Pro-gay theology tends to fall into one of three categories. They are all wrong, but for varying reasons. Sometimes they overlap categories. Today we cover the final line of thinking. Then I’ll have a summary post.
- The Bible is either not the Word of God, or most parts of it aren’t. This view claims that we can ignore the probitions 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.
The third view attempts to affirm scripture but makes a major theological mistake afterwards. Think about the premise: God is allegedly overturning a moral law and simultaneously making it immoral to quote the Bible.
One denomination has a slogan that “God is still speaking.” This would be true provided that it meant that God still speaks through his Word. However, liberal theologians tend to use this phrase to mean that God is changing his moral laws.
Some people 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. That is the first error above. However, those in this third category appear to hold to Advanced Dalmatian Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives.
This category overlaps a bit with those who don’t think He communicated his laws in a discernable way in the first place (i.e., in the Bible), but they now think He is communicating with Swiss-watch precision to them.
Here’s an example: A Methodist pastor named Laurie Hays Coffman did a pro-gay theology piece that made the argument that she wants to “unfurl our corporate sails to catch today’s winds as the Spirit blows afresh.” She said she was challenged by the vision God gave to Peter in Acts 10-11 where God makes it clear that the Gospel is for the Gentiles, too, and that the Israelites’ ceremonial dietary laws are no longer in force.
Her reasoning is that in the same way that God overturned those laws that He is now overturning the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.
The problem is her poor Biblical analysis. There are at least nine things wrong with this view:
- The person with the revelation was Peter, one of Jesus’ inner circle and a key leader in the early church. It wasn’t made to you, me or someone like Ms. Coffman. That doesn’t mean God couldn’t reveal something important like this to us, just that it is highly unlikely.
- The visions were clear and emphatic. Peter was given the vision three times.
- Peter was inclined to reject the meaning of the vision, whereas these pro-gay theologians have views on human sexuality that are virtually indistinguishable from the prevailing culture and they are glad to accept this “new revelation.”
- There was external validation for Peter from the Roman centurion.
- This lesson showed up in the Bible, not outside it. I’m not saying miracles don’t happen outside the Bible. It is just that things appear in the Bible for a reason. God communicating that the ceremonial laws had been fulfilled was one of those “big deals.”
- This vision overturned a ceremonial law, not a moral law. There are zero examples in the Bible of God reversing his moral laws. In fact, the more Jesus talked the stricter the laws seemed to get, because He emphasized the spirit of the law and not just the letter (i.e., lust was akin to committing adultery, anger was akin to murder, etc.). The dietary laws never applied to Gentiles.
- The “God has changed his mind view” is primarily being “revealed” to theologically liberal Christians in the U.S. . . . the very ones who often deny his Word to begin with! So we can’t trust the accurate transmission of the original writings but we can trust their new revelations? Go figure.
- If God is revealing a change, why is it necessarily more liberal? Why couldn’t God make his laws more stringent?
- The Bible gives strong warnings not to add or take away from its teachings.
And here’s a repeat from yesterday: Even some pro-gay theologians agree that the Bible has straightforward commands, but they appeal to “experience” over Scripture. Luke Timothy Johnson 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.
There are simply no good reasons to believe that God is changing his moral laws (dropping those against homosexual behavior and adding those saying not to preach against it) and only informing selected people (as opposed to the Apostles and their direct followers) through revelation or “experience.”
Again, consider that:
- 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.
Let me point you again to the introduction to ensure you understand my perspective. I think we should treat homosexuals with the same love and respect we’d extend to anyone else. But we should not edit the Bible to match our culture and we should not condone false teachers. God’s way is the best way. I don’t mean that as a sound bite. It really is the best way to live life – now and for eternity.
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
Just some less serious observations at the end of this all…
“where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives. “
Maybe conservatives aren’t listening… (ha!)
100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
Except for the ones that reference multiple women and one man, or the ones that reference forcibly taking a woman as your wife (whose parents you had just slaughtered), or the ones that reference 1-800 women and one man and dozens of concubines…
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.
Let’s see then, I reckon we should also note that a whoppin’ .01214% of 41,173 Bible verses even vaguely appear to refer to homosexual behavior in a negative way, although there is some confusion on even those five-ish verses…
Nothing serious in all that, just random observations I’d failed to make thus far.
Thanks for being polite and relatively thoughtful in this process. May God open all our eyes to God’s truth in love.
Neil,
I greatly appreciate your discussion on this topic. Very good, very deep reading. The comments have also been interesting.
One thing that bothers me somewhat is your asessment that God changed ceremonial law. If God can change ceremonial law, why can’t He law change moral law?
Of course, God is sovereign, He can do what He pleases. But I don’t believe He will change His commands. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Now that brings in lots of seeming contradictions and Dan is good and finding contradictions. I will have to do a lot more study before I would stand on a soap-box and say that.
Another thing that I find almost missing in your posts is the mention of grace. My suggestion would be to add a part 5 of 4 to address this. Grace is as important as doctrine. When it all comes down, we are all sinners. Without His grace, we would all perish.
I especially appreciate the discussions after your post. Dan’s insights (which I disagree with) make me think. I’m not sure I know why I disagree with these points, but Dan challenges me to think, to pray and to ask God for more information.
Finally, I would take an opportunity to tell everyone who isn’t 100% sure WHY they think the way they do to spend time with God, to spend time with His Word to learn the Truth. God cannot lie and God cannot contradict Himself. If there is something that seems to contradict that, then it requires more time with God to understand His ways. Remember the Bereans who “were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore, many of them believed…” (Acts 17:11, 12).
By searching the scriptures, they didn’t pick and choose which verses to follow and which to ignore, they searched all the scriptures. And this searching led them to the Christ.
One final comment. I don’t believe God speaks today in the same way he did during the Apostles’ days. In those days, He gave the Apostles His Word not just for them, but for all of us. Today, He gives us His word (lower case) for our lives. His word for us will always work hand in hand with His Word for the world.
Dan will surely find fault with a lot that I said (I hope so) and I will surely have to spend time to understand. Thanks for the good work Neil.
Randy – Excellent points. Re. Grace – I tried to put a pre-emptive bit about that in the introductory post, but that is a good reminder. Again, homosexual behavior isn’t unforgivable. And we are all sinners in need of a Savior.
God does not speak as He did to the Apostles. The prophets put their lives on the line every time they claimed to speak for God. The Canon of scripture is closed.
Morning Folks,
Regarding the 8 points mentioned about Coffman’s Biblical analysis, I think I would offer a 9th point. If I’m not mistaken, Jesus’ death on the Cross was the fulfillment of all the non-moral laws. They were no longer operative. Peter (as well as most others except Paul) just didn’t get it; as it seems is the case with many today. And to repeat a point made in an earlier post, the non-moral laws were never given to gentiles in the first place.
Good point, Woz. Thanks for this and your other comments. I may amend the original post and add those when I get a chance.
A fitting conclusion. I will comment more when I have some free time.
If I may offer a summary of our discussions here, from my point of view?
You offered – in a very polite and non-abusive of those who disagree with you – manner the following argument.
1. The Bible is God’s Word
2. As such, its commands should be taken quite literally in the proper context as they were given
3. The Bible calls homosexuality a wrong in about five places
4. Therefore, we ought not allow gay marriage or make homosexuality morally normative in any way
Then you proceeded to say why (in your opinion) those ~five places in the Bible are clearly talking about any and all homosexual behavior up to and including gay marriage.
Is that a fair representation of your presentation?
Generally, yes.
From my point of view, there are some logical flaws in your thinking, point by point:
1. This is okay for those who accept this premise (as I would, depending upon how you define “God’s Word”), but of course, would not work for general audiences who may not accept this.
Yes, of course, but this was an “inside” debate, if you will.
2. There is a huge leap of logic here. I don’t think that you believe this any more than I do. You freely acknowledge that the Bible in toto shouldn’t be taken literally – not every single word – but in context, with due consideration given to the many various lyrical styles and devices.
Dan, I think you are continuing to misunderstand and misapply the notion of “literal.” Just because I acknowledge that not every passage is to be taken literally (I’m banking that the eye-gouging / hand-chopping in Matthew 18:8-9 is hyperbole!) doesn’t mean that passages like Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 aren’t clear commands. Do you wring your hands over the bestiality command the same way you do over the homosexual behavior commands?
3. I’d suggest that the Bible appears to call homosexuality wrong in about five places but that it’s debatable what the passage is talking about and note that the word “homosexual” or variations of it appear nowhere in the Bible and that Jesus does not speak of it and nowhere is gay marriage addressed at all.
Dan, those aren’t arguments, they are trivia facts! Seriously. The word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible but it is an essential of Christianity. If God had used the word “homosexual” instead of perfectly describing the behavior then you’d be twisting the argument the other direction.
I’ve addressed the “Jesus was silent on homosexuality” logical fallacy before. Have you read that link? Please do.
Since Jesus upheld every letter of the Old Testament and in the Hebrew culture homosexuality was punishable by death, do you seriously think Jesus had any reason to speak out against homosexual marriage?
By the way, you take an awfully literal view of the Bible when you claim that the Bible didn’t specifically use the word homosexual.
I’d further note that your position is that God sometimes commands/wants God’s people to take actions that are contrary to accepted morality. Therefore, even if you think that gay marriage is wrong, according to your thinking it is entirely possible that God may command/want people to enter in gay marriage.
If, as you believe, God sometimes commands what is normally immoral, then we would have a hard time “proving” any sin as wrong. We can’t hardly say, “But God wouldn’t do that! It’s against God’s Word!”, when we’ve already established that God sometimes will command some to do what is contrary to God’s Word.
No, Dan, you are misunderstanding the Bible and projecting that flawed understanding over clear passages in an attempt to nullify them. You are turning a fairly benign mistake into a more serious one.
We’ve thoroughly hashed and rehashed my problems with your logical premises, so we need not review that, but Where am I wrong in that last bit about God commanding what God has forbidden?
Tony’s comment addressed much of what you view as a problem with parts of the Bible. If that doesn’t suffice I’d look into some books on Bible difficulties. I’ll just remind you that there are things that are immoral for us to do as individuals (vigilante justice) that are perfectly acceptable for the state to do (regular justice). God’s people were acting as his proxies, just as He gives the government rights in Romans 13. I’m not sure how many ways to explain that, other than if you think parts of the Bible don’t belong there then your problem is with God, not me.
Dan will surely find fault with a lot that I said (I hope so)
Sorry. No. Nothing wrong with what you said at all as far as I’m concerned…
Dan,
Quick comment. We don’t really need to discuss anything the Bible says about homosexuality to defend the position on prohibiting gay “marriage”. Jesus specifically & clearly defined God’s plan for marriage in MT 19. Without violently twisting the clear meaning of the passage, I don’t see how gay “marriage” could be forced into His definition.
Please note that I’m not trying to go into whether this passage could be used to speak against homosexuality in general. Only speaking to the marriage issue.
Nice series, Neil. I thoroughly enjoyed the debate. I even got some very good laughs out of it all. Everyone here deserves congratulations on the civility of the conversation. Thank you all.
That said…
Neil, total, mom2, and others in the same camp. I wonder what your views would be if you yourself were homosexual. Surely they would be different. I can only imagine the struggles they must endure. It surely isn’t a choice one would make. It happened to them quite naturally.
Love your enemy. Turn the other cheek. Let homosexuals have the same legal rights given to the rest of us – let them call it whatever they want. It surely does no harm to you or me. If they are going to hell, then surely they are going there anyway…
Thanks, Mark. I’ll do a post in a few weeks on the whole “born that way” myth. Many people do specifically choose that lifestyle. If I love my enemy, I’ll look for opportunities to share the truth with him. Eternity is a mighty long time. We are all destined for Hell for our sins and rebellion against God unless we accept Jesus’ sacrifice in our place.
The Civil Unions / Marriage thing is another debate. I’m supportive of them having estate rights (I’m against all estate taxes – the gov’t shouldn’t profit from your death) and hospital visitation rights. But we don’t need to redefine marriage for that.
I am not forcing my religious beliefs on anyone. They are forcing their pro-gay beliefs on us and our children through unelected judges. When I argue against “same sex marriage” (oxymoron alert!) I just use secular arguments unless I am talking to Christians. Civil unions are just as bad with respect to the inevitable consequences (public school indoctrination for kindergarteners on up, silencing of the church, polygamy, etc.).
hiya Neil..I’ve also written on the biggest lie of our century ..that homo–sexuality is not in some way caused by sexual abuse…ALL libs will deny this but the evidence speaks for itself..great work!!!
Angel – so every homosexual person has been sexually abused?
ROLF! Another great belly laugh. Thanks Angel.
Mark,
You pose an interesting question.
Since I believe we are all sinners, I can personally state I have never tried to reinterpret Scripture to justify my actions. Nor do I personally know many others that want to reinterpret Scripture when they sin. I go to God & repent & ask for help in the future. I may try to justify my actions culturally, but not to God.
Also, I personally I do not make it a practice to single out homosexuals for persecution. Sexual orientation should have no bearing on a person’s treatment as being a person of sacred worth. Nor again, do I know many people that would deny homosexuals their right to bieng treated with dignity & respect. But at the same time, I resent having what I believe to be a polluted & preverted lifestyle shoved down my or my families throat while I’m expected to stand passively by & change my beliefs.
You see Mark, we didn’t choose the battle. It was the LGBT folks that suddenly decided that based on some new evidence, or new revelation of the Holy Spirit, or new Biblical interpretion what has been accepted for over 2,000 years (longer if you’re Jewish) as sin has now changed. What the Bible condemns it now blesses. We are not the ones that have been tearing denominations apart by demanding that what has always been taught as sinful now be changed to accomodate their lifestyle.
I’m also not aware of any other sin being treated differently. My bet would be that if some group started promoting adultery as now being acceptable based on some new evidence, revelation, interpretation, whatever, you would see just as much opposition as to homosexuality in the Church. If you don’t believe that just look @ the statistics regarding the number of pastors dismissed every year for sexual misconduct or divorce.
You’re right Mark, I don’t know how I’d feel if I were homosexual. But based on my past actions I doubt that I would demand others give up their beliefs to accomodate my sins.
Neil:
Thank you for your time and well written series regarding this topic. Your blog is a blessing. On the other hand it’s been a curse this week as I had read more here than the many medical articles that have been piling up on my desk this week! In the end, I welcome such “curses”!
Godspeed.
Respectfully,
Joseph
Wow Woz! Well stated.
Respectfully,
Joseph
Yes Woz. Very well stated. Not being religious myself, I wasn’t aware that a major attempt was in place to officially reinterpret the Bible. If that is the case, then it must be a very – VERY – small number of people making the attempt. Homosexuals are already a very small minority. And those that are both religious AND involved in such an attempt would have to be miniscule. I can certainly understand why you’d be upset, though.
However, the Bible has been reinterpreted many many times over the years. Isn’t that why there are so many different forms of “Christianity?”
Mark, interesting insights, as usual. I appreciate your open-mindedness.
I’m not sure what you meant by “reinterpreted many times,” but I did want to plug a piece I did called how many times has your Bible been translated?. It addresses the myth that the Bible has been changed many times. The truth is that it has been copied rather successfuly many times in the original language and only translated once. I think that is important for people to know. We can be very confident in what the original writings said.
Mark,
You may call what’s going on in the United Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterian, not to mention the UCC & other denominations minuscule, but I see it as a major theological shift involving millions of people. The people leading the shift may in fact be small, but as history has proven, most people are sheep & will believe whatever is easiest. Especially when being driven by the culture. It doesn’t take many people calling names (homophobe, intolerant, unloving) & threating lawsuits to start a movement.
As for different forms of Christianity, not so. There is only one form but many different practices. For example, there are certain fundamental beliefs that are common & required to be called a Christian: Diety of Christ, Virgin Birth, bodily resurrection of Christ just to name a few. There are more but you get the drift. Where “Christians” differ are on secondary matters such as mode of baptism, how to take Holy Communion, praying, etc. You’ll find that in these areas, the Bible is either not very explicit or people have misinterpreted the passages. Not actually a matter of “reinterpretation” but how it’s interpreted in the 1st place.
In the instant situation, what has been the interpretation for a couple of thousand years is now being challenged to fit a particular lifestyle. And the group wanting to make the change is demanding that all others submit.
Woz – gotcha. Thanks for the education. Sounds to me like homosexual activists are treating religious doctrine as something that can be changed – like the law of the land.
Sinces they are having such problems with changing law, I cannot imagine that they think changing religious doctrine would be any easier. Either way, it sounds like a politcal movement being accomplished through religion.
Woz and Mark,
I think some of the changes are coming from well meaning Christians who are trying to be inclusive. Suppose that you find one of your good friends is homosexual or has had an abortion. Are you going to confront them, tell them that this is a sin? Or, will you, like most Christians let it slide and maybe even reconsider your views? Now I’m sure I know what Neil would do, but a large number of Christians would revisit their views.
Assuming you do revisit your views and decide the homosexuality (or abortion) is no longer a sin, then you may condone that lifestyle. Given the Biblical view, I believe this would be a sin. So in condoning the sinner, you become just like this person.
This is complicated and I’m not 100% certain that I can say what happens. But that’s where grace comes in. All of us are sinners and there are likely areas of our life that are COVERED in sin. Only by asking the help of the Holy Spirit can those sins be exposed.
Well said, Randy. For the record, I would be clear if someone asked me if homosexuality or abortion were a sin. But I don’t try to “fix” anybody before I share the Gospel. I was always glad that no one said, “Neil, I’ve got the best news you’ll ever hear, but I won’t tell you until you stop being greedy, lustful, etc.”
Thank God for grace.
I think some of the changes are coming from well meaning Christians who are trying to be inclusive.
And some are from people who’ve done just as you’ve suggested, Randy. I was opposed to homosexuality without knowing why. I just assumed that there were a boatload of clear scriptures opposing homosexuality and there was no room for doubt. (After all, God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah because they were gay, right? … no. Not according to the scriptures. There is NO connection between homosexuality and the Sodom story, despite what I thought was quite obviously there!)
I haven’t written on Sodom yet but the “it wasn’t about homosexuality” bit is one of the great myths out there. Yes, a verse in Ezekiel implies that it was due to “inhospitality,” but people stop reading there. Zeke has more to say, as does Jude, Peter, and others. And I would think you would go nuts over the (alleged) fact that God wiped out two whole cities just for bad manners.
But I hadn’t prayed about it and I hadn’t researched the topic. So, when I did that, I came – painfully and against my will – to the conclusion that there’s not biblical support for being opposed to healthy homosexuality.
Kudos for praying and researching. But “healthy homosexuality” ?!?! Oxymoron of the week.
That’s one of the stereotypes attached to many so-called “liberal” christians – that we are being flexible so that we don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. There’s some truth in that stereotype, but it’s certainly not a solid fact.
Agreed. I disagree with your conclusions but I always appreciate your tone and I wouldn’t classify you as a “typical” liberal theologian.
“Neil, total, mom2, and others in the same camp. I wonder what your views would be if you yourself were homosexual. Surely they would be different. I can only imagine the struggles they must endure. It surely isn’t a choice one would make. It happened to them quite naturally.”
This reminds me of some friends I had back in Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. Over dinner one night these two friends of mine tried to convince me (and another friend) that the Bible never condemns sex outside of wedlock. None of us three guys at the table was any less attracted to the gorgeous women that we were currently dating, but apparently, only one other gentleman and I did not see a reason to reinterpret scripture in order to fulfill our desires.
I am sure that it must be hard to be a homosexual as they are without an outlet for their sexual desires. But is this any different than having a desire for any other kind of sinful activity? I have known many homosexual brothers and sisters in the faith who struggled with their desires and I never faulted them for it. They remained open to the Spirit and asked for forgiveness. But the problem comes when we decide to turn a sinful activity into a sacred one. For if you think what you are doing is blessed why should you ask forgiveness? Why should you remain open to the Spirit to convict you that your actions are wrong?
“Let homosexuals have the same legal rights given to the rest of us – let them call it whatever they want”
This is a whole other question and you will find that you and I agree on this issue. I think that the government must provide services to the atheist and the theist alike- as it must provide services to the heterosexual and homosexual alike. So I have no problem with civil union laws that obligate the government to treat a given couple in a similar fashion to any other.
A couple of other questions:
Neil said:
“That doesn’t mean God couldn’t reveal something important like this to us, just that it is highly unlikely.”
Why? Is there some biblical or logical reason why God would not reveal important messages to you or me?
Please read Deuteronomy 18. Prophets put their lives on the line every time they claimed to speak for God.
The Canon of scripture is closed. The writers were either Apostles or someone under their direct supervision (e.g., Luke / Paul). I’m pretty sure they are all dead.
If God “revealed” something from you we have a good starter test for that: Does it line up with Scripture? If not, then we know it wasn’t from God. If so, you might have a message.
Neil said:
“Peter was inclined to reject the meaning of the vision, whereas these pro-gay theologians have views on human sexuality that are virtually indistinguishable from the prevailing culture”
Does that give more credence to someone like me who was very inclined to reject the new vision of God and homosexuality?
Only if it gives more credence to me for going the other direction.
Neil said:
“This vision overturned a ceremonial law, not a moral law.”
I don’t believe we ever got a comprehensive list of which laws were ceremonial and which were moral (or civic?). Is there such a list? I honestly want to know, that’s not a leading question.
That’s a good question. If anyone has a list, please post it. As I’ve said before, when in doubt look at the context. Leviticus 18 obviously contains moral laws, unless you are prepared to make the case that God was holding the Canaanites accountable for ceremonial laws. So even if other laws weren’t as clear it still wouldn’t affect this example.
Romans 1 is obviously moral guidance as well.
Thanks.
Hi all – thanks for all the good and hinged (as opposed to unhinged) dialogue. I’m going to try something different and put my comments in bold in the posts above. I saw Tammi try this on her blog and it might work well here, at least for today. Otherwise I’ll end up with tons of copying and pasting and a comment even longer than the original post.
I’m mainly going to make comments where questions were asked. Everybody who agreed with me made excellent points, of course (ha) so kudos to you.
I promise not to edit your comments (i.e., “Dan Says: You’re right, Neil, I change my mind about everything!”)
“I haven’t written on Sodom yet but the “it wasn’t about homosexuality” bit is one of the great myths out there.”
Good luck with that. The men of Sodom wanted to rape the two messengers. That they happened to be male doesn’t mean that it was about homosexuality.
If the two messengers had been female and the men of Sodom wanted to rape them, that wouldn’t be a reflection on heterosexuality.
The sin described in the actual story is attempted rape. As you noted, God says in Ezekiel (that is God speaking God’s Self!) that…
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me
Unless you’re reading a LOT into “committed abomination before me” (“oh, yea! that means homosexuality!” – that’s a much greater leap than any quotes you’ve provided from “liberal” theologians), then there is not a single mention of homosexuality in a literal reading of either the original story or in God’s OWN explanation of the sin of Sodom found here in Ezekiel.
Could that “abomination” be referring to homosexuality? Well, I reckon it could. Or heterosexuality. Or rape. Or eating shrimp (because we know for sure that God considered eating shrimp an abomination!…at least until God changed God’s mind and it was no longer an abomination…). I’m just saying that literal and contextual reading of the actual verses does not in the least support a guess of homosexuality.
Dan, I encouage you to read the parts of Genesis before S&G. The Angels went to S&G to destroy them. The crimes – whatever they were – had already been committed. They weren’t destroyed because of the attempted rape.
Again, we can get into S&G details some other time. Here’s a couple verses in the mean time:
Jude 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
2 Peter 2:6-8 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds)
Neil said:
“Many people do specifically choose that lifestyle.”
Name one.
If I name one, do you promise to stop saying they were all “born that way?”
No.
Neil said:
“God’s people were acting as his proxies, just as He gives the government rights in Romans 13. I’m not sure how many ways to explain that, other than if you think parts of the Bible don’t belong there then your problem is with God, not me.”
But I’m going with YOUR interpretation. The Bible IS God’s Word to be taken literally. Sometimes God DOES tell people to do things that would normally be wrong.
These are YOUR opinions, are they not?
I’m just trying to clarify your position, at this point. If I’m wrong on your position, just tell me how I’m wrong.
Yes, that is my opinion. And I’m quite confident in it. And you quoted an example of that. For me as a citizen to use the sword to punish people would be wrong. But God tells the government – made up of people – that they can use the sword (or guns, or whatever) to keep the peace and punish wrongdoers. So a policeman can do things that are moral for him that would not be moral for me. And all because God said so!
Oh well, I’ll show you one anyway, even though you’ve conceded that it won’t change your mind. Here’s one example of a lady who doesn’t claim she was “born that way.” She says feminism led her to lesbianism (go figure!).
“Ms Wilkinson, Professor of Feminist and Health Studies at Loughborough University, said: “I was never unsure about my sexuality throughout my teens or 20s. I was a happy heterosexual and had no doubts. Then I changed, through political activity and feminism, spending time with women’s organisations. It opened my mind to the possibility of a lesbian identity.”
Ms Wilkinson met Ms Kitzinger, also a university professor, through their work at the British Psychological Society.She added: “I’d had a very happy marriage and a very good relationship with men. My husband took it very badly.””
Neil said:
And all because God said so!
Thank you for clarifying that point for me. So, if God might well tell folks to break commandments, how do we know then, in your mind, when someone is breaking commandments?
That is, “breaking commandments” in a bad way…
Dan, you are going in circles and I’m tired. How many times must I make this point? The only way your tortured logic works is to claim that God is changing moral laws outside the Bible. Go read my earlier replies to you. God put his moral laws in the Bible. He doesn’t provide personal revelations of them.
You think He didn’t speak clearly in the Bible, but you think He is speaking clearly to your gay friends. Indeed.
Maybe someone else wants to reply. Your point, flawed as it is, proves way too much. Using your logic there are no commands anywhere in the Bible that we could hold anyone to, because God might tell them it is ok to break them. But you know that isn’t true.
I appreciate your diligence but I think you are damaging your own cause. If you have to go through such incredible Biblical gymnastics to refute such clear passages, maybe your are on the wrong side of the issue.
BTW, I didn’t mention it in the original post but I encourage people to read 1 Cor. 7, among others, where marriage is described. See how many hints there are about “gay marriage.”
“Using your logic there are no commands anywhere in the Bible that we could hold anyone to, because God might tell them it is ok to break them.”
No, no, no, no! This is YOUR logic. YOU’RE the one saying that God sometimes commands people to do what God has told us not to do. That is YOUR position, isn’t it?
See? You’re trying to foist your problem with interpretation off on me and that doesn’t really make sense. I’m asking you, if this is YOUR opinion and you are saying it is. If I’m understanding you correctly.
I’ve read your earlier posts and re-read them. They’re not holding water, Neil. Yes, God put moral laws in the Bible. And then he commanded people to break them. Says YOU.
I’m just asking you (putting it another way): Which laws do we know that God might ask us to break? If I hear a voice commanding me to kill a girl’s parents and take her home, shave her head, “pare” her nails and then start bedding her down a week later, am I good to go? Why or why not?
If I’m going in circles it’s only because I’m trying to get a straight answer and the responder is moving faster than I can keep up with…
“So, if God might well tell folks to break commandments, how do we know then, in your mind, when someone is breaking commandments?”
That’s just it – the police and soldiers are not breaking Commandments.
So police and soldiers get a pass?
Dan, give it a rest. Now you’re being silly. The gov’t has a different role.
Last one:
You said read 1 Corinthians 7:
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
So, you’ve changed your position and are endorsing gay marriage now…?
(ha!)
Touche’!
My position is that God gives roles to the government (his chosen theocracy or hand-picked kings in the OT or any other government) that He doesn’t give to citizens. If I said something different earlier I may have misspoken (I’m not sure what you are specifically referring to).
“Which laws do we know that God might ask us to break? If I hear a voice commanding me to kill a girl’s parents and take her home, shave her head, “pare” her nails and then start bedding her down a week later, am I good to go? Why or why not?”
He won’t ask you to break them. The Canon is closed. His moral law is fully revealed in the Bible. You are not one of his Bible prophets (sorry to be the bearer of bad news). He will not be giving you any personal revelation about moral laws. He will not change them. That is the whole point of this post!
Dan, these are not complicated Biblical motifs. I’m not sure why you struggle with them so – other than your view requires that to dismiss things like Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 and the 100% of verses on marriage and parenting and on and on.
Dan has been on so many sites arguing this same stuff. He has had enough Bible quoted to him. He just does not want to believe the Bible when it doesn’t fit his view. He does go in circles until one almost gets dizzy trying to be patient with him. Sometimes he is so positive about what he believes and other times he seems like he just enjoys pretending to be a learner. My advice to Dan would be to at least stay on his own site with this stuff, because he appears to be sowing strife instead of seeking the truth.
“The Canon is closed. His moral law is fully revealed in the Bible.”
So, we can say 100% that God wouldn’t ask me to commit those atrocities, but God did command people back then to do so, back before the Canon was closed?
So, it was okay back then to kidnap young women, kill their parents and make them sex slaves, as long as you didn’t sale them later if they displeased you, but rather gave them their freedom – is that your position?
Do you understand why I keep asking? I think you’ve a hole in your logic and I’m trying to figure out what your position is. From where I sit, you seem to try to keep twisting out of your position and I’m just trying to nail it down so I know what you believe.
Your last paragraph was a self-parody, Dan. The Bible is the Word of God. I believe that if it says, “God says . . . ” then God really said it.
If you think it is full of lies, then feel free to reject it. Many people do. We have a term for them: Non-Christians. I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense. It is just a plain, historically accurate definition.
I think you’ve made your views quite clear: You think God did not accurately and clearly communicate to us in the Bible, but He is accurately and clearly communicating to your friends that they should have a “gay marriage.”
mom2 said:
My advice to Dan would be to at least stay on his own site with this stuff, because he appears to be sowing strife instead of seeking the truth.
If Neil wants me to leave, I will. I’m only trying to engage in honest dialog with a brother in Christ. All Neil has to do is give me the word.
I don’t think Neil wants that, though, mom2. He’s okay with honest discussion.
It is somewhere in the middle. Neil is OK with honest dialogue, but he does get cranky after he repeats himself 8-10 times. Then he starts deleting comments. If the commenters want to assume that Neil is too lame to understand their point then that he can handle that. Sorry for writing in the third person. Neil won’t do that again.
Dan, I have read your “honest discussions” on at least 3 other sites and some of those you discussed with were Bible students, young ministers. Why do you have so much trouble with believing the scripture quotes that have been given you? It appears to me that you have an agenda and that is why I think your own site is where you should promote it. Of course, it is Neil’s call to let you stay and I apologize for that if it offends him.
Have trouble believing the scripture quotes? Which ones? The ones where God commands the kidnapping and rape – but with some compassion – of the children of the dead enemy?
The ones where God commands genocide?
I think most people acknowledge that the Bible teaches that these are contrary to God’s will, that’s why. And because how we interpret the Bible is important.
I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I’m honestly interested in two things:
1. Helping those who have big disagreements in our church and world to understand one another and
2. Understanding God’s Word.
Neil said: But you just got through saying it wasn’t God’s Word . . .
These sorts of discussions have helped me with both of these and hopefully it helps others as well. My only agenda is Bible study, knowing more about God and how we can live “God’s kingdom come, God’s will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.”
Hey Neil, just wanted you to know I tagged you to fill out a meme. Hope you enjoy it. I am curious to see how you answer.
http://totaltransformation.wordpress.com/2007/07/20/starting-my-own-meme/
Neil,
Would appreciate some discussion on subjects that touch on this area. For example, in some scriptures, homosexuality is called “an abomination”. Does that mean it is worse than other sins?
Good questions, Randy. There is obviously no weighted average list of sins in the Bible, but the consequences of some are clearly worse than others. And homosexuality seems to be one of those, “In your face, God!” kind of sins.
If homosexuals are born gay, can they ever receive Christ? If they take heterosexual spouses, are they “cured”? Paul says homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
I seriously doubt they are born gay (future post coming on that). But either way they can receive Christ. We are all born with sinful natures and need a Savior. I assume Paul was referring to those who were unrepentantly engaging in that behavior.
If they are born gay and have no chance of inheriting the kingdom of heaven, and we can identify a gene, would abortion of homosexual pre-births be ok? What parent would want to raise a child that they know would be homosexual?
I wrote on that ethical dilemma here. Abortion would be a sin in that case. Killing someone for being a sinner would weed out the population rather quickly. But you are right with your hypothesis: Heterosexual parents (still 99+% of all parents) kill their unborn for all kinds of reasons, including Down Syndrome, gender selection, etc. I guarantee you most would kill any unborn who was “genetically gay” or even predisposed to it. I think that would be a bad thing.
For the record, I believe homosexuality is a sin, no greater than any other sin. Knowing that it is a sin and continuing anyway is rejection of God. I don’t believe they are born gay (but I can’t prove it). Even if they are born gay, practicing homosexuality is a sin. (My father was an alcoholic which increases my odds of alcoholism – doesn’t allow me to be a drunk).
On for the record, I believe homosexuals can be restored through God’s grace and can be as strong a Christian as I or anyone else. I believe abortion is wrong, regardless the sexual tendencies of the pre-born or any other issues. And I think God loving parents would still want to have a child regardless of supposed sexual tendencies or any other issues.
Neil thanks for a good discussion.
Neil – I know this is getting tiresome. I just have to get .02 in on something you stated earlier. It’s about the people that choose the lifestyle instead of it being genetic.
These people are NOT homosexuals. They are experimenters. I’m sure there are many experimenters out there pretending to be gay/lesbian just because of the attention/thrill factor.
Unfortunately, they do more harm than good without knowing it. Either that or they just don’t give a rip about who they harm…
This is a rather sensitive question, but here goes. I’m not young and I have never heard of the homosexuals having any kind of different physical apparatus than those that God created in male and female, so that indicates to me that the desire for the behavior is in the head. Where I am going wrong?
Mom,
Great observation. I don’t think you’re going wrong at all. In fact, the way I see it, all the debate & discussion about how “natural” homosexual relationships are seem to really fall apart once the physical mechanics of the homosexual sex act are discussed. Maybe that’s why the topic is avoided or changed whenever it comes up in debates. Expecially by homosexuals themselves since they realize most non homosexuals find the act of anal sex extremely repulsive regardless of where they stand on the issue itself.
Sorry for the bluntness folks but that’s exactly what Paul was talking about when he discussed natural “function” in Romans 1. That was also the reason for the destruction of Sodom. As was very correctly pointed out yesterday, the angels were sent to destroy the city before the incident @ Lot’s house took place. So the smoke & mirrors about homosexual rape, inhospitality & that other nonsense just doesn’t hold up under careful exegesis.
Slice, dice or julienne it any way you want, I’m not aware of any evidence, scientific or otherwise that has changed what has been considered an unnatural act for thousands of years into a natural one. Even if someone, someday discovered the holy grail of homosexuality, the gay gene, it wouldn’t change how God created the mechanics of the sexual function to operate.
If two consenting adults want to be in a loving, committed homosexual relationship, I will defend their right to do that in this country. But please, please quit trying to shove the naturalness of the relationship down my throat. And please spare me any silly arguments about how that’s not being done.
Well said, Woz!
You’ll take your medicine and like it!
mom2 and Woz – Since we’re being blunt… Many people are born with both sex organs intact and operational. So what is their sex? The problem in cases like this are obvious. You really don’t know their sex until they get older and begin expressing desires one way or the other.
Neil said: I think it is safe to say those belong in a special category.
So since nature can be so overt about these issues, why is it so hard to imagine problems with sexual identity that aren’t so obvious?
Another point I’d like to make: Don’t confuse or intertwine “natural” and “normal.” It is quite “natural” to be born with both sex organs, homosexual, with a variety of genetic defects, etc. It is “normal” to be born healthy and heterosexual. To me, “normal” is some condition that occurs nearly all the time.
For example, it’s natural to wake up. We all do – well most of us! It is *normal* to wake up in the morning. Nearly all of us wake up in the morning and get on with our day. Not all of us, though. Some of us wake up much later or much earlier. So, some of us have *abnormal* schedules. Many people get angry when I say that homosexuals are abnormal. It’s not meant as a slam, just a simple fact. It IS natural, just not normal.
So, you see, it is quite natural for homosexuals to display their affection for one another in much the same way we do. Face it, sex for us is rarely about reproduction – it is for pleasure. Is that a sin? Sex for pleasure? Honestly, I don’t know. Could you never have sex with your wife/husband?
D’oh – the sarcasm brackets were removed from my first sentence.
Just so you know. The “You’ll take your medicine and like!” comment was meant to be funny. Not a jab – sorry.
Could you give us some statistics on those abnormal occurrences of births with both organs? I think that you would find those things happening after the fall of man (Adam and Eve’s sin) also. After sin entered the world, a lot of things changed. Mankind does not live 900 years, etc. It still does not make homosexuality any less sinful. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Culture has changed, but not God.
Neil, I’ve been reading all the posts in this series and wanted to let you know that I think you did a great job with them! I haven’t read all the comments – I started to but then I stopped. I get too frustrated with some of the things that people come up with in their effort to deny God’s word. Thanks for being willing to post things like this and show how God’s Word tells us to live.
Thanks!
mom2 – Holy Cow! Are you serious? EVERYTHING happened after the “fall of man.”
Another belly laugh! Thanks.
Mark, If my comment gave you a belly laugh, go ahead. A merry heart doeth good like a medicine. Guess where that came from.
I stand by my comment. Before sin entered the picture by way of Adam and Eve, they were living in the Garden of Eden. I do not believe birth defects were present before sin and God’s opinion of sin has not changed. Homosexuality is not the only sin, but it happens to be the one we are discussing.
Mark,
Trying to speak rationally with conservative Christians is never going to be productive. These are people who believe that a 2000 year old Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
Gee, Neil, I’m exhausted just from reading all this. You’ve got to have a headache by now!
I’m not even sticking my big toe in this pond. I know what the Bible says and anyone else who wants to know can read it for themselves. But people have a way of justifying their sins no matter what anyone else says – even God.
David, I originally wasn’t going to let your comment be posted (two comments up). It was silly and off-topic.
But I thought it would be a good example to people of how some supposedly “Christian” pro-gay theologians are often pretenders. So many people get taken in by how “nice” others are and they let that trump Scripture. This is foolishness. Of course we should be kind to gays. But let’s not lose our discernment, people.
Your name used to always link to the United Church of Christ web page (it speaks volumes that you speak of Christianity as you do yet you feel comfortable there).
Later you say you go the the Unitarian Universalist “church.”
And now you are out of the closet, so to speak, as a full-blown atheist and mocker of Christianity. I appreciate the (eventual) candor. I prayed that one day you would seek the Truth.
Thank you Neil. I hope one day you will seek the truth also.
David, I pray that you will come to know the source of truth.
Dear Neil,
God bless you! You certainly have the patience of Job with people like David and Mark. I’m glad that you posted David’s comment. It showed how rude and crude he can be. It shows how blatant his unbelief really is. Yet, you answered him in a civil and frank tone.
David appeared to be (as Ed Hindson points out in his book, Antichrist Rising) a pseudo-brother. Then, he turned out to be not only an unbeliever, but a mocker as well.
You mentioned that :
“But I thought it would be a good example to people of how some supposedly “Christian” pro-gay theologians are often pretenders. So many people get taken in by how “nice” others are and they let that trump Scripture. This is foolishness. Of course we should be kind to gays. But let’s not lose our discernment, people.”
Pro-gay theologians are often pretenders…
Let’s not lose our discernment, people…
Excellent points we all need to remember!
Gee, somehow I’m a “theologian”. Thanks guys, you give me too much credit. I would like to express my appreciation to everyone on this board for helping me to learn the truth about Christianity. I see now that it isn’t something I want to associate myself with.
Theology is merely studying the nature of God, so most of us are theologians (though most are not professionals).
Thanks, Christine. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove they can’t be trusted.
I actually appreciate Mark’s comments (the Mark who is the atheist / agnostic). We have some atheists who comment here often who are more than just civil – they are reasoned and good-humored. Of course we disagree on some pretty big picture and important issues, but I was an atheist / agnostic before I became a Christian. Jesus didn’t save me because of anything special I am or have done. As long as people are interested in a real discussion then I’m game.
Then there are some who are passive-aggressive postmodern types (“there is no truth . . . except for what I think is the truth . . . and you are closed-minded and lack critical thinking skills”). David, I wasn’t putting you in that category, by the way. I have a few others in mind!
“I would like to express my appreciation to everyone on this board for helping me to learn the truth about Christianity. I see now that it isn’t something I want to associate myself with.”
David, I know you are being sarcastic. But let’s be honest here. You decided a long time ago that you didn’t want to follow Christ. If you want to make a dig at me because I have outlined the “outrageous” claim that the Bible is pro-tradional marriage then go ahead.
The Good News is that you can change your mind. If Christians or “Christians” (the fake kind) wounded you, I encourage you to not let that be a stumbling block. Eternity is a mighty long time. Jesus is the way whether his followers (real or alleged) do a good job of immitating him or not.
David,
Christianity is about following Christ. You seem to have some irritation towards people on this blog. Even if the condemnation of Christians on this site, or in general, is warranted (which I haven’t seen any of them say anything offensive to you), Christianity is not about being like other Christians, it is about being like Jesus. Otherwise, it would be called Christianianity.
[...] Some people misunderstand this passage and assume that God is still changing laws – including moral laws – and giving special revelations of this to certain Christians. I wrote about why this is not Biblical here. [...]