to appeal to.
The problem with this view is that it is just plain incorrect. As hard as pro-gay theologians try, the truth is that the Bible is overwhelmingly clear. Pro-gay theologians are good at casting doubt about certain passages but they never seem to pay attention when someone points out how their reasoning is flawed.
Even some pro-gay theologians agree that the Bible has straightforward commands, but they appeal to “experience” over Scripture. The heretic John Shelby Spong denies the authority of the Bible at every turn, he at least admits that:
“The Bible can certainly be read as condemnatory of homosexual practice. Both sides admit that.”
Luke Timothy Johnson, a more orthodox theologian said:
I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good.
As noted previously, here is a summary of the Biblical view:
- 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.
I find those figures to be unambiguous and very compelling based on plain readings of the text and even more so when delving further into the context and the original languages. I think it is important to consider all those points because some people try to dismiss the traditional Biblical view because it “only” has a few passages about homosexuality. It only takes one clear passage to make a point, but there are many more than that in the Bible. These folks also don’t seem to mind making broad conclusions on verses that really do just have one verse behind them.
I have written on a couple specific mistakes pro-gay theologians make regarding Leviticus 1 (”Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”), another article on the shellfish argument and Romans 1.
There are many other resources dealing with particular verses. Here’s a terrific outline on Romans 1 that explodes the myth that the real sin is acting outside your desires (as if anyone does that!).
My favorite resource is Responding to Pro-Gay Theology by Joe Dallas. I highly encourage everyone to read it. It is very thorough but readable. I don’t have time to cover all the passages here but if people have questions on specific verses we can cover them in the comments section.
There are solid answers for any question you can come up with, provided people want to really discuss the issue. I saw this commentary on an ex-ex-gay blog (i.e., someone who tried to leave the homosexual lifestyle and returned). She is commenting on Mel White, a leading pro-gay theologian.
Mel White is a passionate and articulate man who makes it clear from the beginning of the workshop that he has absolutely no desire whatsoever to discuss the biblical passages on homosexuality. Over the years he has suffered a barrage of debates on the issue and he is thoroughly burnt out. He refuses to engage in the discussion any longer. Instead, he passes out a booklet he has written on the subject and tells us to read it. Then, he encourages us to refrain from discussing the Bible with conservative Christians because fundamentalists have no interest in sincere dialogue. Mel also encourages us not to engage in the debate for another reason. By having the conversation, we expose ourselves over and over again to the “lie” that homosexuality is wrong, and when heard repeatedly, “deep down inside you will wonder if they are right.”
That is a clever dodge on Mel’s part. But I’ll be glad to have a sincere dialogue even if he won’t.
If you examine all the facts, I think you’ll find that the case is overwhelming: God considers homosexual behavior to be sinful and his ideal for marriage is one man and one woman.
So why do people twist the scriptures so blatantly? I generally don’t speculate on the motives of individuals, as only God knows their hearts. But I have seen some themes and evidence in various cases.
Some believe the lies out of ignorance or laziness. They may be sincere Christians who just haven’t fully examined the issue. There are issues I haven’t fully explored and may have the wrong views on, so we should approach things with humility. We should do the hard work to understand important issues.
Some believe them out of political correctness. It is much easier to go with the views of the culture. They should remember 1 John 2:15-16: Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world-the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does-comes not from the Father but from the world.
I won’t name specifics here, but I am aware of those in the pro-gay theology camp that pretend to be otherwise-orthodox Christians. But if you follow their own blogs, for example, you discover how thoroughly fraudulent they are. You need to watch out for those who use a veneer of Christianity to justify their preferences. They desparately want everyone’s approval – even though it will still leave them unfulfilled – and they especially want the church’s approval (or at least its silence).
There is also the passive-aggressive stance where some confidently claim that the Bible does or doesn’t say something about homosexual behavior, then when you go to analyze the verses they “humbly” say they don’t know that much (as if the subject were just too complicated or it is so gray we just can’t reach a conclusion).
False teachers aren’t necessarily gay themselves. They may have other motives for spreading their lies. Jesus warned that there would be false teachers in the church and Paul did as well. What better way to accomplish this than to infiltrate the church and bring it down from the inside?
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Of course, there are frauds at the other end of the spectrum as well, such as Ted Haggard, or hateful false teachers like Fred Phelps. Those aren’t Biblical models, either.
Some people have a “revelation” about the lack of sinfulness of homosexuality when a loved one is involved. Perhaps this is due to new information and a fresh look at the Bible, but perhaps it is due to major league rationalization. It is similar to pro-life Christians who change their minds when their child is pregnant and encourage the murder of their grandchildren. Did they really change their views on the morality of abortion based on new information, or did their fear of embarrassment and/or inconvenience trump their moral views?
Some people just want to believe the lies. It is a strong delusion. And Satan’s oldest trick is still used today: “Did God really say . . .?” Hint: Yes. Yes, He did.
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
“So why do people twist the scriptures so blatantly?”
To answer your question all you have to ask is why it is only in the last half century have people found a reason to try and explain away every verse in the bible that refers to homosexuality as referring to sex with young boys, temple prostitution, etc.? Why did almost none of the serious biblical scholars and theologians even glimpse this possibility in over 1900 years of study and scholarship.
It is the same thing with a sex day creation. Up until Darwin came along I am not aware of a single theologian who thought the word “day” in Genesis meant anything other than a literal day. But after Darwin many theologians found it easier to incorporate Darwin vs. defending the orthodox interpretation.
The answer seems to me to be compromise with the world. Why compromise? Well who wants to be viewed as an evil bigot who won’t let a loving and nice homosexual couple marry? Who wants to defend a rather difficult biblical position verses the onslaught of a secular culture enamored with the cause of gay marriage?
I think that answers itself, total. Why assume homosexuality wasn’t implied by those 3-4 verses in the Bible? No one else ever considered that an option.
Why consider anything other than a six day creation? No one else ever considered that an option.
Why? Because sometimes science and logic and morality improve.
Because sometimes traditional thinking is simply wrong.
“Why assume homosexuality wasn’t implied by those 3-4 verses in the Bible? No one else ever considered that an option.”
Dan – Why assume it? Because that is what the texts plainly say. And who says no one considered it an option? Most of what the Bible teaches was foreign to what the world was like, so of course people considered other options. Read Leviticus 18 again – the whole thing – and you’ll see what I mean.
“I think that answers itself, total. Why assume homosexuality wasn’t implied by those 3-4 verses in the Bible? No one else ever considered that an option.
Why consider anything other than a six day creation? No one else ever considered that an option.”
Numerous other cultures considered both.
Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks et al. all considered sexual morality issues quite differently. Numerous other creation myths abounded throughout the world with varying time lines. For example, the Greek creation myth involves several creations taking place over large periods of time. Despite this, Jewish and Christian theologians for millennia were quite clear on the meaning of these verses. The need to compromise didn’t develop until 50 years ago (w/ regard to homosexuality), and about 100-150 years ago (w/ regard to Darwin).
It seems that interpretations changed because compromise with the world was easier than defending the clear meaning of the text. If someone doesn’t think a six-day creation is defensible, don’t pretend that interpretation allows you to read into the text something that makes you more comfortable- by allowing to believe in both macro-evolution and God. If someone doesn’t think it is right for the Bible to condemn homosexuality, don’t pretend that there is some kind of special revelation after 2,000 years that the Bible suddenly condones what it once condemned.
I don’t understand why folks who are so intent on compromise every time the world moves away from God’s Word are intent on finding justification for their compromise in God’s Word. If you think for sociological reasons that allowing gay marriage is better for society (to avoid the perils of the promiscuous gay lifestyle) we might find agreement there. But I doubt we shall agree on whether the Bible condones such actions (much less prohibits them as sinful).
Total,
Excellent. Never heard it put quite that succinctly or that well. You expressed what a lot of us actually believe but never quite find the words to say. Thanks.
“If someone doesn’t think a six-day creation is defensible, don’t pretend that interpretation allows you to read into the text something that makes you more comfortable- by allowing to believe in both macro-evolution and God.”
Help me out here, I want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly, total. Are you saying that one must interpret the six day creation as six literal 24 hour days? I understand that is the position of some literalists (but not other literalists, who agree that one need not necessarily interpret it as six 24 hour days – and indeed would be wrong to do so), but after reading your post a couple of times, I wasn’t totally sure.
My $0.02 – I find the old earth / young earth debates interesting, as they both make some good and bad points in my view. But how that is interpreted as a literal 6 days or not doesn’t result in saying that the text itself wasn’t inspired.
When looking at the verses on this topic, there isn’t much debate on the definition of “man,” “lay,” “woman,” “detestable,” etc.
Yes, I believe in six literal days, similar to countless theologians and biblical scholars up until the time of Darwin.
“I understand that is the position of some literalists (but not other literalists, who agree that one need not necessarily interpret it as six 24 hour days – and indeed would be wrong to do so).”
On what grounds would they do so? And here I mean grounds other than making it easier to adapt to today’s evolutionary thinking.
We don’t even need to get into the Hebrew Word Yom and its use throughout the OT. [Which almost always refers to a literal day, and always refers to a literal day when prefaced or followed by a number].
Thankfully, God was (and is) kind enough to give us the definition within the text:
“And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.” Genesis 1:4-5.
As if this wasn’t clear enough God reiterates to the Hebrews
“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy” Exodus 20:9-11.
Not to mention that those who adopt the theory of days as equal to ages create a whole bunch of theological problems.
One being, if death enters the world through sin, how does the driving force of evolution (natural selection)- which works based on death of the weaker less adapted (or adaptable) species- take place for millions of years before the introduction of sin? How can God have looked on creation and called it “good” when it was filled with death?
Sorry to go off topic Neil, my apologies.
“But how that is interpreted as a literal 6 days or not doesn’t result in saying that the text itself wasn’t inspired.”
This would be my position exactly! We need not take a passage literally to think that it is inspired. We might even think a passage has its facts wrong and still think it inspired.
We were never commanded to read the Creation (or the Bible as a whole) as a literal representation of what happened. That is an extrabiblical and incorrect premise and can lead to all manner of nuttiness.
“On what grounds would they do so? And here I mean grounds other than making it easier to adapt to today’s evolutionary thinking.”
On the basis of evidence. I don’t think there is any biblical, moral or rational support for thinking that God would have us ignore our own senses and reality around us.
Again, it is extrabiblical to make reading the Bible literally a necessity.
Take its Truths literally? AMEN! 100 % and unreserved Yes!
Take each jot and tittle literally? There’s just no rational nor biblical ground for suggesting we do so.
The Truth found in the Creation story is that God created the world and it is a good creation. One to be tended and lived upon responsibly.
The “facts” of the story are, quite frankly, wrong. And were never intended to be taken as facts.
And while the creation angle is tangential to the topic, how we read the Bible IS central.
“We need not take a passage literally to think that it is inspired. We might even think a passage has its facts wrong and still think it inspired.”
Whoa! Those two sentences say radically different things. The first is reasonable. There are all sorts of thing we don’t take literally.
To say the facts are wrong is completely different and unsupported.
TotalT – no problem – I just didn’t want to end up debating pro-gay theology AND Darwinism in the same post!
“Some believe the lies out of ignorance or laziness. They may be sincere Christians who just haven’t fully examined the issue.”
I may not have pointed this out, but I was raised in a traditional Southern Baptist church and was quite conservative and traditional the first half of my life. I believed fully that the Bible said homosexuality was wrong and it was really beyond question.
I didn’t switch from that position to the one I have now until AFTER I began studying what the Bible had to actually say on the topic, after praying seriously for guidance and looking at some contextual information. I didn’t particularly WANT to change my position. I was convinced as I could be that I was correct in thinking homosexuality was wrong.
I just didn’t find the Biblical support for that position.
For what it’s worth.
That is interesting. I went the opposite way to arrive at my views. It could be instructive to go through the verses in context, but it appears that when we get close to resolution the “but there are other Bible difficulties” trump card gets played and we get off track. Or the questions are ignored (from the Romans 1 post).
That is why the foundation is so important. If people come from a standpoint of not picking and choosing what verses to consider God’s Word then reasonable discussions can take place. Otherwise it is very unproductive. The Dalmatian Theologians are glad to use the verses they approve of. And they will be fine with certain verses until it is proved that they had the wrong interpretation. Then they go in the “uninspired” category. I don’t have time for that game.
The “facts” of the story are, quite frankly, wrong. And were never intended to be taken as facts.
And while the creation angle is tangential to the topic, how we read the Bible IS central.
I believe that I have spotted the source of what I respectfully perceive to be your problem. To believe that the Word is inspired, yet has the “facts” wrong is inexplicable to this humble reader.
If it is indeed acceptable to edit and/or veto passsages of the bible to suit our whims, inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, please feel free to let us all know where we are to send our submissions and recommendations.
Respectfully,
Joseph
I think the fact of the matter is that we are quickly approaching a “post-Christian” era in our society. Europe has already shed much of its traditional past due primarily from the Industrial and Scientific Revolution. America is still struggling, however, to reconcile science and fundamentalist theology — two schools of thought that can never be reconciled. Once Christians realize that we are living in the 21st century, and not the 1st, they will forgo these silly discussions about how to justify the blatant homophobia in the bible.
I think the fact of the matter is that we are quickly approaching a “post-Christian” era in our society.>
What you say seems to be true, but very sad. When one does not discover that God and His Word are true until it is too late, that is even sadder. It is not homophobic to stand for truth.
“…and not the 1st, they will forgo these silly discussions about how to justify the blatant homophobia in the bible.”
Wow, I thought we were having a honest and civil discussion about what the Bible says or does not say. I can sense everyone racking their brain cells and arguing their stance in a concise, thoughtful fashion. You, however, just chalk it up to homophobia. You went the cheap and easy route. Congrats.
Hey David,
I disagree with people who have premarital sex. Do I have hetero-phobia?
Hi David,
I didn’t expect you to agree with me but I figured you could do better than to dismiss my arguments with a silly pejorative (”blatant homophobia” – eek!). God does not have an irrational fear of gay people and neither do I. I actually get along rather well with them.
Do you make the same argument about bestiality-phobia, since you are an enlightened 21st century person and not a slack-jawed gawker like me?
Seriously, to think that God didn’t anticipate all this is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of him. You seem to acknowledge that the Bible does indicate that homosexual behavior is wrong, so I suppose that puts you in category 1.
The religion vs. science bit is a false dichotomy I’ll be posting on sometime soon.
P.S. It is good to see others commenting. I really don’t need to see five pictures of myself in the sidebar! WordPress’ new feature is a double-edged sword.
Yes, I agree completely that God doesn’t have an irrational fear of gay people — nor is God homophobic. Only people discriminate irrationally against each other.
And yes, Chance, you’re right. I am not going to try to justify the bible, because it is unjustifiable. Our ethics and morality have progressed enormously over the last 2000 years. I’m not going to justify the slavery, misogyny, or racism in the bible either. These practices are without merit, and cannot be justified.
Essentially, gay and lesbian relationships are intrinsically more ethical and moral as they are based on love, equality, and mutual respect. Heterosexual relationships are largely based in misogyny and require a lot of support from their church, community and government to survive. And even then, more than half of all heterosexual relationships end in divorce.
Mom,
“It is not homophobic to stand for truth”.
How true!! Homophobia is the opposite of truth. It is fear and hatred based on irrationality and ignorance. Fortunately, the Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights Movement has made HUGE progress over the last 20 years. Just imagine what the next 20 will bring!! Freedom and justice for all!
“Our ethics and morality have progressed enormously over the last 2000 years.”
Thanks. Please provide Jesus with an update. He thought that since He was God that He had the ultimate view of morality.
“I am not going to try to justify the bible, because it is unjustifiable.”
Indeed. I’m glad we live in a country where you have the religious freedom to say such things. Really. We even have a label for those who hold those views: Non-Christian.
And yes, Neil, I am STRONGLY in group #1. I don’t think the Bible has much value apart from its literary history. I don’t live my life by the rantings of polygamist homophobes who owned slaves. I have much higher standards than that.
“And yes, Chance, you’re right. I am not going to try to justify the bible, because it is unjustifiable. Our ethics and morality have progressed enormously over the last 2000 years. I’m not going to justify the slavery, misogyny, or racism in the bible either. These practices are without merit, and cannot be justified.”
Well, it’s a good thing you are not a member of a Christian denomination or anything. Oh, wait…
As I’ve explained before, I am a UU who attends UCC services. I would never call myself a Christian — the word has such a negative connotation.
I also don’t identify myself as Christian because I don’t believe in the following:
–that Jesus ever existed
–that Jesus died and was resurrected
–that Jesus is the Messiah
–that the Bible was written by God
–that there is only one true religion
I attend church services several times a week. Not because of the theology, I like the social aspects and the community involvement. I think what churches need to do is get rid of all the God stuff and just focus on peace and justice issues.
David, thanks for the clarification.
Interestingly, some liberal theologians disagree with you on the first item but agree with the rest. At least you don’t claim to be Christian like they do.
I attend church services several times a week. Not because of the theology, I like the social aspects and the community involvement.>
It is pretty evident. I hope and pray that you learn the Truth somewhere along lifes’ way before it is too late. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life and no one comes to the Father except through Him. I have no anger feelings toward you, just a desire for you to know Him.
Mom,
Well, to be perfectly honest I do have anger feelings towards your theology. I believe your religion is a serious threat to the survival of civilization. I also believe your religion has been a serious impediment to science, progress, and morality. There is a war waging right now against the evils of religion. Fortunately, truth and science are winning.
David,
Just out of curiosity, do you feel that way towards many religions, or is it particularly Christianity?
No, I think Islam is far worse. And other religions, Jainism for one, are relatively benign.
I recommend these two books if anyone would really like to learn the truth (caution, it may cause you to stop believing in your mythology):
http://www.amazon.com/Letter-Christian-Nation-Sam-Harris/dp/0307265773
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3929371-4484766?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184787722&sr=1-1
Talk about getting off track. Now you can see why the pro LGBT folks are so successful @ what they do.
David,
Your remark about not believiing Jesus ever really existed is enough to prove you don’t want to be confused with the facts. There’s enough historical evidence for His existence even without bringing the Bible into it. If I remember correctly, something like 25 or 30 sources in all. Also, you would probably be surprized @ how much you have in common with the historical Jesus. Especially about the evils of religion.
Here’s a great article about the Jesus Myth:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html
Here’s a great article about the Jesus non-myth (i.e. Truth) http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=51788864
Enjoy! : )
OK, David, let’s get back on track. I should blog on Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens sometime (”Meet the new atheists, same as the old atheists.”) They trot out the same arguments that Christians have addressed for 2,000 years. They just turn up the volume and the rhetoric.
They are clever in their presentation but if you analyze their arguments it is just a stream of logical fallacies (”Some religious people have done bad things, so religion poisons everything.” Sure.)
Ultimately I think civilization is moving towards polyamory instead of “traditional” marriage. Marriage has always been a property transaction — a woman being transferred from one owner to another. Now with romantic marriage emerging shortly after the Enlightenment we expect marriage to be about love and mutual commitment. I think we are now approaching an era where even that is becoming anachronistic. Here is a great UU site advocating for polyamorous relationships:
http://www.uupa.org/
Off track again, David. But I’ll take a brief intermission to say this: Thanks for more evidence that the slippery slope argument isn’t a logical fallacy after all (at least if properly understood).
The oxymoron that is “same sex marriage” isn’t just a little different from saying it is just between one man and one woman. It says the opposite: “Marriage is NOT just between a man and a woman. It is whatever we want to call it.”
The liberals guilted into the “same sex marriage” lie have opened the door to all sorts of perversions, just as Conservatives predicted. “Ethicists” like Peter Singer have disgusting views, but they actually make some valid points: If you rationalize abortion then why not infanticide? All the (bad) reasoning is the same. Same thing for bestiality and polyamory.
Now, if you have any comments on the actual post they would be welcomed. Otherwise save your electrons.
You’re welcome, Neil. I don’t think liberals ever hid from the public that they stand for liberty — it is right there in the name after all. Liberals advocate, along with libertarians, that people should be afforded the right to form relationships with other consenting adults at their own choosing and discretion. The “slippery slope” as you call it, ends when all people have the right to form the relationships they choose, and for these relationships to be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as any other. Isn’t freedom great!
Yes, David, my UCC / UU / atheist friend, God has given us great freedoms.
I just wouldn’t confuse freedom with approval, though.
I wonder if hate crimes legislation will increase the “freedom” of people that believe the Bible is truth. Especially since one of it’s main objectives is to cut off debate of issues that aren’t cuturally acceptable.
Well, since hate crime legislation only adds penalties for actual assault I don’t how it has any effect on speech. Rest assured, Fred Phelps and his ilk will be totally unaffected by hate crime legislation. Unless, of course, one of them actually hits someone.
Hi David,
“I think what churches need to do is get rid of all the God stuff and just focus on peace and justice issues.”
WHOSE peace and WHOSE justice issues David? I find it interesting that the further away anyone moves from the absolute morale authority of the Bible, the greater the tendency to define morality based on how someone feels. The problem with that approach is that it allows no absolute right or wrong. There is only an ever shifting definition based upon whatever a sufficently sized group agrees is good or evil. That leads to my second point.
“I don’t live my life by the rantings of polygamist homophobes who owned slaves. I have much higher standards than that.”
Actually, if there are no morale absolutes defined by God’s authority, that leaves only group think mentality. Homophobia isn’t bad until a sufficiently sized group says it is. Neither is slavery. I suspect many who favor such an approach today to individually pick and choose what is good and what is evil would “go along to get along” with the standards of the time. In other words, the conditions of the time would drive what many consider “good” and what is “evil”. This conditional approach is perhaps the greatest trap people fall into. They are not truly saying there is no God. Such people are essentially saying they too can be God, that theyhave His wisdom and can successfully decide what is good and what is evil. Christians themselves have certainly fallen into that trap. Being Christian does not make one immune from saying the ends justify the means. But I believe we are called to examine ourselves and to ask others to help measure ourselves to help us avoid falling into that trap.
I am a Christian. I believe there is an absolute moral standard to which we are held accountable. That is God’s standard as defined within the Bible. My point in writing this is that I do not think the details you argue over such as if homosexuality is good or evil are really where we fundamentally disagree. I say the true disagreement is over the authority of owns making the decision of what is right and what is wrong – God or man. Before you remove God from the phrase “In God we trust”, think long and hard about whose name goes there instead.
I respect you for taking the time to share your opinions in a respectful and thoughtful way. While we obviously disagree, I appreciate your input to this discussion.
Cheers,
Lone Star Jeffe
[...] 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 [...]
Neil said: “My $0.02 – I find the old earth / young earth debates interesting, as they both make some good and bad points in my view. But how that is interpreted as a literal 6 days or not doesn’t result in saying that the text itself wasn’t inspired.
When looking at the verses on this topic, there isn’t much debate on the definition of “man,” “lay,” “woman,” “detestable,” etc.”
Neil, if a debate can be about the definition of such a simple word as “day,” then one can easily envision debates on the others you mention. Quite easily.
Is a gay man really a man? Sure, physically. Genetically? hmmmm – maybe not. Same for “woman.” Since homosexuals have existed just as long as heterosexuals, maybe we’ve been wrong about there being only two sexes forever?
The fact is that Christianity has changed it’s rules, traditions, and definitions on what is moral over time. Just as we, as a people, have become more learned over time.
David – you rock! Love your posts.
You didn’t mention the problem with # 1. For me there is no problem with #1. The only proof that the “Bible” is the word of God engages in circular reasoning.–”because it says so!”
The bible, according to Jeremiah, 8:8 is filled with the results of “the lying pens of the scribes” .
There is plenty of evidence of biblical corruption such as the Johanine comma-where virtually everyone , even the catholic church agrees was an interpolation. Also see, Richard Ehrman for a snoot full.
The Bible is great but so is Shakespeare. Most bible defenders would/could never apply it literally or completely. If anyone points out some contradiction or falsity, they explain it away by some appeal to “context” or “metaphore”
Often the bible is nothing more than a great justification for hate and discrimination.
antonio
Hi Antonio,
This post was directed at those claiming to be Christians, so the charge of circular reasoning doesn’t apply here. Read part two for more on that.
Re. Jeremiah 8 – if you read it in context you’ll see that he is obviously not referring to the Bible.
You attempt a clever argument there by saying that the Bible is wrong and that one can only defend it with falsehoods, but that is question-begging. You are just assuming what you should be proving and trying to pre-empt any defenses.
“Often the bible is nothing more than a great justification for hate and discrimination.”
Perhaps. But you don’t judge an ideology by those who violate its tenets. The issue is whether the Bible teaches those things.
P.S. Often the Bible is rationalized away by those who want to deny their sinfulness before a perfect and Holy God. They use this denial as justification for all sorts of sinful behavior.
Peace,
Neil