What the Bible Really Still Says About Homosexuality
Kevin DeYoung Blog | May 16, 2012
President Barack Obama's support of same-sex marriage, like blood in the water, has conservative sharks circling for a kill. In a nation that touts separation of religion and government, religious-based arguments command this battle. Lurking beneath anti-gay forays, you inevitably find religion and, above all, the Bible.
We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality.
These two paragraphs perfectly depict how many see any Christian opposition to homosexuality or gay marriage. We are undercover (or not!) theocrats trying to impose our personal preferences on the rest of the country. But the charge of legislating our morality is not as simple as it sounds. For starters, the government legislates plenty of morality already---morality about killing, stealing, polluting and a thousand other things we've decided are bad for society or just plain wrong. Moreover, the arguments being made in favor of gay marriage are fundamentally about morality. That's why you hear words like justice, love, and equality. Most gay marriage advocates are making their case based on moral categories, if not religious and biblical.
What's more, the pro-gay marriage side would like to see the state reject a conjugal view of marriage in favor of a new, heretofore unknown, definition of marriage. And in insisting upon the state's involvement, they want this new definition to be imposed on all. We may not all have to like gay marriage, but the government will tell us what marriage means whether we like it or not.
In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not.
Here we have an example of progressive prejudice, the kind that assumes we have little to learn from the benighted masses who lived long ago. Whether they thought the world was flat has nothing to do with whether ancient people can teach us anything about sexuality. Such a tidbit is thrown in, it seems to me, as a rhetorical cue that these people were as dumb as doorknobs and can't be trusted. More importantly, Helminiak distances himself from an orthodox understanding of biblical inspiration. Instead of approaching the Scriptures as the word of God, his first step is to position the Bible as a book by ancient people who don't know all the things we know.
Hard evidence supports this commonsensical expectation. Taken on its own terms, read in the original languages, placed back into its historical context, the Bible is ho-hum on homosexuality, unless - as with heterosexuality - injustice and abuse are involved.
That, in fact, was the case among the Sodomites (Genesis 19), whose experience is frequently cited by modern anti-gay critics. The Sodomites wanted to rape the visitors whom Lot, the one just man in the city, welcomed in hospitality for the night.
The Bible itself is lucid on the sin of Sodom: pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49); hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests (Wisdom 19:13); arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:8); evildoing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17); adultery (in those days, the use of another man's property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12).
But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence, Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31); and "By this will they know you are my disciples" (John 13:35).
How inverted these values have become! In the name of Jesus, evangelicals and Catholic bishops make sex the Christian litmus test and are willing to sacrifice the social safety net in return.
There is really only one argument in the foregoing paragraphs: the sin of Sodom was about social injustice not about sexual immorality. No doubt, there were many other sins involved, as Helminiak rightly observes. But there is no reason to think homosexuality per se wasn't also to blame for Sodom's judgment. For example, Jude 7 states that Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire." Even the NRSV, translation of choice for the mainline (and the version Helminiak seems to be using), says "pursued unnatural lust." Clearly, the sins of Sodom lived in infamy not simply because of violent aggression or the lack of hospitality, but because men pursued sex with other men.
The longest biblical passage on male-male sex is Romans 1:26-27: "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another."
The Greek term para physin has been translated unnatural; it should read atypical or unusual. In the technical sense, yes, the Stoic philosophers did use para physin to mean unnatural, but this term also had a widespread popular meaning. It is this latter meaning that informs Paul's writing. It carries no ethical condemnation.
Compare the passage on male-male sex to Romans 11:24. There, Paul applies the term para physin to God. God grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish people, a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Not your standard practice! An unusual thing to do --- atypical, nothing more. The anti-gay "unnatural" hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation.
Besides, Paul used two other words to describe male-male sex: dishonorable (1:24, 26) and unseemly (1:27). But for Paul, neither carried ethical weight. In 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul says that even he was held in dishonor --- for preaching Christ. Clearly, these words merely indicate social disrepute, not truly unethical behavior.
This line of reasoning is also common among revisionists. There is little to say in its favor, however, and Helminiak's argument---that para physin "carries no ethical condemnation"--is particularly weak.
1) He makes the rudimentary error of forgetting that words have a semantic range of meaning. Just because Paul used "against nature" or "dishonorable" in non-ethical settings (sort of), doesn't mean those words and phrases cannot carry ethical weight in another context. It's like suggesting that if FDR once said "this soup is terrible" and later said "what the Nazis are doing is terrible" that he couldn't possibly mean anything more than "what the Nazis did was kind of strange and not my personal preference."
2) The context in Romans 1 tells us how to understand para physin. Paul has already explained how the unrighteous suppress the truth about God seen in nature and how they exchange the glory of the immortal God for images of created things. In both cases Paul contends that people believe a lie which prevents them from seeing things as they really are (1:25). Then in the very next verse he singles out homosexuality as "contrary to nature." He is not thinking merely of things that are unusual, but of acts that violate the divine design and the ways things ought to be. For Paul, the biological complementarity of the male-female union is the obvious order of things. A male-male or female-female sexual pairing violates the anatomical and procreative design inherent in the one flesh union of a man and a woman. That Jewish writers of the period used comparable expressions to describe same-sex intercourse only confirms that this is what Paul meant by the construction.
3) Even more obviously, we know Paul considered same-sex intercourse an ethical violation, and not simply something uncommon, because of what he says in the very next sentence. Helminiak conveniently cuts off Paul's thought halfway through verse 27. Notice what Paul goes on to say: "Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (NRSV). When you read the whole verse, Helminiak's "non-ethical" argument becomes implausible. Paul thought homosexuality not just unusual, but wrong, a sinful error deserving of a "due penalty."
In this passage Paul is referring to the ancient Jewish Law: Leviticus 18:22, the "abomination" of a man's lying with another man. Paul sees male-male sex as an impurity, a taboo, uncleanness --- in other words, "abomination." Introducing this discussion in 1:24, he says so outright: "God gave them up ... to impurity."
But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity --- varied cultural traditions --- do not matter before God. What matters is purity of heart.
"It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles," reads Matthew 15. "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile."
Or again, Jesus taught, "Everyone who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law.
In calling it unclean, Paul was not condemning male-male sex. He had terms to express condemnation. Before and after his section on sex, he used truly condemnatory terms: godless, evil, wicked or unjust, not to be done. But he never used ethical terms around that issue of sex.
Helminiak's argument seems to be: Paul said homosexuality was an impurity; Jesus set people free from the purity requirements of the Jewish law; therefore, homosexuality is not wrong. This reasoning is so specious that it's hard to know where to begin. Jesus did recalibrate the purity laws, but Mark 7:19 makes clear that the episode in question was about declaring all foods clean. Jesus was not saying for a second that anything previously called "unclean" or "impure" was now no big deal. Helminiak again connects words in a facile manner, suggesting that because Jesus fulfilled certain aspects of the ceremonial code, now anything described with the language of impurity cannot be condemned. Nine times in his epistles Paul references "impurity" and it is always in the context of vice and immorality (Rom. 1:24; 6:19; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 4:19; 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 2:3; 4:7). Besides all this, Jesus explicitly lists "sexual immorality" (in the passage Helminiak quotes) as one of the things that defiles a person. The Greek word is porneia which refers to "unlawful sexual intercourse" (BDAG), especially, for the Jew, anything condemned by the Law of Moses.
It is simply not true that Paul, or Jesus for that matter, never considered homosexuality an ethical matter. To cite just one more example: in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 Paul uses a rare Greek word, arsenokoites, which is a compound from two words found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Paul thought the prohibition against homosexuality in the Old Testament was still relevant and the sin was still serious.
As for marriage, again, the Bible is more liberal than we hear today. The Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers.
The Bible's Song of Songs is a paean to romantic love with no mention of children or a married couple. Jesus never mentioned same-sex behaviors, although he did heal the "servant" --- pais, a Greek term for male lover --- of the Roman Centurion.
These are wild assertions without any corroborating evidence. Whatever one thinks of Leviticus 18 and 20 for today, it's obvious that the Torah considered homosexual activity an abomination. It's absurd to think that any ancient Israelite would have any celebrated David or Jonathan or Ruth or Naomi or Daniel if they were homosexual. It is the worst kind of special pleading and reader response to conclude against all exegetical, theological, and historical evidence that any of these Old Testament heroes were gay.
Likewise, there is no evidence to suggest that the centurion's servant was his lover. The leading New Testament lexicon (BDAG) gives three definitions of pais: a young person, one's own offspring, one who is in total obedience to another. If the word somehow means "male lover" in the Gospels, we need evidence greater than Helminiak's bald assertion.
Paul discouraged marriage because he believed the world would soon end. Still, he encouraged people with sexual needs to marry, and he never linked sex and procreation.
Were God-given reason to prevail, rather than knee-jerk religion, we would not be having a heated debate over gay marriage. "Liberty and justice for all," marvel at the diversity of creation, welcome for one another: these, alas, are true biblical values.
The link between sex and procreation did not have to be articulated by Paul because it was already assumed. God's design from the beginning had been one man and one woman coming together as one flesh. This design is reaffirmed throughout Scripture, not least of all by Jesus (Matt. 19:4-6) and by Paul (Eph. 5:31). An important aspect of this union is the potential blessing of children. The prophet Malachi made clear that procreation is one of the aims of marriage when he said about a husband and wife, "Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring" (Mal. 2:15).
None of this proves the case against gay marriage as a government injunction (though that case can be made as well). What careful attention to the Bible does show is that the revisionists do not have a Scriptural leg to stand on. From the first chapter of the Bible to the Law of Moses to the New Testament, there is no hint that homosexuality is acceptable behavior for God's people and every indication that it is a serious sin.
This is why I appreciate the candor of honest pro-gay advocates like Luke Timothy Johnson:
The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says...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. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality-namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God's created order.
Of course, I disagree with Johnson's approach to the authority of Scripture and his liberal deference to experience. But I commend him for acknowledging what should be plain: the Bible really really calls homosexuality a sin. A sin that can be forgiven in Christ like a million other sins, and a sin that can be fought against by the power of the Holy Spirit, but still a sin. That's what the Bible says. And as the CNN article demonstrates, it takes a lot of contorted creativity to make it say something else.
Comments:
May 30, 2012 at 11:35 AM
@Zilch: Actually a while back (must have been before you started following) there was a post about gluttony. Well, kind of...it was about health related self-control. Hopefully, Mr. DeYoung and TGC try to speak to current issues and how the bible addresses them. I mean, if you believe it, you have to believe the whole thing. I doubt you'd see a post on slavery as it isn't a current issue.
@Kevin Nickoson: You know what is funny to me? People who are disagreed with and they insist they aren't understood. I understand you. I just disagree. I could insist you don't understand me, but that would be dumb. You understand me. You just disagree. We just disagree, and I'm ok with that.
Glossy pre-prepared statements, eh? You mean someone has already used "Ph-bomb" before? Dang it! I was gonna use that in a blog post because I thought it was pretty clever. BUT, while you are slinging this accusation....your tired tirade sounds a lot like every other po-mo I've run across too. So, let's both of us not pretend we're that original. I mean, every idea...orthodox and heterodox has come from somewhere else. I don't know if you are aware, but we have entire eras of ideas and movements behind us, and assuming our ideas are "our own" is brazen...and naive.
You are actually still using "gnostic" incorrectly.
"I do not belong to a church" That just explained everything for me. I mean, I'd like to write my own interpretation of the bible too! There are definitely parts I'd like to take out, and new ones I'd like to put in, but unlike you I'm uncomfortable writing the book of Heather. But I mean, really, as long as you are out playing the lone ranger on the field of Christianity, I don't think we can sensibly discuss anything. Especially since you say, "The Bible doesn’t say anything."
@DRT: I'm not sure how to respond...I feel like you keep thinking maybe I'm fighting you? Or have a personal stake in this? I mean, we CAN disagree on theology. There are SO many churches who have different ideas, but they are all still staunch followers of Christ. I just know that some points of doctrine are far more dangerous to disagree on. Like, infallibility. But if we all went to hell based on bad doctrine we'd all be there....as William Craig often says. But at the end of the world, God, not me, gets the last say, and He's made some things awfully clear. So, anyone who disagrees with Him is just in a worrisome spot.
May 30, 2012 at 10:37 AM
The Bible doesn't say anything, it's a collection of books. The only relevant modern question is of meaning and intent. I believe the Bible is inspired by God- inspired, not spoken.
May 30, 2012 at 07:55 PM
This discussion has convinced me to leave Christianity. Thanks!
May 30, 2012 at 06:31 AM
Hmmm... I think Heather's right about what the Bible says, but I think that Kevin's right about what the World, including whatever gods there might be, says. But I could be wrong.
This post is called "What the Bible Really Still Says About Homosexuality". I eagerly await posts entitled "What the Bible Really Still Says About Slavery" (not a sin) and "What the Bible Really Still Says About Gluttony" (a sin). I'm afraid I'll be waiting for a long time....
May 30, 2012 at 05:58 PM
@DRT: Thanks! But I'm sorry you keep understanding. It's not my interpretation. There is only one interpretation of the bible. God gave us His word in order to reveal Himself to us. IF I was the only person who thought that I'd worry. I'm part of a long tradition (back to Jesus Christ really...and if He thought that I feel fairly comfortable) who believe the bible is the word of God.
I don't think my interpretation is God's actual word. I think the bible is God's actual word. That's the difference.
May 30, 2012 at 05:50 PM
Heather, good talking to you but you really need to come to grips with the fact that your interpretation of the bible is your interpretation of the bible, not god's actual words. If we each think our interpretation is god's actual words then that never really works, now does it? Seriously Heather, it is very very bad to think that you are channeling god in your interpretation and everyone else is wrong.
May 30, 2012 at 05:45 PM
@DRT: You're welcome, but you incorrectly summarized my views.
It's not "my interpretation of the bible." And it's not "my version of the gospel." It's just God's truth. It can be known, and it will make you free. John 8:32 I hope you find that freedom.
May 30, 2012 at 05:41 PM
Heather, thanks for interacting, but I pretty much disagree with everything you said in your last response. I think we got down to the gist of it. You believe that your interpretation of the bible is the truth and there are no arguments than can convince you otherwise. You believe that those who do not agree with the truth you see in the bible are in error and are likely in sin. You believe that your version of the gospel is the truth and no other version is true. You believe that the bible covers everything in all times per your interpretation.
I agree with none of that.
May 30, 2012 at 05:33 PM
@DRT: ....I'm aware of how physics works. Surely you understood the point I was trying to make. If something is true. Whether or not you and I understand it to be true, does not change it's truth value. If you willfully misunderstand that one. Here's another: Taking a needy family's dinner is morally reprehensible, right? Well, say I decided it wasn't morally reprehensible. Just because I sincerely believe that, doesn't change the fact that it IS morally reprehensible.
Truth doesn't change with my opinion or your opinion or society's opinion. If the bible says it, it's still true. And you are right, it's "quite easy to see where there is truth and where there is not"
The additional information you are getting is from yourself or from the world. Which means you are placing yourself on a level above God. God's word is the end point. There is no additional information. Anything you add is taking away, not adding to. Revelations 22:18 You are making a worse decision because you have decided God isn't enough so you place society above Him.
I cannot except this because my job as a Christian is to proclaim the gospel. If you can question the bible, you can question the gospel. And if the gospel is false, everything falls apart. 1 Corinthians 15:14. It would be wrong of me to confirm someone who says they represent Christ, when they are in error. Luke 17:3
The bible does cover every single thing. It can handle all things and all situations. It speaks to all eras. It always will. It is God's word and it IS infallible.
May 30, 2012 at 05:19 PM
One more try.
Heather, do you know how a car engine works? I mean exactly. I bet you know that you need to put fuel in the car, and change the oil. But what if I were to tell you that sometimes it was OK to put things other than gasoline from the pump into your car? I bet the car manual does not say that you should do that, but I can tell you, because I have additional information, that you can indeed put other things in the gas tank and it will be fine, even glorifying to the car. But you can't just put anything in there!
One more try.....
How can a book as short as the bible possibly contain enough information to handle all of the situations that are in the world? The answer is that it can't! It could not handle slavery, or womens rights or bunches of other things. It provides a multi-millenium view of what needed to be taught and that is what it is. Now that does not mean that it should be thrown out, no! I love the bible. But it does mean that we have to realize that it is written MANS language, not god's, it is our words and language, not god's and it is finite, not infinite, it is not all there is.
May 30, 2012 at 05:13 PM
Heather, your coffee cup really is not on your desk. Nothing in the coffee cup is actually touching anything on the desk. It is an illusion. The atoms in the table are repelling the coffee cup, so they never acutally touch. That is the way the physics works.
Now if I were alive 2k or 3k years ago, and if you were to ask me whether I thought it was wrong or right, and then base a whole society on that answer, whether gay was ok or not, I would have to think long and hard about that question and may even come down on the side that of saying it was bad for our society. Actually, I probably would say it was wrong if that was my only choices.
But we do not live then. We live an information rich society where people easily understand that if 5% of the folks are different then that is OK.
I mean look at all those republicans and fundamentalist christians who end up having a wide stance in the men's room or send pictures of their private parts or have a same sex lover on the side. Those are all, most likely, abominations and sins. They are likely not really gay, just trying to get their thrills, right?
But if they are truly gay, and not just trying to get their thrills, then it is their marriage and life that is the sham, the lie, the sin.
We do not live in a society where there are 100 families in a villiage and 1 person liking same sex people should be repressed for the greater good. We are living in a society where there is a large (numerous) population and it is quite easy to see where there is truth and where there is not.
Heather, just because the bible says it was tow'ebah then does not make it so now.
The problem you are having is that you look at he bible and see that the words say it is a sin therefore you think it is a sin. For some reason you mind does not go any further than that. But for people like me, I look at what the text says, then look at it in the context of the culture and time, and look at what it would say now to determine the true meaning. I am looking at more information than you are looking at. I believe that more information, true information from god, like what Jesus says, is valid informaiton but somehow you do not. I do not understand how you can think the way you do, but you do and I can accept that. Can you accept that for me and many others we bring much more information to bear on this issue, like the times, and what Jesus said, and the context, and consider that valid too? Please Heather, certainly you must be able to realize that if someone has additional information then they may be able to make a better decision.
May 30, 2012 at 04:50 PM
@Kevin Nickoson: Well, you said you were done, but then left another comment...so...I'm replying now. It's not really hidden at all. I mean, if you WANT to remain ignorant, that's ONE thing. I'm pretty sure I could comprehend a lot of those things when I was like, thirteen. And I know I'm just an average person.
@DRT: We are equals, but we can't both be right on this issue. It would be as if I told you my coffee cup is on my desk (which it is) and you denying that it's on my desk. I mean, we can both believe our side whole heartedly, but it doesn't change the FACT that the coffee cup is on the desk. Facts don't change if you believe hard enough.
But I'm confused...I thought fire and brimstone WAS condemnation.
May 30, 2012 at 04:44 PM
Study epistomology or remain forever in the dark, Heather.
May 30, 2012 at 04:44 PM
Heather! Can't you see that you and I are *equals* when interpreting the bible! Why is your view the one that bring fire and brimstone and mine the one that brings condemnation? Can't you even just for a second admit that it is possible that someone is right?
May 30, 2012 at 04:42 PM
OK Heather, is there any way that you would ever be willing to say "DRT, I see exactly how you see how the bible means this, and I think it means that. So each may be the word of god and I may be wrong"?
May 30, 2012 at 04:40 PM
"Paul was basically saying: Hey, if you are married…don’t act like you aren’t."
Oh, so the real point, or the Spirit of the Law, was hidden beneath a historically isolated command, or the letter of the Law? How is it not relevant that the only cultural term for homosexual activity included the notion of rape? I'm done with this, I have much more important things to do. Nice to know evangelicals are still touting the same old non sequiter and straw-man filled tripe.
May 30, 2012 at 04:38 PM
@DRT: It would be ridiculous if I was a young Christian (true-ish) and I was spouting off my claims in the face of CENTURIES of Orthodox Christianity. But actually your beliefs are ones that deviate.
Do I think I have the all seeing and all knowing truth at my disposal. Well, I think God is the all seeing and all knowing truth. So, I wouldn't say I have Him at my disposal, no. What I DO have is what He has chosen to make known to me, in His word. The bible.
May 30, 2012 at 04:33 PM
Heather, this is getting to be ridiculous. Certainly you must see that you cannot have the all seeing and all knowing truth at your disposal, yet I and others here who talk to you do not, despite us all being life long Christians (at least I am, for 50 years). Do you really think that your interpretation must be the right one?
May 30, 2012 at 04:30 PM
@DRT: Ah good. I was worried that by your last comment you felt I was attacking you or something. Glad you understand that we disagree.
Thankfully God gave us Truth and reliability and he didn't leave us to founder in our own sense of right and wrong. I mean, what a cruel being he would be to say truth was a simple choice like, who is better looking.
The only illusion here is that you don't recognize the freedom in truth. Your "mount up with wings like eagles" rhetoric falls a little flat when you are advocating chaining yourself to distrust and uncertainty and a changing and capricious God. I turn your words back to you: There is more out there.
May 30, 2012 at 04:25 PM
Kevin, did you mean to say dRT? I was talking to Heather.........
May 30, 2012 at 04:25 PM
Romans 13:8 - No I do not have a credit card, but not for this passage. Rather for the earlier one in Proverbs 22:7 which says something along the lines of "The borrower is slave to the lender." I did take out a loan for school, and I have since regretted it considerably, again because it made me a slave to a lender. I would never advocate this, but more because it is an unwise idea rather than it's a specific sin.
Romans 14:20 - Uhh, no. If I thought food was "impure" I wouldn't eat it. Do you mean like...rotten? I mean, food purity laws were specifically taken away in Acts. Obviously there was a bigger meaning to this (that the Gentiles were no longer unclean), but Orthodox Christianity no longer abides by the food laws. You would know this if you were formally part of the body.
Romans 16:16 - I am wondering if you are just being funny at this point? You know he gives just some closing words to each church right? I mean, that's just like you closing your letters with "give everyone a hug for me." That's not a direct command.
1 Corinthians 10:13 - Uhm, it basically means...you're smart. Make sure I'm not saying anything way out of the gospel. Did you really not know what that meant?
1 Corinthians 10:24 - Wealth redistribution is not advocated here. First off, not all translations have this interpreted as "wealth." Some just say "good." Also, there were a few (not a lot) but a few wealthy followers of Jesus Christ. Only ONE of them He actually told to give away all of his possessions. Again, you are stretching the verse. The verse just means, look out for others before yourself. Sort of a classic golden rule.
Addendum: Many orthodox Christians no longer believe in a literal 10% tithe. They would go by the guideline that a generous God...who gave us life, would want us to be generous as well.
1Corinthians 11:6-7 - I'm personally stoked you picked this one. It's my favorite one. This is actually a passage written to married women, and married women in Corinth. That is really very key, because what was going on in Corinth was a lot of sexual immorality. This is historically pretty undisputed. The women who uncovered their heads were unmarried women. Women who WERE married wore the headcoverings. Paul was basically saying: Hey, if you are married...don't act like you aren't. The equivalent would be men and women not wearing a wedding ring and flirting with someone else.
Colossians 3:20 - Has to square with Acts 5:29's "We must obey God rather than man." Actually there is a verse that even says unless your (authority figure) tells you to do something contrary to scripture...you must obey them.
Ok, now, come clean...what website did you copy these off of?
And in case you want to bring up anymore, you should probably know now, that these are the only ones I plan on responding to here. You may follow the link to my blog and e-mail me and feel free to discuss what you think "undermines my literal interpretation." BUT as you can see, my view is not deconstructed by this. I mean, your entire conception of Christianity is based on pieces pulled out of their context and held together in defense of biases....sorry, couldn't help but use your own words, since, I totally just thought the same about you.
May 30, 2012 at 04:20 PM
The only rules are to seek truth and Love, above all to love. You've misunderstood me, DRT. People need to learn to distinguish between deconstruction of ideas and construction of arguments.
May 30, 2012 at 04:18 PM
I am taking verses out of context only as a deconstruction of your view- this does not reflect how I build ideas, only how I take them apart. Your entire conception of Christianity is based on pieces pulled out of their context and held together in defense of biases. Nothing more. People want to believe things- rarely do they acknowledge this tendency and actually seek to discern truth.
May 30, 2012 at 04:16 PM
Heather,
regarding your last direct comment to me....
I don't think that you have anything personal in this. And I totally get that you believe in your viewpoint. What you don't get, in my opinion, is that your beliefs are just your interpretations, and that my beliefs and other people's beliefs are their interpretations.
Let me give you an example. You believe that it is clearly wrong to be homosexual, based on the bible. You actually believe that the bible, as a whole, teaches us that it is wrong. Further, you really do believe that my view, that the bible as a whole says it may be OK and may even be god glorifying to be homosexual, is clearly wrong. You know that in your soul, don't you?
That is what I am talking about. I am not someone with an agenda, I have no skin in the game other than all my kids are not old enough yet to know their orientation.
Let me give another example and maybe this will help you. Is there any doubt in the world that George Clooney is better looking than say....John Piper, or Newt Gingrich? I am willing to be that you will say that he certainly is better looking.
But I remember believing that everyone is equally good looking fairly late in life. I remember not being able to comprehend when the grown ups were saying that so and so is really good looking.
I am saying to you, that just like the attractiveness of people, your interpretations of the these issues are ingrained in you in such a way that you cannot see out of the illusion. It is obvious that you have bought the illusion hook line and sinker. There is no doubt about it.
I invite you to think that you are indeed living an illusion of surity that is harmful to many other people. I invite you to explore that what I am saying may be true.
I also think that Kevin and most of those that i have seen in the gospel coalition are in a similar predicament. It is not easy to ask people to soar with eagle when they have the wings of an ostrich. But the ostrich has powerful legs, and they will use those legs to their fullest. I just wish it was to be able to fly.
The point is that there is more out there, Heather, and Kevin. We are not simply rules and Jesus really did abolish the rule based view of the world. He made the world one in which we need to use judgement. Where we need to apply the rule of love to situations because rules are inherently evil. That is what Paul taught, and Jesus taught. You will find death through the rules Heather. There is more out there
May 30, 2012 at 04:12 PM
"Yup! That’s the definition. Good thing I (and the rest of the church) aren’t looking for inner specific knowledge. Just the knowledge God gave us."
I take it you aren't familiar with epistomology.
Don't call me kid.
The point is that there are contradictions galore- I'm well aware of Paul's general points, that they are interrelated- their meaning is dependent upon the meaning of the other statements. In this same way the meaning is dependent upon Paul's cultural and historical context, his relationship to his readers (because these letters were written to specific churches) etc. You've practically proven my point and have failed to see the logical consequences for any notion of "literal interpretation."
May 30, 2012 at 04:05 PM
Romans 13:8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."
*Ever taken out a loan, or owned a credit card?
Romans 14:20 "For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense."
*How many things have you deemed objectively impure?
Romans 16:16 "Salute one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you."
*Does your church kiss one another when greeting?
1 Corinthians 10:15 "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say."
*What is the "literal interpretation" of this passage that calls for an interpretive judgement of itself?
1 Corinthians 10:24 "Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth."
*Full wealth redistribution advocated.
*How is a 10% tithe justified in light of this command?
1 Corinthians 11:6-7 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (7) For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."
*I assume your head is always covered, lest it be shaved?
Colossians 3:20 "Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord."
*And suppose a father commands his son to murder?
May 30, 2012 at 04:05 PM
Yeah, I know what church means. Paul's injunction was against women in leadership positions in the church. This is still true, despite liberal Christianity making a push in the other direction.
Paul OBVIOUSLY doesn't want women to always be silent around other believers, since he learned from Priscilla AND Aquila. ALSO, in the letters to the Corinthian church he says "Every woman who prays and prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head." I mean, the same guy wrote both of those. They have to work together. Seriously..it's quite straightforward. You just have to read more than one verse.
And again, I have no authority over you. And I'm not teaching you anything. We're just discussing. See, you are the one who is stretching that verse. I'm taking it literally.
Hit me with more examples, kid. I'm glad to help.
Yup! That's the definition. Good thing I (and the rest of the church) aren't looking for inner specific knowledge. Just the knowledge God gave us.
May 30, 2012 at 03:37 PM
For starters, "hon," church is not a building or an institution. Actually "church" is exactly that- but the Greek word translated as "church" in your Bible is "ekklesia", which refers to the body of believers, the group of people- people, not a building. I am a part of the global body of believers that is connected by modern networking- here we are talking. You have broken Paul's commandment of silence for women.
Regardless of whether you classify me as a true believer, this blog contains true believers- and here you are, not being silent.
Paul's command for women to be silent is one of many New Testament statements that render your "literal interpretation" utterly meaningless. "Literal interpretation" is an oxymoron. More examples to come.
As for the Gnostics, "A central perspective of Gnosticism is that the whole universe is created by entities as a result of errors made and that there is much that is wrong with it and that only a few select individuals by BY FINDING SPECIFIC INNER KNOWLEDGE can resolve the situation."
There were many sects of Gnosticism in John's day, with various beliefs- but one of the main undercurrents of the entire movement was the emphasis on held knowledge as the basis for salvation. I didn't grossly oversimplify- I never claimed to be laying out their entire belief structure. I was simply drawing the parallel to modern evangelical Christianity.
May 30, 2012 at 02:46 PM
@Kevin Nickoson: It's not church, hon. And I don't have any authority over you.
May 30, 2012 at 02:23 PM
And yet here you are teaching as an authority over me, a man. I'll post a full response when I get out of class.
May 30, 2012 at 02:18 PM
@Kevin Nickoson: Yup. You got it.
May 30, 2012 at 02:13 PM
"...or have authority over..."
May 30, 2012 at 02:10 PM
@Kevin Nickoson: Glad you think so highly of yourself, no unease here. I'm sipping some green tea with lemon and listening to some Mozart. It's actually quite relaxing...I recommend it.
Just go look up the Gnostics. You grossly oversimplified what they believe. You're a big boy. I'm sure you can google.
You gave me a bunch of questions but my instincts lead me to your request of my response to, "1 Timothy 2:12
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”"
Am I right? My response is...a woman shouldn't teach in church. Simple de dimple.
May 30, 2012 at 02:02 PM
@Heather- prove to me the Gnostics believed otherwise- provide a statement of fact or reference. Also, answer my question. We will narrow the conversation in favor of lucid dialogue. (If you dare- I can sense your unease, hahaha...)
May 30, 2012 at 01:35 PM
@Zilch: Yes, you may be right about the count. The bible does repeat things as an indicator that we are to pay attention to the repeated item, but that doesn't necessarily nullify the importance of the other thing. So, when people say things like "not helping the poor is mentioned more often that homosexuality," I would say that helping the poor is very near and dear to God's heart, and that is DEFINITELY something he wants us to do. But we can't just ignore the rest of it just to pursue helping the poor. Does that make sense?
I think slavery is a moot point because no one does it. I mean, unless you are talking about sex trafficking which is a different situation altogether. I'm going to quibble with your word "condone." The actual definition of condone means to accept and allow to happen a practice that is considered morally wrong or offensive. OR it means to approve. When slavery is mentioned, it is mentioned a-morally. Just as women's roles were mentioned. Women play different roles in society these days. I don't think God thinks either the roles of women in ancient Israel or the roles of women today are right or wrong. They just...are. It depends on how you conduct yourself within your role. God never said the role of women in ancient Israel is THE ONE He approves of. Also, He never said slavery was approved. It just...was. And how people conducted themselves within the system of slavery, could be right or wrong. Does that make sense?
May 30, 2012 at 01:20 PM
Kevin Nickoson- you're quite right, I was using "says" in its colloquial sense, where a book can speak. But as much as I applaud your sentiment here, I must still agree with Heather (and Kevin DeYoung and others here): you have to do some pretty heavy duty eisegesis to not get the anti-gay message of the Bible, especially, but not only, in the OT.
Heather- if I remember correctly, gluttony is mentioned as a sin something like four times more often than homosexuality- that's why I mention it. And I'm sure I'll never see a post here defending slavery, even though it is condoned by the Bible. If it's morally important to not indulge in slavery, which I think most people would agree with, why is this?
cheers from twilit Vienna, zilch
May 29, 2012 at 12:54 AM
Christianity is on the wrong side of history.
You know what I'm saying?
May 29, 2012 at 12:51 PM
The New Testament must be understood within its own cultural context in the same way the Old Testament must be considered. Peaceful, committed, accepted homosexuals did NOT exist in 1st century Palestine (because people's identities are constrained by the social mechanism of language, not because it isn't a naturally occurring phenomena), so the term carried a different meaning. In other words, the word translated as "homosexual" does NOT have the same meaning as the modern English word, "homosexual."
Also, Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality. And when He said He came not to overturn the Law but rather to fulfill it, he was addressing Jews convinced He was overturning it- because to all appearances He WAS overturning it. He fulfilled it in the sense that the Law was never created to serve as a legal footing for oppression, yet it was consistently used for that purpose, in the same way conservatives and Evangelicals today are using the letter of the Law to their own selfish and oppressive ends. The Law, Jesus said, has a Spirit- and that Spirit is often lost in the letter of the Law.
The only way to understand ethical commandments in a text thousands of years in age from an objective, or permanent perspective, is to analyze those commandments within the cultural and historical context in which they appeared. The OT is full of laws that contradict the "literal" interpretation of the Bible invoked by modern conservatives, and they simply ignore them, or create categories of OT Law from their own biased and modern understandings of the meanings, without consulting how the author's culture would have viewed the laws.
This is a culture war and the conservatives are not only on the wrong side of history, they are on the opposite side of Jesus- I guarantee it. They've exceeded the absurdity of presuming to condemn individuals to hell, and now maintain the double absurdity of condemning stereotypes and abstract groupings of people to hell.
Count how many times the Bible mentions homosexuality, then count how many times it mentions helping the poor.
May 29, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Nick- I don't see how any laws from the OT are dealt with really clearly in the NT, in terms of which ones still apply. And as I've pointed out, many Christians also disagree about which OT laws still apply, and start new sects based on these disagreements. In my opinion, the text itself is ambiguous. Remember what Jesus said about jots and tittles.
In terms of what the NT says about homosexual sex, it's pretty clear that it's considered a sin. As is gluttony. But I don't see any Christians agitating to make gluttony illegal.
cheers from cloudy Vienna, zilch
May 29, 2012 at 09:56 AM
marcus - Christians may be on the "wrong side of history" in this question but I'm certain we are on "the right side of God" - time will tell, see:http://www.wordsofthislife.ca/2012/05/when-sodom-rules-land.html
May 29, 2012 at 09:44 PM
Heather, you are a machine! Kevin stands no chance whatsoever in the face of your defense.
Kevin, good try, but I think we have met our match.
May 29, 2012 at 09:42 PM
A quick side note...
"Jesus Christ died to give us the freedom to no longer do wrong things. Now…live like you’re free."
I suggest a quick reading of Romans, specifically Romans 7:15.
May 29, 2012 at 08:24 PM
@Heather E. Carrillo
Let's just forget all of that and start with a discussion of a single point.
1 Timothy 2:12
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
What is your response to this statement?
May 29, 2012 at 08:07 PM
@Heather E. Carrillo
I do not belong to a church.
I do not follow a leader of men, I follow the Spirit.
Gnosticism is applied to several contexts in modern academia. I am referring to the gnostics specifically referenced by the Biblical authors. I am not mistaken as to what they believed, and it is essentially what modern Christians believe- that more important than actual action (which can be forgiven) are intellectual positions (formulated as belief.)
May 29, 2012 at 08:01 PM
@Heather E. Carrillo
You're arrogance is a match for mine, however my confidence comes from a full understanding and deconstruction of your statements. You've yet to really understand a thing I've said. Yet again, I've wasted pearls upon swine.
Explain to me how the story of Abraham and Isaac- the essential story of faith- is consistent with your conception of faith. Don't you believe that murdering your son is wrong? The very nature of faith is subversive to law, because of how humans relate to and co-opt the law for their own purposes.
There is NO BACK AND FORTH. You are not addressing any of my points, you are making glossy pre-prepared statements. I've heard these all before, a thousand times coming from a pulpit. Think for yourself for once.
May 29, 2012 at 07:29 PM
@Kevin Nickoson: And in case you were concerned, you said: "You insist belief in Jesus Christ is the same as faith- despite the disparate definitions of the two."
Rather, I believe that faith is something given to a person by God. When that faith is given, you believe. It's subtle but it's different. So, please...confine your words to your own mouth rather than placing them in mine.
May 29, 2012 at 07:22 PM
@Kevin Nickoson: I love that you are the only thinker in the world. You don't even know my current pastor and you've already put him and any others I've been under, beneath you. The arrogance kills me.
Truth isn't difficult. Easy answers would be your cop-outs "oh no one knows for sure." THAT is an easy answer. What is a difficult answer is. This is wrong. Jesus Christ died to give us the freedom to no longer do wrong things. Now...live like you're free.
I'm 100% positive that sexual intercourse with someone of the same gender is a sin.
Faith is constantly pitted against doubt in the bible. They aren't similar at all. One should never strive to doubt. Doubt comes naturally...and it's never positive.
Ah. Look up gnosticism. You defined it wrong. Or is the dictionary just too clear cut for you? So, you have to make up your own definitions....
Oh really? Sooo...let me get this straight...calling people wrong for being a homosexual is wrong. Calling people wrong for calling..others...wrong...good? *ahem*...just take a while to let the irony sink in.
Hahaha...I was wondering how long it would take before your brought out the "Ph-bomb." Seeing as you don't know me or my church, I'd advise you to take your arrogance down a notch.
I mean, watch I can do that too: You are a total unloving jerk. And your church is filled with evil slaves of Satan who undermine the truth. When judgement day happens, you will ALL burn!!! I mean, really, we can make statements like that back and forth and nothing will be gained. So let's cease the silliness.
May 29, 2012 at 07:06 PM
@Heather E. Carrillo
I suggest you reread what I wrote and actually try and understand me. I said that without a background in those disciplines, one lacks the basic skill necessary for comprehension of what a several thousand year old text is. I didn't say that background in any of those disciplines is sufficient for full understanding. Seminaries are as pathetically ill equipped to train real thinkers as secular universities.
Doubt is definitely not the opposite of faith, and your refusal to see Faith in any way that isn't certain is derivative of your fundamental theological flaw- confidence. Truth IS difficult. The easy answers have always been wrong- even our basic presuppositions about time and space have proven to be woefully inadequate.
No one can be 100% positive about anything. That was an implicit point in my choice of 'slightly less than certain.'
Faith is very much similar to doubt. Both are a thing to strive for, an ideal for each decision and each moment. Never can one say, "I have doubted everything." Also, no one can say, "I have mastered faith." I challenge you to move mountains.
You and the majority of mainstream Christianity are gnostics. You believe salvation is dependent upon knowledge. You insist belief in Jesus Christ is the same as faith- despite the disparate definitions of the two. I do not acknowledge homosexuality as sin, as I also refuse to acknowledge the antiquated gender roles as morally superior, as I refuse to acknowledge polygamy as an ethical institution. The spirit is Love, and condemning homosexual behavior when it has been scientifically demonstrated that these individuals are naturally disposed to behave this way, after it has been demonstrated that these couples can have happy and fulfilling lives, after it has been demonstrated that their children turn out just as well (or better,) is UNLOVING.
You are a Pharisee. Your church is another temple waiting for Christ to flip its tables and condemn its selfish profiteering at the expense of God's children.
May 29, 2012 at 06:50 PM
@Kevin Nickoson: Since I feel that those last three questions (which kind of don't have anything to do with this discussion) are going to derail us, I'd like to clarify my answers. I don't feel like I've represented what I think very well, and I think my fellow Christians would rightly want to shake me and say "WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU UNDERSTAND LAW AS A PAULINE CONCEPT."
What I meant when I answered those questions like I did, is that I am a Christian who realizes that (as Trip Lee says) "I could study forever and read all day, but still wouldn't understand the King all the way." BUT I believe God HAS revealed Himself in His word, written (the bible) and incarnate (Jesus Christ). He also allows us much truth and wisdom, that we have access too if we immerse ourselves in His word and pay attention to older and wiser biblical scholars. So, while I do think there is MORE for me to know, I also believe there is a lot of truth that is VERY straight forward and can be known with relatively little effort (with the understanding that MORE can be known with a LOT more effort).
May 29, 2012 at 06:37 PM
Although...perhaps, I shouldn't say opposite...the polar opposite would obviously be unbelief. BUT certainly the sentence "Faith is like doubt" is incorrect.
May 29, 2012 at 06:35 PM
@DRT: "Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for; the EVIDENCE of things unseen." My pastor would agree. Perhaps you should talk with yours over the fact that you think they are the same.
May 29, 2012 at 06:33 PM
Heather, faith and doubt are not opposites, you should talk to your pastor about that.
May 29, 2012 at 06:20 PM
@Kevin Nickoson:
Well, I'm glad you have impressed yourself so much....
Since you are concerned, I didn't get my faith from a commentary either. It was given to me by God. However, I do look up words in a commentary. Why would I look up biblical terminology and interpretation from a non-Christian?
Ok, so your point with the oppression of the poor was basically what I said it was....Yes, I agree...not taking care of the poor is a sin, next?
Morality is not as po-mo as you think...sexual intercourse with someone of the same gender is a sin. I'm 100% confident. So, hey...if we are just going by our own confidence, I guess mine trumps yours. BUT, just going on our own confidence would be silly...I just go by what the bible says.
Uhh, no...see, MY preachers (you know...the ones you don't know and never met and really don't know what educational background they have had before you shot from the hip with some arrogant dismissive gesture) actually have to go to a seminary (and in some cases, like my current pastor get PhDs) to learn both Greek and Hebrew and Ugaritic and other ancient languages. They have to take courses on linguistics AND hermeneutics. So....you were actually wrong about that.
Truth isn't that hard. And Faith is actually the opposite of doubt.
I don't how your last three questions pertain, but if you are curious I would answer them: Quite a few (of course, since not all apply to me); decently; and yeah basically (though God's meanings are boundless and I hope to always be learning more).
May 29, 2012 at 06:08 PM
I have not listened to the whole thing yet, but it seems to have a direct bearing on the later conversation here regarding following the law. In a nutshell, I believe he is saying that we need to apply the teachings of Jesus to the law to see if we should follow it. I agree with that.
http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc78/
May 29, 2012 at 05:57 PM
@Heather E. Carrillo
I don't get my beliefs from a commentary, my friend. I form my beliefs through strenuous logical skepticism and open minded research- I am familiar with various commentaries and various perspectives on hermeneutics. I would recommend that YOU invest in Wittgenstein's Blue Book, or at least some basic introductory material on linguistics. The words literally CANNOT have the same precise meaning because words are only meaningful as relationships of other words, of other meanings. A language is a dynamic system of interrelated parts- change a single part, a single word, add a single part or word, and you've created a spiderweb effect of refined meanings throughout the language. The process of translating a koine Greek text from 1st century Palestine into 21st century English is a much more difficult task than looking up meanings in a thesaurus.
You've completely missed my simple point in citing the scripture's emphasis on taking care of the poor. The point is that there is something seriously wrong with a subculture that claims the Bible as its authority, then uses its massive political weight to keep the national discourse distracted by marriage equality and the ethics of homosexuality while poor people the world over are systemically oppressed. It is downright un-Christian.
Practicing homosexuality is NOT A SIN. PERIOD. I am 99.999% confident on this point. Theft is not always a sin. Neither is lying. Modern evangelicals think they have morality pinned down into a simple formula, and are blind to their arbitrary and historically determined biases. Kierkegaard railed against this kind of confident religious type, who thinks that faith is a starting point for good deeds. These types think that a set of abstract intellectual assents will lead to salvation. Faith is like doubt- sought after, practiced, but never completed. In this way you have failed- you have reached an end point to your spiritual development, because you think you have all the answers.
Look, I'm sure you are a well intentioned person. Your defense of any religious position demonstrates that you care about humanity's spiritual side. But, as they say, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." If you don't know how to read Hebrew or Greek, if you aren't familiar with philosophical linguistics, if you aren't familiar with anthropology, you are lacking a basic skill necessary for comprehending what a several thousand year old text is or how it can be understood. Your preachers are just as ignorant.
Truth is a very, very difficult thing to get at. No one is trying very hard. Work, TV, families, etc. So people read a few books that agree with each other and find their identity that way. Ask yourself, how many OT laws have I broken? How well do I understand Law as a Pauline concept? Do I understand Paul's meat sacrificed to idols metaphor?
The answers are too many to count, not well, and no.
May 29, 2012 at 02:45 PM
I'm just going to assume you are purposefully misreading that. I was just pitting two opposites against one another.
Oh no, I read it. He sorta uses that, but mine was just an emphasis thing.
He gets everything wrong, but probably this is the wrong forum to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of Mr. Bell.
May 29, 2012 at 02:40 PM
Heather, well, at least you put yourself in the role of Britney Spears and let Rob Bell have Mother Theresa :)
I guess you did not read Love Wins? He uses punctuation the way you did in you last comment.
You ought to read Love Wins, it is a very good book, though he does get a couple things wrong in it he is largely right.
May 29, 2012 at 02:34 PM
@DRT: I have to admit I cracked up just then. THAT is a comparison I would never have thought to see. It's like saying Britney Spears is channeling Mother Theresa; or Pat Buchanan is channeling Al Franken.
Was my comment really that poorly written? I didn't say there isn't a hell at all. I said we (human beings) can't know what is in one another's hearts. So we don't know whether a person is going to hell or not.
May 29, 2012 at 02:26 PM
I think Heather is channeling Rob Bell.
May 29, 2012 at 01:01 PM
@Kevin Nickoson: Check out a better commentary, my friend. Those words DO mean the same thing. Someone who has sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite gender.
You are right in pointing out that this is not the only sin in the bible (not helping the poor), but the interesting thing about Jesus is that He frees you to choose NOT to sin all of the sins! You don't have to just pick ONE sin to not do, with His power you can flee them all.
And really...how often can we Christians say this? We. Do. Not. Know. Who. Will. Be. In. Hell. If someone's lifestyle has not been changed by Jesus Christ, than it is fair to assume that this person still needs the message of the gospel, but no one knows (except God) who will be in hell and who won't. Can this be anymore clear? However, NOT helping the poor, practicing homosexuality, theft, murder, lying, etc., are all sins. If one continues in these sins, unrepentant, they are continuing to assert that they are their own God. It's a dangerous place to be.
May 28, 2012 at 12:22 AM
@ Zilch
Are there particular areas of OT law that you don't think are dealt with in the NT?
As for interpretation, you're absolutely right, there will always different interpretations of any texts. People have biases that affect how they read and apply texts, post-modernism has taught us that much.
But I think a solid case can be made for how the OT applies to Gentiles, in particular. I think in large part the NT restates the key themes of the OT, and then in regards to Gentiles specifically deals with the application of the law of Moses (most clearly and decisively in Acts 15).
I think, also, that the NT is clear in terms of homosexual sex, which is the topic at hand. Do you think there's a lack of clarity? If you think there's clarity there, again, which areas do you think are unclear?
May 27, 2012 at 05:49 AM
My interpretation of the CNN piece was that "what the Bible really says" is summed up in these two quotes in the article:
1. "But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity — varied cultural traditions — do not matter before God. What matters is purity of heart."
2. "That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others."
So there we have it. Care for others and serve God with a pure heart. Sounds to me like the two most important commandments Jesus stated. Somehow being gay and married fits into those parameters. That's what the bible really says.
This of course admits that portions of the bible are awful and indeed written by humans. That God at any point said humans should be put to death for working on the Sabbath is ridiculous, and insulting to God himself. That he gave to Moses the moronic ramblings of Exodus 21 is unfathomable.
The true Word of God is revealed through our own honesty of the heart. Truth does require critical thinking. Otherwise we are simply believing what we are told.
May 24, 2012 at 03:20 AM
Nick- your comment underscores what I said about the difficulty of trying to find out exactly what Scripture means. I've read the Bible several times through (it's great literature and important to our society) and I can't see how any firm case can be made one way or another about exactly how Christians should deal with the Torah, as you put it. Better minds than mine have grappled with this, and have come to various conclusions that have resulted in various sects.
The only logical conclusion I can come to is that, as I said, there simply is no "correct" interpretation of the Bible here, as is true of many other issues as well.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
May 24, 2012 at 01:25 AM
In terms of how Gentile Christians are to interact with Torah, I think it's worth reading Acts (particularly around the chapter 10 mark), as well the first three chapters of Romans. Matthew 15 and Galatians are also useful.
The early church spent much of their time working through the issues of Jewish-Gentile integration, what Law, if any, applied to Gentiles, and what use, if any, there was in the Law for Jewish Christians (or Messianic Jews). If nothing else, those documents will inform the historical situation in the first century, and hopefully also some of the theological underpinnings of those decisions.
May 23, 2012 at 11:47 AM
[...] What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Kevin Deyoung (take from thegospelcoalition.com) Rate this: Share this:ShareEmailPrintFacebookTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
May 23, 2012 at 09:54 PM
Johnson is a Bible twisters who loves to turn to the right and to the left. We have a very immoral generation.
May 23, 2012 at 08:09 PM
[...] this blog from here This entry was posted in Culture, DOCTRINAL, MISSIONAL and tagged bible, cnn, homosexuality, [...]
May 23, 2012 at 02:04 AM
Heather- again, thanks for taking time to explain your point of view to us. But I'm still with Reuben here: I don't see any place in Scripture where this distinction is defined, much less any principled way of telling exactly what laws from the OT still apply to Christians. In fact, as I'm sure you know, this is a sect-maker: lots of Christian sects differ primarily in what parts of the Bible they take as binding law, and which they do not.
I can't blame the Christians for simply not understanding Scripture. Some parts are pretty clear, and others are not. From my standpoint as an atheist, it seems that not only are there many somewhat different theological axes being ground here by the forty-odd authors, but that sometimes, the authors themselves weren't sure exactly just what they were trying to say. But that's just my humble heathen opinion.
The same goes for the concept of the Trinity.
In any case, I wish all of you a great day, from sunny Vienna, zilch
May 23, 2012 at 01:50 PM
[...] truth and power of the Bible, God’s Word, and the gospel of Christ. Great read! Go here to receive another tool for equipping. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]
May 22, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Anyone who thinks that a covenant can be divided into parts with some parts becoming non-operative does not understand a Biblical covenant. The so-called ceremonial laws are a part of the Sinai covenant, a covenant can be put into parts and categories to discuss it, but it is a unity and cannot be divided.
Everyone knows this is true for a marriage covenant, one would look foolish to claim that one part is somehow fulfilled and therefore does not apply anymore as long as both spouses are living. A marriage covenant only ends on death or divorce, it is never the case that a part of it applies and a part of does not apply while both spouses are living. It is embarrassing that some teach otherwise for other covenants in the Bible
May 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM
@Reuban Edelstein: You can read my comment above, but the same thing can be said about the Trinity. Scriptures are pretty clear that there are different functions/facets of God and there are three persons in the Godhead. (Please don't ask me to explain this one. ;-) But there are no scriptures that use the word Trinity. You do realize that Orthodox Christianity (and when I say this I mean what we would call "the elect" or "the saved" or even "the church invisible"...I don't know who all of them are, but God does, you know?) does this all the time. I mean, this isn't just like...oooh I like this law, not this one, this one...not this one. There ARE three different types of laws. The bible makes perfectly clear that the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ...the final priest. Again, I'd refer you to the book of Hebrews.
May 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM
@zilch: How...how do you not see it? I mean, civil and ceremonial and moral laws are clearly different! It's not personal preference at all. If it were each Christian would have a different one. If I could pick and choose, we'd still all be vegetarians. AND we'd still have the year of Jubilee (goodbye school loans), but this is a term like "Trinity" that has been adopted into orthodox Christianity. We're still called to obey the civil authorities and uphold the moral law (although before any of my fellow believers freaks out...upholding the moral law DOES NOT save us, but the morals still apply. If we are becoming more and more like Christ we have the freedom to NOT break the moral law), but the ceremonial laws no longer apply. They were fulfilled in Christ. You'll find all Christians believe this. The REASON for the ceremonial laws is that they didn't have the all-encompassing cleansing brought by Jesus Christ. If you'd like a little more insight into this read the book of Hebrews and some commentaries related to it. It talks about Jesus taking over as the ultimate priest.
@Jason Ward: If there were a way to "like"/"+1"/"retweet" your comment I would. I just started laughing out loud!
May 22, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Heather - sorry for the confusion re: ritual vs. moral. Thanks for the correction. I do understand the distinction as many Christians make them, I just don't agree with them. It's a man-made construction placed backwards onto the text, and it's commonly associated with the Reformed tradition. As Zilch says, it's a theoretical Christian distinction that neither the OT or the NT makes clear.
Additionally, many Christians adhere to a general rule (again not in the OT or NT) that "If it's not repeated in the NT, then it's not valid." This falls short as well. One example of this is Exodus 21:33-34, which addresses an individual's responsibility for the property of others. The NT doesn't address this, so does this mean modern Christians are not responsible for replacing another person's property that is damaged or destroyed due to that Christian's negligence?
Obviously this discussion is specifically about homosexuality, and I apologize if it's getting off track. However, given that the author uses the OT law as a foundational support for his argument, I feel that a critical discussion of the use of OT law in Christianity is relevant.
P.S. @Jason Ward: What's with the dig at psychology? What exactly do you mean by "Freudian?" Are you referring to contemporary psychoanalytic approaches which draw generally from some of Freud's work? Do you actually know how Freud influenced modern psychology, apart from some vague pop culture notion that Freud " . . thought everything was about sex?" Have you ever studied psychology? As someone married to a PsyD, I'm interested to hear the reasoning behind your disrespectful insult.
May 22, 2012 at 07:22 AM
Thanks Kevin for a good article.
I'd heard the mad-as-a-chocolate-teapot "David and Jonathon were gay lovers" (which is a strange and weak argument coming from the lips of a "born gay" advocate, given David's later proclivities), but the Ruth and Naomi one took my breath away.
I actually got a little bit cross. What a horrid deceiver. Not only is it not hinted at in the book of Ruth, but not even the beginnings of an insinuation are hidden in there. This is incredible mud-slinging.
And then the centurion was in bed with his servant. Is anyone in the Bible straight?
Which brings me to my question.
Kevin- I quite like my Father-in-Law. He's a nice chap, and I could imagine for a woman, good looking to boot. So now I'm worried that, like Ruth, this might mean I'm gay and want to sleep with him. Can you recommend a completely unhelpful Freudian psychologist to help me come to terms with my new non-existent sexuality?
May 22, 2012 at 03:40 PM
[...] the Bible Really Still Says About Homosexuality (The Gospel Coalition, May 16, 2012) Available at: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/16/what-the-bible-really-still-says-about-... (May 22, [...]
May 22, 2012 at 02:32 AM
Heather- thanks for the explanation. I do understand the theoretical distinction between these different kinds of laws. But I don't see anywhere in the Bible where these distinctions are defined. It seems to me rather that different Christians make different distinctions, based on personal preferences, and that there is no obvious way to interpret Scripture one way or another.
May 21, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Zilch - Thanks for the kind offer. Highly unlikely if I ever make it out to California but you never know...
From sunny Nova Scotia
Brian
May 21, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Brian- I thank you for your thoughts too. Again- please drop me a line if you're ever in Vienna, or in the SF Bay Area most summers, and lunch is on me- I'd love to meet you and talk in person. In my humble opinion, everyone has a worldview that is to some extent illogical, whether religious or not: all of us develop beliefs that help to get us through the day, and none are the "absolute truth"- we're all navigating with faulty compasses, and we're all doing the best we can.
cheers from overcast Vienna, zilch
May 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Zilch - Thank you for your thoughts. I'll end my input with this brief response. You are correct as to the sin of homosexuality. As I stated as clearly as I could in my blog, it is just one sin amongst many (see it included in the list of 1 Cor. 6:9-11). And indeed it appears as if some of us are fixated on this when the Lord Jesus spent far more time condemning the sin of coveteousness and hypocrisy of the Pharisees (for example) than He did the various sexual sins. But we need to make a distinction between homosexuality and "gay activism" and the efforts to promote same-sex marriage etc. This effects what my children are taught in school (I just mention this as an example) so it does have implications for others. But my real point is that this movement is indicative of where we are prophetically, Sodom was the example. God's wrath is stirred (it makes no difference of what my opinion is) - He is going to judge. He created man and woman in His image, Adam and Eve are a "type" of Christ and the Church (the true redeemed body, not the institutional one), you can read this in Eph. 5. Eve was drawn from Adam's side as the Church is drawn from the wouded side of Christ (Jn. 19). Adam's deep sleep is a picture of Christ bearing our judgment on the cross. I know that you don't accept this Zilch but I'm just showing you where the "outrage" is emanating from. God is attacked, His purpose, His image and He will judge. But in a sense I agree with you concerning homosexual individuals - I was a drug addict before I became a Christian - it was the gospel message of grace, forgiveness and the free offer of eternal life that drew me. I didn't need people to condemn me, I was already condemned, I discovered Gos's love for me. This is the message that needs to be heard. But I fear that the two issues get bundled up together (activism vs. individuals) and sometimes it comes across as condemning individuals. I hope I made my position clear. I don't want to debate so I'll close it off here, praying for you my friend, for your salvation through God's Son.
May 21, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Brian- okay, I read your post and I understand your attitude. As I said, I don't care what people believe, as long as it doesn't hurt others. But I don't understand this fixation on homosexuality on the part of many Christians- how does allowing gays to marry affect you in any way? And what about other sins- gluttony is mentioned far more often in the Bible than homosexuality, but is not taken seriously as a sin nowadays. Look at the average weight of Americans, who are now threatening to become the first nation with a majority of clinically obese people. This is not only a sin, according to you Christians, but a real public health problem, unlike gay marriage. Where's the outrage here?
May 21, 2012 at 08:35 AM
Zilch - I think you might have misunderstood me. My point about governmental (and Church) approval same-sex marriage being a form of apostasy is an observation (and belief) of mine not necessarily a call for Christian intervention through politics. I also realize that you cannot accept the word apostasy on the ground that it is a "religious" word but this does not change the reality of it from my perspective. If you had read my blog on this you would have seen I believe that prophetically this must come, and Sodom will be judged. As far as the impact of same-sex marriage on society, I can not say with certainty accept that the traditional marriage and the marriage institution is an important part of societal order and if this is weakened it can't be positive or helpful. I was looking at it (in my post) from God's perspective, the spiritual implications which you don't accept. But even nature teaches the proper and natural order of male female union. At any rate if you want to read the post its:http://www.wordsofthislife.ca/2012/05/when-sodom-rules-land.html. Also: my position on Christian involvement in politics is that it is dangerous for the Church (as history has shown). The seperation of Church and state is not only beneficial for the state it is a necessity for the Church. See my blog on Christian involvment in politics (it also is a path to "apostasy")http://www.wordsofthislife.ca/2012/03/christian-is-informed-in-scriptures-of.html. You may agree with my thesis but not how I arrived at it for it is totally from a Biblical and Christian perspective.
May 21, 2012 at 06:31 PM
Forgot one scripture, Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Just as those who claim we Christians twist the bible to to make our own conclusions, so do those who wish to twist the bible to make it say what they want it to believe. You may translate and interject all you want. But if you do the historical research, homosexuality is not only a sin, but an abomination against God PERIOD. Is it a forgiveable sin, of course, but is it a lifestyle that unrepented is allowed by God? No. There is no place in any scripture which encourages or approves of two men being married and being joined before God as ONE, only that can occur between a woman and a man. Sorry not drinking the liberal kool-aid. So while your argument is intriguing,and interesting,it does not hold water. Homosexuality has never been openly accepted in society , tolerated at best during the Roman Empire and Greek Empire, but never public, nor is there any mention anywhere in history ever where two men, or two women were married to each other, and accepted as a married couple
May 21, 2012 at 02:45 PM
@zilch: Ritual is ceremonial. It's moral-civil-ceremonial. And like the trinity it's not explicitly stated, but it's rather simple to understand.
The laws are what they sound like. Civil law is what we have today. You're familiar with it so I don't have to spell it out. Moral laws are (in our days) unwritten codes we abide by. It's not illegal to say...cheat a little kid selling lemonade out of a fair price, but I think we'd all agree that is immoral. Now not ALL moral laws today are unwritten. Thou shalt not murder is a civil law of any country, and it is also immoral.
Ceremonial laws were the rituals associated with cleanliness or laws regarding the priesthood. We just don't have them anymore. The bible EVERYWHERE talks about Christ being the ultimate priest and fulfilling all of those laws. They just aren't necessary any longer. Not that we (believers) can't read the bible and enhance our understanding of the work of Jesus Christ, but we no longer have to worry when we eat bacon (well, aside from it just being gross) or sacrifice animals.
May 21, 2012 at 02:33 PM
Reuben- this is indeed a problem for Christians. I, too, have often heard of this "ritual-civil-ceremonial" division, but I don't see any Scriptural basis for it. It seems to me that most Christians just pick the OT laws they like, for whatever reason, and call those binding, and ignore the rest.
May 21, 2012 at 01:30 PM
[...] Just a few days ago I shared on Facebook a fine article on the biblical view of homosexuality. It is written by Kevin DeYoung, and, if you have not yet read it, is well worth your time: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/16/what-the-bible-really-still-says-about-h... [...]
May 21, 2012 at 01:21 PM
Something no one seems to be willing to discuss here. This issue is inextricably connected with a larger hermeneutical issues: how are Christians to interact with the Torah, and specifically the halakhic portions?
Most evangelicals today exhibit a confused and inconsistent approach to the halakhah within the Torah, with most retrojecting some sort of haphazard "ritual-civil-ceremonial" division back onto it.
Before Christians can begin to speak authoritatively and decisively about what the Torah says about lifestyle issues, they need to decide on a consistent and faithful interpretation and application of the Torah's halakhah. Otherwise, opponents can simply say things like, "Leviticus condemns homosexuality but it also says you should stone your hopelessly rebellious son." Did Jesus abolish the Law? He says he didn't. But he did seem to modify it. How does this work, exactly? Which parts of the law are written on the hearts of modern Christians, vis-a-vis Jeremiah 31? Which parts of the Law were left on the cutting room floor?
May 20, 2012 at 11:19 PM
[...] http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/16/what-the-bible-really-still-says-about-h... Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in KFD. Bookmark the permalink. ← If We Believe All the Same Things, Why Do Our Churches Seem So Different? Helping Someone Escape Sin Is Not Judgmental → [...]
May 20, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Helminiak's stuff certainly isn't new. It isn't even original. Some years ago, he published a book on the subject, "What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality" (1994)which was basically a popular summary of John Boswell's book, "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century," first published in 1980. It would be worthwhile for those who confess the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures to read it. Boswell's book has about every revisionist revision of the Scriptures imaginable on this issue.
May 20, 2012 at 09:57 AM
Brian- I appreciate your agreement with me about it not being the business of the church to legislate its morality in secular society. I'm looking for common ground here, not a theological debate (as entertaining as they are...) Drop me a line if you're in town, and lunch is on me. But then you say:
It is apsotasy for governments to put their seal of approval on this.
As I'm sure you know, "apostasy" is a religious term. Whether or not homosexual marriage constitutes apostasy is something I will leave over to you ecclesiasticals. But what you consider apostasy should not be our problem, if we choose not to embrace your beliefs. That's the whole point of separation of Church and State, an inspired move by the Founding Fathers.
If your only objection to gay marriage is that it's "apostasy", then you should, by all means, keep away from this apostasy yourself. But please don't try to force your religion on others.
That would mean, that any reasonable arguments against gay marriage would have to be ones that showed how anyone would be hurt by it. Of course there are lots of arguments about this, pro and con, but I haven't heard any really convincing ones against gay marriage. Most of them take the form of complaining about some supposed bad trait of gays- that they recruit children, that they are depressed, that they are more likely to have aids, etc. But none of these arguments, even if they are true, shows how allowing gays to marry would make the problems worse. Actually, it seems to me that most of these problems would probably be ameliorated by allowing gay marriage.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
May 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM
What does the Bible say should be done to kids who don't obey?
May 19, 2012 at 12:20 AM
[...] article, he weighs in on President Obama’s recent endorsement of “gay” marriage.) What the Bible Still Says About Homosexuality (Kevin DeYoung–great example why Stephen Cobert and others comedic sound bites are no way to [...]
May 19, 2012 at 10:49 AM
[...] http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/16/what-the-bible-really-still-says-about-h... Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Written by trh1292 Posted in Uncategorized Tagged with Calvinism, Jesus, Presbyterian, Christianity, Heaven, Faith, Sin, Christ, God, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Love, Theonomy, Government, Hell, Death, Gay, LGBT, Justice, Homosexuality, Good, Mercy, Demo, Theocracy [...]
May 19, 2012 at 08:31 PM
On a certain level I agree with Zilch our atheist friend. If we as Christians, as the Church, keep ourselves from these things we do well - but in pluralistic, church/state seperated non-theocratic western democracies it is not possible or even desirable to legislate our morality upon others. Howvever, in the question of (not homosexuality) but of same-sex marriage I believe this goes beyond the Church and touches God's very creational order of things, for marriage pre-dates christianity and even predates government. It is apsotasy for governments to put their seal of approval on this. For more on this see the latest post on my blog: http://www.wordsofthislife.ca/2012/05/when-sodom-rules-land.html. On the CNN article, I think Kevin's rebuttal is dead-on.
May 18, 2012 at 12:23 AM
http://youtu.be/Uyu1ijzYagA
May 18, 2012 at 12:17 AM
What Steve says about it: From Now The Truth Can Be Told Liner Notes & Song-By-Song Essays, Now The Truth Can Be Told Insert Booklet, August 23rd, 1994:
"I somehow managed to dig myself such a deep hole with the rhyme scheme of this lyric that it took me two months to climb out. I remember going nightly to my office at the church where I was a youth pastor and working 4-6 hours at a time just to get a single line.
Since the song was written in a church, it makes sense that it was directed to the church. The targets are familiar ones for those acquainted with the teachings of Jesus. Time and again He went after Jewish society's elite--religious leaders and teachers who misled an easily-duped public by using legalese and doubletalk to twist the scriptures to suit their own purposes.
Twelve years later, this lyric still feels like I got it right. I don't always expect outsiders to understand why abortion is wrong, or why a homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with Biblical Christianity, or even why we shouldn't shrug it off when politicians lie. But as the twentieth century draws to a close, the church and its leaders must remember that our mission is to make disciples of Jesus, not to "de-sinsitize" sin."
Lyrics:A Christian counselor wrote, quote,
"It's the only humane choice ahead
If you can't support it
Why don't you abort it instead?"
You say you pray to the sky
Why? when you're afraid to take a stand down here
'Cause while the holy talk reads like a bad ad-lib
Silence screams you were robbing the crib
Say it ain't none of my business, huh?
A woman's got a right to choose
Now a grave-digger
Next you pull the trigger
What then?
Whatever happened to sin?
I heard the reverend say
"Gay is probably normal in the good Lord's sight
What's to be debated?
Jesus never stated what's right"
I'm no theology nut, but
The reverend may be a little confused
For if the Lord don't care
And he chooses to ignore-ah
Tell it to the people
Of Sodom and Gomorrah
Call it just an alternate lifestyle, huh?
Morality lies within
Consciences are restin'
Please repeat the question again
Whatever happened to sin?
When the closets are empty
And the clinics are full
When your eyes have been blinded
By society's wool
When the streets erupt
In your own backyard
You'll be on your knees
Praying for the national guard
If you don't care now
How the problems get solved
You can shake your head later
That you never got involved
'Cause the call came ringing
From the throne of gold
But you never got the message
'Cause your mind's on hold
A politician next door
Swore he'd set the Washington arena on fire
Thinks he'll gladiate them
But they're gonna make him a liar
Well he's a good ol' boy
Who was born and raised
In the buckle of the Bible Belt
But remember when you step
Into your voting booth
He'll never lie
He'll just embellish the truth
Promises were made to be broken, right?
You've gotta play the game to win
When you need supporting
Tell them that you're born again
Whatever happened to sin?
May 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Hannah,
While I am not a supporter of Mr. DeYoung's position, there is a ton of information on this website that addresses your concerns. I would recommend reading through a lot of it, and then commenting.
Again, even though I don't support his position, I can succinctly respond:
1) To have gay sex is a choice. That is the sin; not being gay.
2) The Bible is not wrong.
3) Yes, he has studied this issue. See numerous blog posts, including March 13, 14, 15 (arsenokoitai; see also May 21, 2009), 16, all in 2012
May 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM
I generally disagree with your argument, but I really appreciate the thoughtful intelligence behind this piece. So thank you.
My real concern is this: why does it matter to you so much? I'm a Christian and I'm straight. I agree that the Bible probably frowns on homosexual intercourse. But I fundamentally disagree with the Church's lynching campaign against homosexuality. Especially when the Church utterly disregards so many other pressing issues. To write what you wrote above, you have to forget the "let him throw the first stone" lesson: "The Pharisees kept demanding an answer," the bible says in John 8:7, and Jesus replied, "Why do you care so much, bros? Worry about yourself."
May 18, 2012 at 11:16 AM
[...] saw this post by Kevin DeYoung today and thought it was worth re-posting the whole thing here. This is right in line with much of [...]
May 18, 2012 at 10:04 AM
Mr. DeYoung, I have a few questions for you regarding your views on homosexuality. I hope it's okay for me to ask them of you.
First of all, why are you against homosexuality? You do realize, don't you, that homosexuality isn't a choice and it can't be changed, which means that being against homosexuality is like being against a person's skin color or ethnicity, which are both also unchangeable and innate. I'm sure you think it's hateful to be racist or xenophobic, so why do you think it's somehow not hateful to be against homosexuality? (Oh, and I myself am bisexual, so I can tell you for a fact that I did not choose to be this way. Ask any other GLBT person and they'll tell you the exact same thing.)
Also, just because the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean that you should believe that it's wrong, you know. After all, the Bible is just a book, which was written, edited, revised, and translated by fallible, error-prone human beings, which means that it's got to have at least one error in it, and it does. Have you ever actually looked at the Bible with a critical eye, instead of just blindly believing that it's free of any sort of errors? Critical thinking isn't a bad thing, you know. It's certainly a lot safer and smarter than blind belief is.
Heck, have you ever actually studied the history and context of all of the supposed "anti-gay" Bible verses? Heck, have you ever even read those verses in the original Greek and Aramaic (before they were translated a million times), and do you know what the words "arsenokoitai" and "malakoi" mean? Or do you just take those verses at face value, even though that just gives you an incredibly shallow interpretation of them?
I eagerly await your response.
May 18, 2012 at 06:57 AM
[...] after you read Helminiak’s article, read DeYoung’s thorough response: What the Bible Really Still Says about Homosexuality. Share this:EmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]
May 18, 2012 at 06:47 AM
Thanks Kevin. You are a gift to God's church.
May 18, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Excellent! Planning to contact my friends at CNN to see if they will post your response. Thank you!
May 18, 2012 at 05:32 PM
Regarding David and Jonathan, I recommend the book Achilles in Viet Nam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character by Dr. Jonathan Shay. Dr. Shay is a psychiatrist in Boston who has recorded many hours of clinical time with veterans who suffer from PTSD.
In this book, Shay demonstrates that the language of lament used by David for Jonathan (as well as similar language found in Homer's Iliad when Achilles laments the death of Patroclus) is essentially no different that how combat soldiers speak when recounting the loss of dear friends in battle. Rather than seeing David's lament for Jonathan as evidence of homosexuality, it speaks for a more likely diagnosis of PTSD.
http://www.amazon.com/Achilles-Vietnam-Combat-Undoing-Character/dp/0684813211/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337375821&sr=8-1
May 18, 2012 at 05:17 AM
Jacq brings up an interesting point, one on which I've never heard the Christian standpoint: what about intersex people? There are a number of genetic conditions that result in people who cannot be easily assigned to either male or female. Do Christians believe such people can marry, or wear their hair long? Of course, for atheists, this is not a problem: we're not hung up on black/white labels.
May 18, 2012 at 04:27 AM
Although Leviticus is Moses' law and not God's law, the text is actual legal code, and the part in levitics says that you shall not lie with mankind as with womankind is likely applying a short cut to say same thing as above except replace male and female. Otherwise it makes no since, who has sex with mankind or woman kind. Also, the contrary view permits a man to have sex with his niece but not an aunt with nephew, which again, makes no since. I think bigotrism from the translators has seeped into the text. The term homosexual did not exist before the 1800s, but the third sex or eunichs most certainly did.
May 18, 2012 at 04:04 AM
People. Since there were no plastic surgeons during biblical times, children with interested conditions or ambiguous sexuality or other unique genetic sexual expressions were not fixed remaining interested throughout their lives. In the third world these people are refered to as the thirdsex, or as eunuchs in the bible. Jesus had some interesting things to say about eunichs and marriage and Moses' law permitting divorce. It isin mathew 19:3-12. Paul was not Jesus and his words were not gospel as he himself states in the epistles. Also, Leviticus is Moses law, not God's law. These passages of mathew are quite illuminating. Science tells that people are born gay as well as sexual minorities, and Jesus knew it but did not condemn. This is also is stance on those who choose to or forced to be by others. The word eunichs at that time did not mean what it does today and likely included sexual minorities whether naturally born that way or otherwise. Read it...it is all Jesus' words, not Paul's, and not Moses'. In my book, they are controlling. Otherwise, why highlight them in red print.
May 18, 2012 at 02:33 AM
Another great discussion, folks- kudos all around!
For me as an atheist, while all the intra-Christian debate about how God regards homosexuality is interesting, it doesn't really impinge upon me and others who don't believe in this God. What does impinge upon us is how Christians (and others) treat homosexuals: I am not God, so I can't judge people by the content of their hearts; I have to go on their behavior. Zach said it, right at the beginning of the comments:
Everyone in this country isn’t a Christian. If you aren’t a Christian, you probably don’t particularly care what the Bible says about homosexuality (or anything else). We aren’t coming from the same starting point.
All of this to say, I think the bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin. But I don’t think it comes anywhere close to saying that a non-religious government should legislate against sins it describes. Hold yourself to that standard. Hold fellow members of the church to that standard. But hold the entire state to that standard? I think we’re overstepping.
To expand upon this: I agree that the Bible seems to regard homosexuality as a sin. But there are lots of things that count as sins to Christians: gluttony, atheism, worshiping false gods (e.g. Allah, Buddha...)... If you want the government to legislate against what you call a "sin", and this sin is not something that demonstrably damages people (as murder and theft do), then you are a theocrat. The United States is not a theocracy, and hopefully will remain so.
May 17, 2012 at 12:51 PM
@ Hier,
Before you continue on with your path of thinking, I want you to try and realize that homosexual people do more than just have mindless sex for the sake of pleasure. Realize that two men can have sex with one another not only because they are sexually attractive to each other but because they love one another, fiercely and devotedly. I find it hard to imagine that you have ever really be in love because, when you are, you don't care about old laws written millenia ago or the old men that are telling you they know God’s plan.
I also find it impossible to believe that you have ever met a gay couple that is truly in love. I am a single, straight male and my two best friends are a lesbian couple. They share a love that I have yet to find. They are a model for the kind of relationship I WANT someday. They are perfect for one another, which is why I get so furious when I hear people who have never so much as met them tell me otherwise. They will grow old together and do it NOT because they like having sex with women and not men, but because they LOVE one another with their entire hearts.
@ Brian: "When one condemns the practice of homosexuality, one is not simply condemning a sexual act, but a longing within someone’s soul to be connected to another for a life-long journey."
Couldn't have said it better myself...which is why I copy and pasted :-p
@Melody
"DRT how about you tell us why you don’t think the bible is true? If you can prove that then you can enter the conversation with some credibility. Otherwise you are just another man that likes the sound of his own voice over Gods."
I know it was directed to DRT but I'm going to give my 2 cents (well, a bit more than just 2 cents but forgive me)
I find it hard to speak in absolute truths (as an Agnostic, the claim of 'absolute truth' tastes like vinegar in my mouth) but I WILL say that the Bible is not only FULL of falsehoods and immorality, but that it is also incredibly unhealthy to take to heart without also realizing what you are reading: Man's attempt at the word of God. If you honestly believe that the Bible is 100% word of God, you are not only evil but stupid. And I only say that because there is no other way to put it. Read the Bible. REALLY read it. I've read it many times over, I did through Catholic school and continue to do it to this day (even though I am a non-believer...in fact, I consider this to be the main reason why I am a non-believer). The bible tells us to stone our children to death if they are unruly, that it is an abomination to wear clothes of multiple fabrics, and details the specifics of trading your daughters to slavery (but not that the act is in itself a horrible thing to do). I have no problem with someone believing in parts of the Bible or saying that the Bible is partially influenced by God's hand. But if you mean to tell me that the Bible is entirely God's word, then I will not hesitate to call you a sociopath or a complete imbecile.
It is also HISTORICAL FACT that the Bible has been rewritten, edited, translated and re-translated for millenia. Aramaic, Latin, Greek, English, where do you start to realize that whatever the real message was supposed to be, most of it was probably lost a long long time ago? Parts have been lost. Parts have been ignored. Parts have been made up by men claiming to be prophets. This is not a book of facts to live by. It is loose guidelines to swallow with a giant grain of salt. And the act of swallowing should be hard and painful. It should tear your throat apart and when it lands in your belly it should shake with such violent fervor that you'll almost throw it back up. If you swallow the Bible easily and without trouble, you have not read cover to cover and you have no idea what you're really putting in your belly.
MAN wrote the Bible, have no mistake, and MAN makes error. Are there good teachings in the book? Absolutely. But there are just as many barbaric and immoral teachings as well - the whole thing could use a good rewrite in my opinion.
So, in conclusion, how do we know what are the good parts and what are the bad? This is why so many people interpret the book in so many ways. This is why wars have been started many times over and why people will ALWAYS kill over it and why the mentally unstable will flock to it like mindless sheep (no pun intended...actually, nevermind, I totally intended that pun)
@RN, retired
Do you think most people who buy condoms/birth control are gay? Because you're dead wrong. In fact, a monogamous heterosexual couple will use birth control much more than a monogamous homosexual couple. Why would a monogamous heterosexual couple need it? To prevent the spread of AIDS, like you said? What if neither have AIDS? Then it's completely useless. What about anal tearing? You say. What about vaginal tearing? I say. If a heterosexual couple are together and the man has an enormous manhood and the woman a small womanhood, then the odds are just as likely they will have painful sex without some form of lubrication. Should they be denied marriage? Maybe we should have an exam before every heterosexual marriage, to ensure that these two specific people are specifically NATURAL for one another.
@Jay Beerley
Society will not unravel because of gay marriage. I find that grossly offensive and I'm not even gay. If you want to take some time to look at actual evidence and not guesses at God's plan, then look at the studies saying that not only are gay couple more likely to stay together longer, but they are also just as capable of raising fully functional and morally intact children (most are even heterosexual if you're afraid this will slowly turn the whole world gay). And don’t even get me started on the whole ‘sanctity of marriage’ debate. You think straight couples are more likely to preserve marriage’s sanctity? I shouldn’t even need to tell you why that’s flat out wrong.
So what are you afraid of?
Of being forced to redefine what marriage means? OH NO, THE HORROR! Sorry if I seem condescending but I just can’t help it anymore. You want the original definition of marriage? OK, marriage will be the exchange of property. Women will have no right whatsoever and men will control all of their affairs: legal, economic, AND social. No one has a patent on marriage, not even Christians. Marriage was around LONG before even the Torah was written. So, why not change our current definition of marriage again? Because changing it so that a married woman has rights is the same of changing it so that two gay women have rights.
You can act like Christians are the ones being prejudiced against, because you feel like it’s your world that is being tipped upside down.
But you’re not the victim here, no matter how you spin it.
Christians get their way 99% of the time in 99% of the issues because this is a democracy and they are the majority. YOU are the oppressors, YOU are telling others what they cannot do. Legalizing gay marriage will NOT affect YOU in any way, shape, or form. It will not prevent you from worshipping, it will not prevent you from believing what you believe. It will not hurt society and it will not hurt you.
BUT, continuing to deny the right of marriage to homosexual people will hurt many. The damage is real and concrete and I’ve witnessed it firsthand in a dozen different ways. It is slowing down the progress of humanity and hurting many people along the way.
My advice? Get over yourself, you’re not as righteous as you think you are.
May 17, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Mike, I have not read all the other comments yet, but your question about divorce is a very good one. The fact is that the issue of divorce is pretty much exactly like the issue of homosexuality. The church has elected to go against the bible and allow divorce. That is why this post and those who espouse a strong form of biblical innerrency are hypocritical. They say they follow the bible when it suits them and then don't follow it when it suits otherwise. People really need to take a look at themselves and realize what they are doing.
May 17, 2012 at 12:50 PM
DRT,
Posting that link on a site like this is like posting a Moon landing hoax link on NASA's website. In other words, they don't know what they're talking about. :)
May 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM
RN, retired. You had a paragraph talking about sexual disease, but I don't understand how that is different in homosexual relations. Please tell me.
If one woman and one woman don't have sex with anyone else they will not get a disease through sex. There is nothing different with homosexuality than with hetero.
May 17, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Melody, are you saying that you are unaware of all of the untrue things in the bible? And that you are unaware of the things that the bible says that we no longer do? Do you greet with a holy kiss? Are the heavens and earth on firmaments? Does god store the weather in storehouses in the sky? How many times does the cock crow? etc etc.
If you are really unaware, then this page is a good place to start http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html
May 17, 2012 at 12:39 AM
All I could think of when I was reading the arguments by Helminiak was Genesis 3:4-7.
May 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM
[...] the link to DeYoung’s full blog = What The Bible Really Still Says About Homosexuality. I hope you take time to read it and pass it on to others. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]
May 17, 2012 at 12:35 PM
Brian,
Your comments about homosexual companionship are spot on. For those who are homosexual, a lack of societal and religious acceptance to engage in something that ANY of us would want for our own children (i.e., the ability to seek out a romantic partner with whom to share life's greatest joys, disappointments, and everything in between) is painful to watch, especially when we are close with friends who are gay. Further, we know that this lack of societal acceptance places undue guilt and burden upon LGBT youth, leading to increased risks for internalizing disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety) as well as suicide. Other posters can criticize my interpretation, but, personally, I can see nothing MORE antithetical with the overall greater meaning of the Gospels than such a quickness to judge, condemn, or deny others to those institutions that we find to be useful in our own lives (namely, organized religion and legally recognized companionship).
Additionally, I would venture to guess that Mr. DeYoung is a smart man, given how much time and effort he has put into studying scripture. At the same time, I will point out that his first paragraph attacking President Obama's position on gay marriage is fallacious and that the rest of the article suffers from other logical fallacies. In his first paragraph of response, Mr. DeYoung is stating the government governs on morality (and then gives examples of moral instances where the rights of others or the environment are imposed upon) and then argues that b/c of those examples the government should be able to impose a moral code even in instances where there are no crimes or even victims (such as committed, reciprocal, homosexual relationships). I don't know if he's being intentionally deceitful or not, but the logic doesn't follow, and his comments toward the end of his blog post make it sound as if he would be a staunch advocate of a theocracy or a government based on religious moral code, despite his obvious self-awareness not to be perceived as such.
For any of you who do not know personally someone who is gay (and, honestly, you probably do, whether they have felt compelled to come out to you or not), I recommend watching a brief clip from the movie V for Vendetta which makes a tired, oft-repeated argument of morality a bit more concrete: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0lYIBjCpco
May 17, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Kevin - thanks for pointing out Jude 7. That new testament passage seems to get forgotten by those who try to justify homosexual behavior by distorting other passages in the bible. I think the author of the article should also pay great heed to Jude 4.
May 17, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Homosexuality is a sin... period. We don't have to spend too much time in the debate because Christ's sheep hear His voice. So, if homosexuality is a sin and Christ says it is a sin by means of the Spirit's conviction then there will be repentance and newness of life apart from the most articulate polemic. DeYoung's response is fantastic, but let's not carry on this debate for too long... it gets the feeling of usurping the Spirit's role. The debate is won or "lost" in the sinner's response to the gospel.
May 17, 2012 at 12:08 AM
Greg,
No, in the ancient world certain sexual practices were taboo. The reason the bible says little or nothing about female homosexual acts and most of what it says about male homosexual acts refers to a specific type of act is that in the ancient world, what was taboo was a man penetrating another. The Leviticus quote on this doesn't condemn men laying with men but men laying with men "as though he were a woman". Penetration was seen as a sigh of ultimate submission, and so it was viewed differently. In the Roman world, it was taboo only if the receiving partner was a man of high status. In the bible, most references to homosexuality use this context (one of the words translated as "homosexual" in modern bibles in 1 Cor is actually "catimite", which refers to a male prostitute who by definition was always in the receiving end).
The exegetical study of homosexuality in the bible is extremely complex and its exact nuances likely will never be recovered. But the prohibition on remarriage after divorce is pretty black and white, as is the requirement to love one's neighbor and treat them as you want to be treated. Somehow I doubt you would want people telling you that your practices are an abomination.
May 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Mike "with a genuine question" -
I think your missing link is repentance. You said it yourself, "an unrepentant homosexual". I would venture to say that the unrepentant divorcee also might not be a Christian. In fact, the unrepentant liar, the unrepentant thief, the unrepentant SINNER is probably not following the Lord.
From the very beginning of Jesus' ministry, he proclaims, "Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand" (Matt. 4:17). You see repentance and the importance of repentance throughout the Bible. David's sin with Bathsheba (and the following atrocities) did not make him an unbeliever, his repentance shows that he was, even though he sinned.
Although homosexuality is getting a lot of press lately, the reality is that sin is sin. All sin needs to be repented of, and someone who is not repenting, no matter the sin, is probably not following the Lord.
May 17, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Also, in light of your comments about the "living, breathing, active word of God", I feel compelled to point out that if God were providing new revelation, it would be abundantly supernaturally clear that he were doing so, as is always the case with revelation.
May 17, 2012 at 12:04 PM
@Brian
That is because you refuse to accept love for God more than man including self as valid. Everything that I have seen of your posts puts you as the example we should all live by. No thank you.
May 17, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Homosexuality is a sin as is divorce, lying, etc, etc, etc...we are ALL sinners saved by Grace!...my point here is, you don't declare it "not-a-sin" just because you DO sin. You repent, and work to be Holy as God is Holy. What you DON'T do, is say, "ah, ya know what, we don't have a chance with that one, so lets trim the list down, and just focus on the "big ones" we all agree on.
May 17, 2012 at 11:52 AM
In addition, "light" is not equivalent to "love"; "light" is equivalent to "truth". Scripture truth contains much teaching about love, but love is not the light, and love is not the only thing.
May 17, 2012 at 11:50 AM
@Brian, not everything is about love. Jesus himself wasn't simply "all about love"; were that the case, he wouldn't rebuke the pharisees or drive out the money changers. He wouldn't call for repentance. All of those things he did.
It isn't all about love. A church elder is PRIMARILY called to be "Biblical"; therefore, DeYoung is fulfilling his calling with such posts. The fact that you and the world find fault with such ways of thinking doesn't make him wrong. I'd submit that it has become obvious at this point to any believer reading your comments that you are, by your utter disregard for truth.
May 17, 2012 at 11:46 AM
@Brian, simply because someone incorrectly justifies his actions with something that does not apply to that situation does not invalidate the justification itself. Defending others is a perfectly legitimate reason to kill, if necessary. The question isn't whether that is a legitimate reason; rather:
1) Is the one stepping in actually trying to defend the life of another?
2) Does the one stepping in to defend another have the whole story? (i.e., is there actually a threat?)
I think the problem with America, recently, is that the first criterion is not fulfilled.
As to capital punishment, that's the reason Christ came to earth. To take our capital punishment. I would submit it should only be used by the government in cases where a life has been taken, though. See Paul's speaking about the government wielding "the sword" (a very oppressive, corrupt government even, as the Roman Empire began to be toward Christians at the time).
May 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM
@justsomeguy
I'm sure you've read this before:
Darkness cannot drive out darkness;only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
DeYoung is figuratively fighting fire with fire with CNN and Helminiak. It's as if it's a battle of WHO IS RIGHT AND WRONG, but that's not going to win, even if he wins the argument.
I couldn't find one shred of love in what he wrote.
May 17, 2012 at 11:43 AM
@alex I didn't make an assumption about Mr. DeYoung. Have you read many of his posts? They are almost always "biblical" and very rarely "personal." Anyone can hide behind some bullet-pointed truth claims, but reading the Bible like it's only a set of truth claims and not the living, breathing, active word of God is missing the point. And, anyone who believes that God himself has set his rules in stone in Scripture is absolutely missing the point. God can change & bend the rules anyway He chooses because He is God. We see this throughout history in many different ways.
Also, I wasn't stating that it's God's role to give us the desires of our heart, although David was in Psalm 37. I was merely stating that we often think of homosexuality as a sexual act and not a longing that comes from deep within someone. When we reduce it to a sexual act we miss out on what is going on inside someone & miss an opportunity to love them.
I'm super conflicted over how to respond to what's going on in our world right now, especially with how to respond to same-sex marriage, etc...I just don't appreciate anyone coming down so dogmatically as DeYoung does often without offering any nuance and, rarely, any love.
May 17, 2012 at 11:36 AM
@Brian
I just wanted to point out that your argument of "we don’t think much at all about the companionship, friendship and life-long partner that someone has a desire for." is stating that the role of God is to fulfill our desires.
God is concerned with his Holiness more than anything else.(http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-holiness-of-god-our-sin-and-the-love-of-jesus)
If we want a God that only fulfills our desires then the one found in the Bible will not work. He has greater and better plans than to make us happy. He'd rather have us Holy (1 Peter 1:14-16).
Also, I don't think the assumption you make about Mr. DeYoung are kind, fair, or true.
Thank you for (reading and) responding to the blog and sharing your voice. May God bless you as you seek to worship Him.
May 17, 2012 at 11:36 AM
@yankeegospelgirl your definition of murder is insane. When America bombs Iraq or Afghanistan in "defense of others" it also kills innocent victims (women and children) by the 1000's. Sorry, but that is murder. Because the gov't does it doesn't make it any less so. We've just decided not to prosecute it.
And capital punishment can't be justified in scripture. Take a peek at the words of Jesus on this one if you have any questions.
Believe me, I'm all for the "defense of others" and believe that if there are a 1000 girls caught up in sex trafficking by pimps and warlords I hope they (the pimps/warlords) are killed so the 1000 girls can be set free, but there are actually better ways to 'set people free' than killing.
Just wanted to quietly drop this back in here.
May 17, 2012 at 11:19 AM
See, that is where difficulty arises. What must one do, in such a case? I would argue that one who remarries has become a polygamist.
Whether or not you divorce from your spouse and renounce your commitment, you still have a commitment and responsibility in God's eyes. On the moral level, at this point I think if one is repentant he now must recognize that he has a moral obligation to two spouses, as strange to our modern minds as that is. He cannot simply renounce the second union, and he cannot ignore the first. If one repents of one's divorce and remarriage, it follows that one must then recognize both spouses and treat them both fairly, as he has made a commitment to each. This may not be how things operate legally, and it creates an incredibly awkward and sticky situation, but morally speaking this is how it should be; consequences can't simply be ignored.
I would also add, however, that there are caveats for practice for particular cases, such as believer + unbeliever marriages (in which case the believer is not bound if the unbeliever chooses to walk out; hard to say what exactly this means for the believer when it comes to future relationships though, and there is a lot of debate on this topic historically), divorce and then remarriage of both participants of a previous marriage, etc.
It's tough, and it's messy, and I'm honestly not sure in some cases what is best to do.
May 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM
[...] 2. What The Bible Really Still Says About Homosexuality [...]
May 17, 2012 at 11:00 PM
I think this article was well put together. Hard work to respond like that! Thank you for standing up and taking e narrow path.
I would like to add that many people leave out Genesis while talking/debating over this issue...if you want to start then start at the basics...
Many Christians or anyone for that matter that enjoys the philosophy of Christianity should educate them on God himself, who is both feminine and masculine...thus saying in Scripture that two become one and reveal the Father. It is having the intimate relationship of the feminine and masculine come together.
I could go on and on, but my heart cry for any delema that is over the Bible and Christian values is this- no matter what the issue is- before we get our keyboards out and write...before we accuse of hate or anything, let us become intimate with Christ. Let us pray and daily walk with Him, reading the scriptures and truly allowing it to change our lives. With out that we all will just be giving opinions that may not truly be biblical or from the heart of God, but from our own hearts... I by no means always interpret correctly but I want the love and transforming love of Christ to be seen. If transformation of Christ is not seen then why would anyone want to be a Christian. Christianity is not as much as doing the right things and getting the A+ as it is getting to know and having that intimate relationship with Christ. Once that relationship is solid than one will operate in a new way. Christ called us all to put off our old, claim and operate in the new. He also said we are to die to our sins...if Christianity is about works and we have to fear a progress report than we all are doomed for hell. However, I am not diminishing the importance of following the law but I am pressing us to see that we need to follow Christ and tap into that deep intimacy that will lead us in abundant true life...I hope I have come off in love and gentleness but a boldness for Christians to get serious about Christ and not so much religion.
May 17, 2012 at 10:53 AM
@Brian
Your frustration with the responses to the homosexuality debate is clear and valid. Too often it is reduced to just that - a debate - and "people" are lost in the nuances of arguments.
That said, the point of this post was to respond to a faulty argument (logically & biblically) that gained a widespread audience through CNN, not to discuss how we can/what it looks like to love someone who longs for an intimate relationship with a person of the same sex (including, but certainly not limited to sexual intimacy). Rev. DeYoung has directly focused on the arguments of Daniel Helminiak. No more, no less.
So please don't measure a blog post against a standard it isn't trying to meet or make unfounded assumptions regarding Rev. DeYoung's life and ministry. It doesn't serve anyone well.
May 17, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Thanks, Greg. It helped, but as always, it left me with more questions! If we expect homosexuals to repent, wouldn't repentance in the case of divorce mean being reconciled with your first spouse (i.e. repenting of the unfaithfulness or the adulterous act of belittling the first marriage), and if they aren't reconciled, wouldn't they be "unrepentant"?
I really don't have a hidden agenda. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and divorce is terrible! I'm just curious and trying to process it as much as my number-crunching brain will allow me!
May 17, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Thank you for standing in the gap, Pastor.
The times demand it, faith and grace provides.
May 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Excuse me, apropos of Brian's earlier comment, self-defense (or defense of others) does not equal "murder." Neither does capital punishment. Let's get our terminology straight.
Just wanted to quietly drop that in there.
May 17, 2012 at 10:04 AM
No time to read all of the comments. I would just make a few observations about some of the arguments.
1. Government legislating morality. It is not all about just what harms other people. The government does plenty of things for the sake of the individual (seat belt laws, for instance). I'm certainly a small government guy, but the reality is that you can't say "No harm, no foul" in thinking through legislation. And I believe Kevin pointed out, it's not about what's "right and wrong" with the legislation, it is about FORCED acceptance of a redefined term.
2. I think one of the key ideas that isn't talked about much is how in Romans 1 God informs us that a society getting what it wants is actually a form of judgment from God. We shouldn't look at this from the perspective of "If we allow gay marriage, then God will judge us for that." The perspective of the Bible is that a society accepting gay marriage IS the judgment, because the resulting unraveling of the fabric of society will vindicate the Word of the Lord.
May 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM
That's a difficult question, Mike. I suppose the position taken by the scholars who added the footnote was something to this effect:
When a man who has "divorced" his wife then "marries" another, rather than reuniting with his "first" wife, he is committing an act of unfaithfulness; in that, he is belittling the institution of marriage by making it about desire rather than commitment. However, when once his new marriage relationship is affirmed, he then has a responsibility to that wife to remain faithful.
The act of belittling his first commitment is the adulterous act; however, as he has now made a marriage commitment to this second woman, he must now stick with it. Divorce was looked down upon even in Biblical times, however, as God states in Malachi 2:16 (whole passage speaking of commitment, both to God and to one's spouse). So, the divorce in itself is wrong, and the remarriage in itself is also wrong, as it demonstrates a cheapened view of sex and love. However, one is called to be committed to one's spouse and uphold the new commitment.
Think that's the reasoning, Mike. Hope this helps your understanding in some way, even if it isn't accurate.
May 17, 2012 at 09:58 PM
On the Sabbath, the Pharisees made a lot of additions to Scripture that described in detail what one could or could not do in what they called their Oral Torah, later written down in the Mishnah. But none of that was in the Tanakh, what we call the OT. Jesus broke some of their ADDITIONS but never broke any of the actual Sabbath prohibitions and did not redefine it either.
The basic point is Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew, his opponents tried to find a way to show he was not, if they had done this, they would have had a reason to repudiate him and tell others to do so.
Food sacrificed to an idol was prohibited to a Jew because it was profaned, even if it was prepared in a kosher manner, but who would do such a thing? But even kosher food once it was profaned would never have been thought of as food by a Jew, since it could not be eaten. In other words, Jesus was saying what was food at the start of a meal was still food even if one did not do the Pharisees' hand washing ritual. In fact, by their claiming it was not edible without doing the hand washing, they were the one who were actually violating Torah. (P.S. This has nothing to do with whether hand washing was a good idea, it is; it just is not required to do the hand washing ceremony.)
May 17, 2012 at 09:56 AM
Some points I have not read here is the infectious disease implications associated with ilicit sexual activity. A married male and female that are partnered for life in a faithful, unadulterous marriage do not aquire a sexually transmitted disease provided they have not had previous sexual partners. The cost to support ilicit sex is incredible. There are huge industries profiting from this. If you think of such things as birth control pills, condoms, IUD's Birth control injections, latex gloves in clinics and hospital used to prevent the spread of HIV,. Educators to teach "Safe Sex" and most all treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and treatment of those unable to concieve due to damage to the reproductive system as a result of infection. The list could go on and on......The bottom line in this, you can argue the theology of Biblical Truth on the subject of sexual morality forever, but the fact will still remain sex outside the marriage of one man and one women has serious consequences.
May 17, 2012 at 09:46 AM
Appreciate your thoughts on this and how this issue divides christians and non-christians alike. That being said, I think the gay issue really is about the character of God. The act of Marriage is about a covenant relationship. The act of sex is very much like the covenant itself. Much of the propaganda I see on the Gay Lifestyle on facebook and on the news, makes it very much about sex and not about the champaionship as one of your readers described. Another thing that has always causes me to think is two times in the bible, when the men sought other men (Sodom & Gomorah and one other Old Testament time) the fathers wanted to sacrifce their own daughters for sex. When I read that, it horrifies me but it also causes me to think why is this in the bible two times. The second time, it ended with daughter being brutally killed. The arguement is always all sins are the same, this causes me to think it is not. However, the person who struggles with the gay lifestyle whether they see it as a struggle or that is who they are, I am still called to love them while standing for God's namesake.
May 17, 2012 at 08:49 PM
Your second response contradicts the first. And then it is all about faith. We already live in a theocracy. What we are arguing is degree not kind.
May 17, 2012 at 08:30 AM
I have a genuine question. I'm a Christian, but I'm a numbers guy, not a Biblical scholar. This morning I was reading in Matthew 19, and what struck me was when Jesus said, "...whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
The thought that occured to me was, "If an unrepentant homosexual can't be a Christian, how can a divorcee who marries another be a Christian when their second marriage is causing them to live in an adulterous relationship?" But, when I read in the footnote of my ESV Study Bible that a divorcee who remarries doesn't continue to live in an adulterous relationship because the second marriage is a "marriage," I was confused. How does one come to the conclusion that a divorcee who remarries doesn't continue to live in an adulterous relationship when Jesus said, "...whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultry."?
Perhaps my train of thought is wrong to begin with? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated!
May 17, 2012 at 08:24 AM
The argument by Helminiak is not just unsound but borders on the absurd. I.E. even if you grant him that "unnatural" in Romans 1:26-27 should be interpreted "atypical" or "unusual" it is STILL squarely identified a s fruit of unbelief and subject to God's wrath, worthy of the just penalty. Helminiak sounds like a Jehovah's witness who desperately attempts to eisegete all passage referencing the deity of Christ to make him "a god", but cannot undo the greater weight of the context and cannot outsmart the breather of Scripture.
May 17, 2012 at 08:16 AM
You say "None of this proves the case against gay marriage as a government injunction (though that case can be made as well)." Could anyone direct me to this argument? If it exists I have not come by it.
May 17, 2012 at 08:03 AM
DRT how about you tell us why you don't think the bible is true? If you can prove that then you can enter the conversation with some credibility. Otherwise you are just another man that likes the sound of his own voice over Gods.
May 17, 2012 at 07:54 AM
Michael, and the others who keep saying homosexuality is a sin, please tell us why you think it is a sin. If all you can say is because that's what it says in the bible then you need to explain why other changes are OK for us.
May 17, 2012 at 07:51 AM
Hieronymus Illinensis - you are presenting a false choice. We evolved to procreate through sexual reproduction and to ensure that we engage in this activity we developed pleasure by doing it.
May 17, 2012 at 07:45 AM
The sad reality is that when most of us think of homosexuality we think of genitalia, anal sex and the "unnatural-ness" that THAT is & we don't think much at all about the companionship, friendship and life-long partner that someone has a desire for.
We equate homosexuality with filthy acts of anal sex rather than considering that one man longs for another man's companionship, some for a life-long relationship.
My gay uncle has been in a relationship with a man for more than 30 years, and long, long, long ago the relationship ceased to be about sex & mostly about a partnership. This is true of most hetero marriages and relationships, as well. We often start off with a lot of sex because, well, we do. But if you marry someone just for sex you're in for a big disappointment because it doesn't happen nearly as often as communication does, or is supposed to. I didn't marry my wife for sex, I married her because I wanted her to be the one person I spend the rest of my life with, to have, to hold, in good times & bad, etc...
What we forget about someone who is gay is that THIS IS WHAT they often want, as well. They are not just walking around with an erection looking to have anal sex with their 'boy toy', but they want something far more meaningful. (of course, there are all sorts of homo and hetero men/women that do walk around just looking for sex)
When one condemns the practice of homosexuality one is not simply condemning a sexual act, but a longing within someone's soul to be connected to another for a life-long journey.
It's rather easy for Mr. DeYoung (and others) to quote a few Bible verses (even in Greek!) to denounce one man's penetration of another, but it's done callously, even though it's guised in "the love and truth of God", and it's done ignorantly. It's rather easy to see that Mr. DeYoung has never befriended, for a long period of time, a gay man/woman, never empathized with them, never entered in to their story of hurt/pain. Why can I say this with such certainty? Because there's never a story, never a heart from which these blogs about homosexuality come from, only a cold, calculated, verse by verse, response that we've heard a 1000 times from pastors for years on end.
If you want to talk about it, approach it from a fresh angle, engage in dialogue with someone who is truly hurting, with someone who is intelligent and will give you a different vantage point.
Mr. DeYoung is obsessed with being right & defending his view of Scripture. I wonder what it would be like for Mr. DeYoung (and others) to be obsessed with loving gay people.
May 17, 2012 at 07:09 AM
just wanted to say a quick thing here. The gay issue has become issue #1 in America. So there are other sins in the bible yes, but this one has grabbed the medias attention. So I dont believe it is Christians that are trying to make homosexuality more sinful than other sins, it is what the general public wants ti hear from us right now. Every pastor in America is getting a microphone shoved in their face and being forced to give their opinion on it. You want all this talk about homosexuality to stop? Then tell the media and 16 year old kids to stop asking for it.
May 17, 2012 at 06:37 AM
God says homosexuality is a sin, in the Bible...just as he told Adam and Eve to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life in the garden. These are foundational "boundaries" that each every person who calls themselve "Christian" violate many times per day. I agree that the "push back" on Homosexuality and Gay Marriage today, is the perception that gays are trying to "reclassify" homosexuality as "not a sin" or "normal". I would react the SAME way, if someone in my church came and said that divorce, murder, or lying, wasn't REALLY a sin anymore. I react the same way if someone said that because someone was gay, it was OK for Christians to hate and persecute them. We are called to love the sinner, hate the sin. Gays take this personally...they insist we give them a "no sin" stamp for their lifestyle, and it is not ours to give.
May 17, 2012 at 06:37 AM
Bertrand (3:01 am), would you likewise say "Male heterosexual love is love"? If so, that statement has been reduced to a sick joke by radical feminist critique. Sexual desire falls very far short of being the love that Jesus commanded.
It can be argued that sexual love is, in fact, the least loving of loves, for when those participating in it are expressing it to the highest degree, all the rest of the seven billion people in the world might as well not exist as far as they're concerned. (For that reason, whenever I've become aware of being in the vicinity of sexual activity in which I was not a participant, I have felt not arousal but loneliness.)
It is here that God's ingenuity in linking sexual pleasure to procreation becomes evident. Ever seeking to lead us out of ourselves, God draws us toward another through sexual attraction, but God doesn't let it stop there: at the peak moment of our enjoyment of our union exclusively with our chosen other, God challenges us to be open to including yet another in our love, whom we have not chosen.
May 17, 2012 at 06:23 AM
Just a couple more notes:
Quarkgluonsoup's note (12:08 am) that "one of the words translated as “homosexual” in modern bibles in 1 Cor is actually “catimite”, which refers to a male prostitute who by definition was always in the receiving end" is the tail end of a long game of telephone that goes back to the late John Boswell of Harvard.
First of all, the word is not "catamite" but arsenokoites. In his 1980 book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, Boswell claimed that this word (from arsen "male" and koite "act of lying down") meant a penetrative male prostitute. The thing is, he could not produce a single instance of this word being used in that meaning. On the other hand, arsen and koite are the words used to define the offense in Lev. 18:22 in the Greek translation the Jews used in St. Paul's time. So arsenokoites would mean simply a person who does what is forbidden in Lev. 18:22, as opposed to other Greek words such as paidophthoros or kinaidos that were limited to specific homosexual practices or modes.
Boswell did make a genuine contribution in his discussion of the other word in 1 Cor. 6:9, malakos, literally "soft." He showed from a study of Byzantine manuals for confessors that this word is linked to masturbation, not to effeminacy.
May 17, 2012 at 06:05 AM
Correction on the last sentence in my second paragraph above: other humans involved > other beings involved
I must note some things that do not follow from the position that we have reproductive systems rather than sexual pleasure systems.
It does not follow that anyone has any mandate to abuse persons who experience abnormal sexual attractions -- let alone to abuse persons who are merely suspected of experiencing abnormal sexual attractions -- unless their sexual acting-out does cause harm to themselves or others. Not everything needs to get "fixed" here and now, whether homosexuality or homophobia.
Nor does it follow that humans are obligated to have as many children as possible -- only that when they do choose to have sex, they do not close the door completely on God's possible intent to bring new human beings into existence. They may choose to have sex under circumstances in which it is naturally highly unlikely or even impossible for procreation to occur, as in the postovulatory phase of the woman's cycle or if one or the other has had surgery (not for birth prevention purposes) that results in infertility. But as long as they do not take additional deliberate action to prevent procreation, such a sex act is not in itself an offense.
May 17, 2012 at 05:46 PM
Also at Don Johnson, considering your argument regarding the original meanings of the words for "food", was food sacrificed to false idols kosher? I don't think so. So that argument contains a false premise. Know what that is?
May 17, 2012 at 05:46 AM
As to several of the above comments that are best summed up as "why don't Christians make a bigger deal of other things that are called sinful". I would offer this candid response. The reason why Christians are making such a big deal about the sinfulness of homosexual sex is that people are debating about whether it is even in fact sinful. That may sound like a "duh" statement...but...
Christians will agree divorce is sinful, accusatory/pharisaical judgmentalism and hatred is sinful...and they would agree that they commit these sins or at least that they see them as sins. Whether they are repentant or not is another matter.... But the Homosexual agenda is aimed at taking what has always been considered sinful along with all those other things and now place it in the OK category. There is a stark difference between knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway...and taking something that is wrong and trying to convince everyone it is right. The first is sinful rebellion, the second is heretical.
May 17, 2012 at 05:41 PM
Jesus broke the Sabbath according to the Pharisee's understanding of the law. Sound familiar? Did you read my whole comment? Care to point out where my logic is flawed?
May 17, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Good words Patrick and I stand with you. I used to point out sin much more than I do now. Now, well, almost all I see is sin, even in good. It just makes me appreciate Jesus all the more.
My only nuance to your statements would be to soften your view of sin. Sin is not even remotely obvious in most situations for most people. The ones we think are obvious are likely to change. It is much more complicated than we think, and that is the wisdom of Jesus stating love as the command. And sorry, I cannot feel that people who view pointing out to gay folks they are sinning is love. They know what or what they are not doing. They are the ones who need to live with that. Why complicate it by making some self promoting decree that it is wrong. .... In all seriousness, it is not hurting anyone. No one. Not one. To let our yes be a yes and our no be a no wuld mean, in this situation, that we can say that the people who wrote the bible viewed it as a sin at that time. They do not say it is condemned forever, and our obligation ends right there! No further. It is likely the people who are gay will know the arguments for and against, then it is up to them.
May 17, 2012 at 05:13 AM
The question is a philosophical one, a metaphysical one: Are human beings equipped with reproductive systems, in which sexual pleasure is a feature, or are human beings equipped with sexual pleasure systems, in which reproduction is, at least sometimes, a bug?
If the former, then a sexual interest in anything other than an adult human of the opposite sex is abnormal by definition, like a taste for eating paint chips or gravel. If the latter, then any desire or act that leads to sexual pleasure is unexceptionable as long as any other humans involved in it consent freely to it.
Theists who believe that each human being comes into existence because God chooses that being to exist, and who think through the implications of that premise, are likely to arrive at the conclusion that we have reproductive systems, ordered toward fulfilling God's will to bring human beings into existence (as God chooses, not as we do). It follows that acts in which humans snatch the pleasure for themselves while intentionally making reproduction impossible are rejections of God's will. It is not unreasonable to expect God to treat such choices as a serious matter. Hence the Catholic bans on not only homosexual acts but also contraception and masturbation.
What has been happening in the last 40 years has been a move on the part of the institutions of power in Western society, such as the U.S. Supreme Court and the American Psychiatric Association, to embrace the opposite position - that we have sexual pleasure systems, not reproductive systems - and, lately, to criminalize acts based on the opposite position, as with the Canadian speech laws cited by Darryl Little, the U.S. HHS mandate for contraceptive coverage, or laws mandating recognition for same-sex marriages (with anti-discrimination measures binding on third parties such as clergy or musicians - some have already been applied to photographers).
May 17, 2012 at 05:11 PM
I have spoken too much and will respond if needed, but I want to make room for others...sorry others, did not mean to dominate......
May 17, 2012 at 05:10 PM
@DRT
Thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately I'm not the best debater. I don't want to go tit for tat on everything you pointed out in my response. Let me try adding some more context to my previous comment.
Ultimately I don't condone hate speech, the mistreatment, or acts of violence against homosexuals nor anyone. Any sin, my own, my friends, or a strangers I want to call out. I'm not going to live in my Christian bubble only focusing on making myself Christ like. No, I want the world to know the hope and joy I've received and I want them to experience it. ANY sin gets in the way of a relationship with God. I want to love people well. I want homosexuals (as well as anyone else who is stuck in sin) to realize the love, grace, and mercy of Christ. I can't do that by hating them, but if I serve them out of absolute humility knowing my sin is no greater than theirs. Every Christian is a hypocrite because we all condemn sin yet we still sin. It's not about our efforts though it's about the cross. I want to love everyone in a way that demonstrates God's love. God's version of love, not our watered down human version of love. I hope that you would point out my sin if I was caught up in a sin. Then I hope that you would still love me and stand with me, pray for me, fast with me, so that we can beat this sin together. That's what I'm advocating. We've had enough violence against people but let's fight sin together as one body in Christ. That way we can bring healing to these communities that have been hurt by the church. I hope this helps to clarify my earlier comment.
May 17, 2012 at 05:08 PM
Jesus never broke the Sabbath, he was ACCUSED of doing this by his opponents, but he never actually did it. Big difference.
May 17, 2012 at 04:57 PM
"We may not all have to like gay marriage, but the government will tell us what marriage means whether we like it or not."
Except the government is telling us what marriage is legally allowed to mean- to imply that the meaning of each individual marriage is derived from government is ludicrous and it’s about time conservatives face up to the logical consequences this kind of reasoning implies- and it IS THEOCRATIC. Straight marriages vary widely- couples are legally allowed to participate in open marriages. That is not the conventional definition of marriage- and neither is polygamy, today, but it was in Biblical times, and the Bible defines polygamous marriage as acceptable.
"Here we have an example of progressive prejudice, the kind that assumes we have little to learn from the benighted masses who lived long ago."
Wrong again. The assumption is actually that information unavailable to past cultures is necessary context for understanding how their language’s terms differed from ours in terms of their understanding. This is the point that conservatives seem incapable of grasping. Why is it acceptable for Christian men to have long hair or tattoos? Because the actual symbolic meaning of these cultural artifices has significantly changed with the culture. In a more basic logical format,
Man with long hair (A) + 1st century Palestinian culture (B) = Indicative of membership in violent sex gang.
Man with long hair (A) + 21st century Western culture (C) = Indicative of nothing in particular.
Where do we see a similar logic unfold? Ahh…
Man having sex with man (X) + Ancient Hebrew culture (Y)= Indicative of membership in violent sex gang, among other things.
Man having sex with man (X) + 21st century Western culture (C) = Indicative of nothing in particular.
A+B doesn't necessarily = A+C. X+Y isn’t necessarily X+C.
This is not proof that homosexuality is ok. There is no proof either way- because the only holy texts we have come from a period of time in which there was no symbolic entity, “peaceful loving gay couple in context of community that accepts them,” thus there could be no teaching on it. False equivocation of terms is an easy way to mislead people- the Bible was not written in English, nor was it written last year. Context is everything.
Jesus broke the Sabbath. The Jews got mad. Jesus didn’t apologize, and he didn’t admit wrongdoing. He redefined the Sabbath with new information- the spirit. If there is any point as crucial to Christ’s message as Love itself, it is that we must not get lost in the letter of the Law and miss the spirit of the law. Why was homosexuality immoral in ancient times? Is it more likely that the actual biological act was the sin (There is nothing on heaven or earth that is evil in and of itself), or that there was no loving expression of this biological act in the cultural dialogue at the time?
Let’s address abortion while I’m at this. Conservatives insist that the Bible is against abortion, and to back up this claim they quote scripture about God knowing us before conception. Of course, this is a nonsense argument- if God is all knowing, then sees the future, then knows which conceptions end in birth- which ONLY means that God knew those of us who ended up born before we were conceived. Why do conservatives have such a hard time with logic?
And how about the Hebrew law that specified two distinct punishments for the following crime;
A man beats a pregnant woman. If the woman dies, the man is sentenced to death. If the woman miscarries but survives, the man must pay a fine to the husband. Now how exactly does the conservative Christian ideology deal with that?
You are a modern Pharisee, missing the Spirit of Love and obsessed with proving the meek and kind evil by taking outdated laws out of context.
May 17, 2012 at 04:14 PM
With the mass of comments, I doubt this will be seen, but here it is anyway.
Young wrote: "Jesus did recalibrate the purity laws, but Mark 7:19 makes clear that the episode in question was about declaring all foods clean. "
This is simply not a true assessment of how to read this verse. For example, a Jew reading this verse would automatically assume that food was kosher, as if it was not kosher it was not considered food. So Jesus declaring all foods clean is saying that the Pharisees rules on handwashing (as spelled out in the Mishnah for those interested) are not relevant, this is the whole context of the saying in its teaching unit or pericope. And a gentile would not automatically think of a rat as food because of the verse in Mark either, because he did not think of a rat coming to this verse as food and he still does not think of it as food afterwards.
May 17, 2012 at 04:07 PM
No. I don't. Words just have meanings. Murder has only one meaning and it's always wrong. Whether people decide to define murder incorrectly, is not the word's fault.
No. I didn't comment on that. I hardly think this odd exception warrants a redefinition of marriage.
When we're all dead, no one will care about what society does to make our lives hard. We will care about what we think of Jesus. Jesus Christ died to cleanse us from our sins. If we truly believe that we will break free from a sinful life. If you affirm that a sinful life is God-honoring (Isaiah 5:20), you need to reassess what you think of Jesus.
May 17, 2012 at 03:37 PM
Heather, t seems that you have a very strong presupposition that people define words the same way you do. As we saw earlier on this thread, there is considerable latitude in the definition of murder. Your other elements follow this same paradigm.
You also did not comment on whether a life long monogamous relationship of people with both sex organs is ok. Or one that had one surgically removed at birth. Or one....etc. This is not a dualism. That's a big part of the problem here.
When I see a beautiful woman who fits my conception of HOT, I have an unambiguous feeling about that. I have never had that feeling with a guy (I am a guy, by the way). I might be able to appreciate the guy, but it is not in the same ballpark (is it OK to use ballpark?).
We have many people who feel that way and have it different from the way I feel it. Who am I to say that their way is wrong? I have read the bible, studied the bible, and came away feeling that it is OK to say that those type of relationships really do honor god. I would be proud if one of my three kids had a life like that, though I also agree that society (people like many of the people on this blog) will try to make that life as difficult as possible for them. And that makes me very very sad.
May 17, 2012 at 03:21 PM
@DRT: Assuredly. You can (clearly) say what you like.
We see through a glass dimly was NOT supposed to mean, we can't tell the difference between right and wrong. Murder is obviously wrong. Always. No exceptions. Enjoying sex is obviously ok. It is never OK to steal; however, there are sometimes tragic moral choices that can be made. That doesn't negate that stealing is wrong. A life long monogamous relationship IS really judged to be evil or not by the sex of the participants? But it's not SOLELY judged on that. A life long monogamous relationship between people of the same gender IS always wrong. A life long monogamous relationship between a man and a woman can ALSO be wrong because depending on how they are living their lives it might not be God-honoring.
May 17, 2012 at 03:18 PM
Greg, (a minor point) you wrote:
"Whether it alienates people or not, it is an accurate statement, denotatively." The "it" referring to the phrase "homosexual lifestyle,"
I am not sure what you are getting at, but I don't believe this is an accurate statement (denotatively), assuming homosexual means one who has a sexual attraction to the same sex. There is no "lifestyle" that all homosexual people partake in.
To the extent you are referring to a "homosexual lifestyle" as referring to those homosexuals who are having same-sex sex, then using the word "lifestyle" to mean "having sex" is contorting the meaning of the word "lifestyle" beyond recognition. No one would think, if you use that phrase, that you are simply referring to "sexually active homosexuals."
May 17, 2012 at 03:16 PM
What is not OK is for me to spend any more time on this thread when I should be getting work done. 'Bye folks.
May 17, 2012 at 03:12 PM
Hieronymus, you are falling into a Platonist dualism that is not warranted. Neither is primary at the individual level, they simply are that way.
Not everything is a dualism. Actually, that is one of the big problems with this who conversation because people keep wanting to put things in nice tidy packages and say they are good or bad, true or not true, and the world is not that simple. If we could actually know the mind of god then we would be god. But we are left to be looking through a glass darkly. We only see in part, and nothing is cut and dried.
Is murder OK? When, where, how? Is enjoying sex ok? Is it OK to steal under some circumstances? Is a life long monogamous relationship really judged to be evil or not by the sex of the participants? And if the sex is evil, does that really condemn the whole person? Just that little bit?
May 17, 2012 at 03:09 PM
@Bernard (12:51 pm) says: I find it hard to imagine that you have ever really be in love because, when you are, you don’t care about old laws written millenia ago or the old men that are telling you they know God’s plan.
I'm sure every adulterer beginning an affair feels the same way. (I don't suppose you read what I had to say about sexual love being the least loving of loves either.)
May 17, 2012 at 03:03 PM
Thanks Heather! (am I allowed to say lol?)
May 17, 2012 at 03:01 PM
@DRT (2:25 pm) says: So, in reality, Leviticus is actually saying that male homosexuality (it says nothing about female) is tow`ebah for cultural reasons. NOT A SIN AGAINST GOD.
Distinction without a difference. If God tells you not to do something and you do it, it is disobedience if nothing else. Disobedience is an offense against the one disobeyed -- in this case God.
May 17, 2012 at 03:01 AM
I'm sorry, but isn't this entire article just splitting hairs about the bigger, more important issue? The fact of the matter is that it does not matter what anyone thinks the Bible is supposed to say (if it is supposed to say anything specific at all). It is a vague book, perhaps THE single most vague book in all of existence with so many contradictions and misdirections that I find it inconceivable that so many people feel so confident about what THEY think it means.
I started reading this article hoping the author would give me a reason why he thought homosexuality was unethical. Unethical, not "against the Bible". And, yes, the two are absolutely mutually exclusive. If you deny that, then I challenge you to live your life by Leviticus - let's see how far you get. I do not want to hear "because it can be said that the Bible says so" or, put more simply, "because God said so". That is no reason to support anything and, most importantly, that kind of thinking has led religious people into massacres, atrocities, and wars since the beginning of human history.
If you cannot give me a real and concrete reason that homosexuality is immoral(not "unnatural" or "unplanned", but IMMORAL) then you have no place telling anyone how to live their lives and you DEFINITELY have no place in any sort of political discussion.
You can cut it however you want, but this is a LEGAL and MORAL issue. So, please explain why homosexuality is ILLEGAL and IMMORAL. And if you cannot do that without quoting the Bible, then you must accept the very real and very overwhelming possibility that you are wrong.
Despite what the Bible and the church tells us about doubt, it is the one aspect of humanity that has led us from the Dark Ages and kept us from destroying ourselves. Doubt everything, question everything. In the absence of doubt, there is only arrogance and stupidity.
Doubt is humility. Homosexual love is love.
I like to think that Jesus' major teachings were LOVE and HUMILITY.
Unfortunately, all I see these days are religious people of all faiths and denominations telling me otherwise. I hope one day that will change.
May 17, 2012 at 02:55 PM
@DRT: I think Greg was being facetious. "Bible thumping" IS an old term...an old and tired and needing to go away soon, term.
Oddly enough sometimes those old bible thumpers actually had some real revivals....unlike now.
May 17, 2012 at 02:55 PM
So, the WHOLE reason why this is an issue, is the STATE took the name "marriage" and executed a pseudo-religious-civil union thingy, that has just MESSED things up. The problem here, is if the STATE can continue to call it, legally, "marriage", then, they can "force" churches to stop calling homosexuality and sin, and even push them to honor gay marriage as a "civil right". THAT is REALLY what the framers of the constitution wanted to keep from happening. But, politics aside (this is a religious blog), we are really discussing the "nature" of sin, and is sin something that "evolves" and do we take it literally, or figuratively, and is it "compassionate" to simply stop calling homosexuality sin. We don't go after lots of OTHER sins...well, at MY church, we don't go after ANYONE who is sinning, and beat them with Bibles. We also don't however, go and tell them, "its alright, we don't think what you're doing is wrong". If you're living with someone, if you get divorced because "you just don't love him/her anymore"...you'll be asked to step down from leadership in the church...plain and simple. You're welcome to continue to worship, but "lifestyle" sins are pervasive, and there are scriptures that clearly lay out what those criteria should be. We've had gay people leave once they realize they can't be "unrepentent" and a "leader" at the same time.
May 17, 2012 at 02:55 PM
@DRT 7:51 says:
Hieronymus Illinensis – you are presenting a false choice. We evolved to procreate through sexual reproduction and to ensure that we engage in this activity we developed pleasure by doing it.
The question still remains: which is primary? The procreative purpose, or the pleasure developed to ensure that we engage in the procreation?
The question is not merely theoretical. It is related to what Brian (7:45 am) said:
The sad reality is that when most of us think of homosexuality we think of genitalia, anal sex and the “unnatural-ness” that THAT is & we don’t think much at all about the companionship, friendship and life-long partner that someone has a desire for. We equate homosexuality with filthy acts of anal sex rather than considering that one man longs for another man’s companionship, some for a life-long relationship.
The great disease of our culture is that we have trouble thinking of any love worth the name that isn't expressed sexually. (One big reason is that it makes some people a lot of money to keep us all in quest of a sexual relationship.) This keeps us distracted from building a world in which love is abundant, but sexual activity is kept within close limits. (Did anyone even read what I said about sexual love being the least loving of loves?) Such a world would be the image of the kingdom of heaven described by Jesus, where all is love but there are no sexual relationships (see Matthew 22:30).
We should indeed be able to imagine people who find their closest companionship and friendship with people of the same sex. The gay movement, however, can't imagine that such friendship and companionship can happen without involving the naughty bits, the intestines, and parts of the bottom.
May 17, 2012 at 02:54 PM
...and I must say, if you are going to judge me based on things like that then we must relate it to this conversation. Clearly, you interpreted such a simple thing as connoting something that it does not mean. Likewise, imagine the subtlety involved in what various words actually mean to different people in the bible. Toehbah is a great example because if it is translated an abomination, then people think one thing, if it is translated something different then they think another. This is not as cut and dried as you seem to think.
May 17, 2012 at 02:51 PM
Greg and Heather, I did not realize that bible thumping is some new term. I am a 50 year old mechanical engineer with and MBA who has surveyed many churches over the year and love Jesus and the Bible.
Bible thumping goes way back, all the way to the days of the wild west when the preachers would stand up there and thump the bible and declare everyone should be "DAMNED!". I had no idea it was in with the young crowd now.
May 17, 2012 at 02:50 PM
So, the WHOLE reason why this is an issue, is the STATE took the name "marriage" and executed a pseudo-religious-civil union thingy, that has just MESSED things up. The problem here, is if the STATE can continue to call it, legally, "marriage", then, they can "force" churches to stop calling homosexuality and sin, and even push them to honor gay marriage as a "civil right". THAT is REALLY what the framers of the constitution wanted to keep from happening. But, politics aside (this is a religious blog), we are really discussing the "nature" of sin, and is sin something that "evolves" and do we take it literally, or figuratively, and is it "compassionate" to simply stop calling homosexuality sin. We don't go after lots of OTHER sins...well, at MY church, we don't go after ANYONE who is sinning, and beat them with Bibles. We also don't however, go and tell them, "its alright, we don't think what you're doing is wrong". If you're living with someone, if you get divorced becuase "you just don't love him/her anymore"...you'll be asked to step down from leadership in the church...plain and simple. You're welcome to continue to worship, but "lifestyle" sins are pervasive, and there are scriptures that clearly lay out what those criteria should be. We've had gay people leave once they realize they can't be "unrepentent" and a "leader" at the same time.
May 17, 2012 at 02:49 PM
Greg, perhaps you don't speak english well so I will rephrase. When I say "we have no basis for conversation" that means that we have to have some common reference point that we agree to before we can take off and discuss the current issue. Without that common reference point we will not be able to true back to anything, hence, we will not have a basis for conversation.
How is that arrogant?
May 17, 2012 at 02:45 PM
Hieronymus - there is a big difference between "making sense to me" and "me agreeing with the conclusion". I agree that there are things that god says in the bible that I don't like the conclusion, but they make sense to me. But homosexuality is different. I can't find a reason why it makes sense to prohibit long term, same sex, monogamous unions.
May 17, 2012 at 02:44 PM
@Greg: I just want to point out that I wasn't copying you when I mentioned the "bible-thumping" too. But I'm glad I wasn't the only person who caught that. I'm surprised we haven't heard "Clobber passages" yet. ;-)
May 17, 2012 at 02:40 PM
@DRT: Do you not want to debate individual points because I just killed a pet theory, perhaps? And maybe you just don't want to admit it? That's fine.
No. I don't pick and choose. And using buzz phrases like "thumping the bible" isn't really helping your case. I'm just referring to it. No thumpage involved.
You can still greet one another with a holy kiss...if you want. Some churches do.
Yes, Jesus did tighten up the divorce language. It had certainly been twisted by leaders who wanted to leave their wives for a newer model (a.k.a. no fault divorce).
May 17, 2012 at 02:39 PM
Chuckling a bit at the arrogance demonstrated in language such as "then we have no basis for conversation". COL.
As if it somehow matters what you think, and that it has a bearing on who can get involved in this conversation?
If we're going to play that game, though, you lost almost all remaining credibility in my eyes when you used the hip new term "thumping" to describe speaking about what the Bible says.
May 17, 2012 at 02:34 PM
heather, I don't want to debate individual points with you. I think I developed a case to show that people do pick and choose. Do you think you pick and choose what to follow in the bible or not? If you think that you are totally consistent with everything in the bible then I have no need to talk to you further. But if you acknowledge that it does not say to stop greeting with a holy kiss, and that Jesus actually tightened up the divorce language, and that the earth is not built on pillars, then we can talk about interpretation. But if you just keeping thumping the bible and saying it says it is bad right here then we have no basis for conversation.
May 17, 2012 at 02:27 PM
Folks (and Kevin), please don't take the following to be too far out there, I think it is quite important for people to realize. When you no longer use your head because your god does not make sense to you, and you follow what someone says anyway, that is not a religion, it is a cult. Please don't fall into a cult.
May 17, 2012 at 02:25 PM
Heather, you are simply mistaken if you feel that homosexuality in the OT is morality and menstruation is not. Where does it say anything like that?
Here is something I commented on in a previous post regarding the meaning of the word used in Leviticus:
Now I believe that most of the problems concerning the plain meaning of scripture is present in the references to Leviticus. So I will deal with those directly by using the arguments put forth by Friedman and Dolansky in their wonderful book, “The Bible Now”.
Here are the passages in Leviticus that most people base their prejudice on.
You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.
and
If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination.
Seems pretty clear, right? As a matter of fact, the thing that most people point to when they read these are the phrases at the end of the law, “a detestable act” and “an abomination”. I have several points that I want to make about this.
First, please note that in no way does it say anything bad about female homosexuality. I consider it a great failing of the RCA to treat female and male exactly the same given the incredible difference that is made between the two in the bible. This is prima facie evidence that the RCA is not really basing its assertions on good biblical study. They are reacting to their norms and not those of the bible.
Second, the bible tends to be very specific in the nature of the offense when it is laying down the law in the Old Testament. For example:
Deut 22:5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor should a man dress up in women’s clothing, for anyone who does this is offensive to the YHWH your God.
Here it is quite clear that the offense is an offense against YHWH. I can see it being set up that way because on the surface it seems that cross dressing is probably not all that bad of a thing to do. But then again, it is inherently deceptive. So YHWH is the one offended.
But that is not how the Leviticus laws about male homosexuality are laid out. There it is simply said that they are “a detestable act” and “an abomination”, but not to YHWH.
So what is it that makes these things bad? Both of these are from the same Hebrew word, tow`ebah. If you look at the other occurrences of tow`ebah you will see that many of the patriarchs of the bible engaged in acts that were seen as tow`ebah. Abraham marries his half sister yet Leviticus again has this act in the section of things that are tow`ebah. So the law changed. So it is obvious that something that is tow`ebah is subject to change.
In Jeremiah, he says:
2:7 I brought you into a fertile land
so you could enjoy its fruits and its rich bounty.
But when you entered my land, you defiled it;
you made the land I call my own tow`ebah to me.
Again, tow`ebah is not something intrinsic of the thing itself, it has more to do with the relationship between the thing and the culture. There are many places where tow`ebah is used. It is used when Joseph tells his brothers to not say they are shepherds because it is tow`ebah to the Egyptians. The Egyptians do not eat with the Israelites because it would be tow`ebah to them.
It seems that the bible teats things as tow`ebah specifically when it is a culturally based thing that is subject to change based on when and where people find themselves.
So, in reality, Leviticus is actually saying that male homosexuality (it says nothing about female) is tow`ebah for cultural reasons. NOT A SIN AGAINST GOD.
I will quote directly from their book, page #38.
“So, whatever position one takes on this matter, Left or Right, conservative or liberal, one should acknowledge that the law really does forbid homosexual sex, between males but not between females. And one should recognize that the biblical prohibition is not one that is eternal and unchanging. The prohibition in the Bible applies only so long as male homosexual acts are perceived to be offensive. This will depend on further presentation of evidence and arguments about whether it is inborn or not, whether is is properly regarded as psychologically healthy or unhealthy, and whether most people in a community are or are not in fact offended by it. Those arguments are for specialists in biology, psychology and culture. They are beyond our range of expertise as Bible scholars.”
I believe this is a very serious subject. There is no victim, no harm done in same sex relations and it seems that the only reason people give is because it is a sin against god. Well, IT IS NOT A SIN AGAINST GOD
As I said before, I want to make sure I am not making a mistake here. Are the leaders of the RCA really so confident in their view that they would risk doing real and substantial harm to people through gross overt discrimination when they may be wrong? I don’t even need to be 100% correct on this for this argument to put enough doubt out there that the RCA should reconsider its policy to discipline homosexuals. I find that policy to clearly be tow`ebah.
May 17, 2012 at 02:23 PM
Hieronymus, sorry that you feel that way. You actually feel that you should be worshiping a god that does not make sense to you? That you really can't understand? Hmmm, so who do you rely on to tell you what this god wants you to do?
You are making a very big mistake here. God is not a god of nonsense. You are subjecting yourself to someone's interpretation that you will blindly follow even if it makes no sense. I will pray for you.
May 17, 2012 at 02:10 PM
@DRT, if you believe only in a god who always makes sense to you, that's when you are in danger of believing in a god entirely of your own imagining. If God is real, we can't expect God always to make sense according to our criteria, any more than any other real person.
May 17, 2012 at 02:08 PM
@DRT: God still hates divorce. I do not think we should have no-fault divorce. God did allow for SOME exceptional cases where a divorce could happen as a "lesser of two evils." He didn't allow this for homosexuality.
May 17, 2012 at 02:06 PM
@DRT: It's not that much of a secret...
It's not as clear as you'd like. You see, homosexuality actually comes up AGAIN in the New Testament...after Jesus. Having sex during the menstrual cycle does not.
The nation of Israel was very much concerned with "the clean" and "the unclean." I mean, they were under the law and they HAD to stay clean. Obviously having sex with a man if you were a man was unclean. Not only was it unclean it was immoral. Having sex with a woman during her menstrual cycle was just "unclean." The purification laws were fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Immorality was not changed by Jesus Christ.
May 17, 2012 at 02:05 PM
Ok Greg, then why should we insist that homosexuality is treated differently than divorce, sex during the menstrual cycle, etc.
May 17, 2012 at 02:03 PM
The fact of the matter is that you are interpreting it incorrectly.
May 17, 2012 at 02:03 AM
If someone has already made this point, then I apologise...
It's interesting that the good priest sets out to discredit the Bible by implying that it's a product of an ignorant, antiquated age - and then goes to the Bible in a revisionist attempt to condone homosexual practice. In one breath he seems to be marginalising it and appealing to it. There's something a little...incongruous...about that.
May 17, 2012 at 02:01 PM
Obviously you know nothing of context or the doctrines having to do with Jewish ceremonial law and its application (or lack thereof) to the Christian. In addition, you don't even bother to address any of the points in DeYoung's article with anything nearing a convincing exegetical argument against. In essence, yes, you're reading it wrong, because you have incorrect presuppositions about the text.
May 17, 2012 at 02:00 PM
Folks, the point is that you cannot simply say that you know the word of god and DRT does not therefore you are right. We are on equal footing. I am interpreting and you too are interpreting. Please recognize that you are interpreting and picking and choosing what to follow all of the time. You are not on some higher ground because you choose to believe that you will take the bible literally this time but when it comes to mixing fiber, accepting divorce, or greeting with a handshake instead of a kiss that you are somehow justified. You are not. You are simply not acknowledging what you are actually doing.
If you are unwilling to acknowledge that then it is impossible to debate this issue with you, because it is unambiguously clear that the bible says that homosexual activity is a sin.
May 17, 2012 at 01:59 PM
What you're speaking of isn't the form of "biblical innerrancy(sic)" anyone here believes, far as I know. Satan's words are given in Scripture, but no one here believes them to be the truth; rather, Scripture is always inerrant in that it is always accurate. And whenever it speaks with the authority of God, it is accurately representing that which God commands to the intended audience. You're burning down a straw man.
Simply because it must be interpreted does not mean that any interpretation is valid. It is obvious that it must be interpreted. The so-called "strong form" of biblical inerrancy is even an interpretation. Sound hermeneutical principles that seek out authorial intent must be employed.
May 17, 2012 at 01:55 PM
Heather, goodness. So you believe that somehow you have the secret to how to interpret the bible objectively and all of these people who disagree with you simply are not reading it correctly? Is that what you feel I am doing? How about my previous post, it clearly shows what we should do about menstrual cycle.
May 17, 2012 at 01:52 PM
For those of you who ascribe to a strong innerrency, and consider the OT prohibitions to be for all time, read a couple passages ahead of the law text in Leviticus and you will find:
18:19 “‘You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual intercourse with her. 18:20 You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to become unclean with her. 18:21 You must not give any of your children as an offering to Molech, 30 so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord! 18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman it is a detestable act.
Now, do you all think it is still a big sin to have sex during menstrual impurity?
In Leviticus 20 the menstrual cycle comes after, but it is in the same general area:
20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 20:14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 20:15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 20:16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.
20:17 “‘If a man has sexual intercourse with 31 his sister, whether the daughter of his father or his mother, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off in the sight of the children of their people. 32 He has exposed his sister’s nakedness; he will bear his punishment for iniquity. 33 20:18 If a man has sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her fountain of blood and she has exposed the fountain of her blood, so both of them 34 must be cut off from the midst of their people.
And then Paul does not even say that they must die!!! So he did not think in the same terms either.
The strong form of biblical innerrency simply has no place in Christianity. The bible must be interpreted.
May 17, 2012 at 01:49 PM
@rob s: Along with Heather, I'm also of the younger generation. Twenty-one, currently. If I'm disgusted by anything that happened during the time of the generation previous to me and the generation before that, it's the sexual revolution.
May 17, 2012 at 01:47 PM
@DRT, actually I didn't. We never spoke in such a way about people in any of the churches I have been in. I've never even heard the phrase "homosexual lifestyle" in church, and never had such a mental picture described to me by anyone.
Another way to say that is to say it is EXACTLY the same as hetero relationships but same sex.
Oh I agree entirely--and therein lies the problem.
Whether it alienates people or not, it is an accurate statement, denotatively.
May 17, 2012 at 01:45 PM
@DRT: " If you believe in a god that makes no sense to you then we are in great danger of being misled!" You have never spoken a more true word on ANY of these posts. And since the god you worship constantly changes His mind due to cultural norms and senselessly is swayed by every new doctrine/belief....you are indeed in danger (and already are) misled.
@rob s: I'm of the younger generation, and I reject your assuming that I would break the fifth commandment by looking at my parents and grandparents with disgust.
May 17, 2012 at 01:44 PM
[...] Kevin DeYoung weighs in again on “What the Bible Really Still Says About Homosexuality” [...]
May 17, 2012 at 01:42 PM
Greg, you are doing a great disservice if that is how you feel. You know as well as I that to many of the people in church the homosexual lifestyle conjures visions of men in leather chaps without pants on underneath and anonomous hook ups. That's what people think of when they think of the gay lifestyle. To interpret that for out purposes here to say that it simply means it involves sex is trivial. Another way to say that is to say it is EXACTLY the same as hetero relationships but same sex. So to simply say gay is quite adequate. Adding that word lifestyle simply alienates poeople.
May 17, 2012 at 01:42 PM
[...] DeYoung weighs in again on “What the Bible Really Still Says About Homosexuality” Share this:EmailPrintFacebookTwitterMoreDiggRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]
May 17, 2012 at 01:41 PM
It's appalling how many think everyone should agree with what bronze age desert tribes thought about sex, or about anything. To have the douchebaggery to try impose this on everyone through law!!! evidences a lack of perspective and a shallowness of mind of truly biblical proportions. Most of the modern world doesn't want your god, doesn't care about your god, and wants you to leave us alone. It's sad this country has so much growing up to still do, but right now, we have more in common with Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan than with Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand when it comes to cultural sophistication.
Fortunately, many of the younger members of society reject this ugly vilification of such a large segment of the population. If Jesus were around today, he's puke at the thought of these 'Christians' and their hate-mongering in his name. It's shameful, it's despicable, and your children and grand-children will look back at you in disgust, as many do now.
May 17, 2012 at 01:38 PM
Patrick, good thoughts, please let me dissect them a bit to contribute.
In the second paragraph, I beleive you are saying that you feel we can somehow remove our thoughts, feelings and experiences from our reading of the bible. I hear you on that, but it simply does not make sense. The bible must always be interpreted. You can't just read the plain meaning of scripture and have people agree with what you should do. Christian Smith wrote a book called "The Bible Made Impossible" that examines the problems associated with this type of thinking. I highly recommend it for every Christian. I bought 4 copies myself and have been sharing them.
Your next paragraph discusses the issue that I hear a lot from reformed folks. If I can summarize, you say that god is telling you that you should point out the sins of others and not condone actions that you know are sinful. This seems like a pretty safe bet, except that it is hypocritical. No one follows the bible as it says it is to be followed. Therefore we all pick and choose what it is that we are going to follow. Jesus strongest warnings are more around looking at the speck in someone else's eye when their is a beam in theirs. That is what I think the reformed folks are doing here. They are condemning same sex, long term loving relationships that are the model of Christianity while promoting concepts like the strong form of innerrency and divorce and a god who causes evil to happen.
Continuing that thought, I personally feel that we can declare that homosexualit is no longer a sin and god will love us for that and feel that we are finally gettting it! We are finally starting to understand what loving god and loving neighbor is about instead of following rules from another time.
Next paragraph you say "People don’t have a problem with why a specific sin is a sin." I am a people and I certainly have a problem with determining why a sin is a sin. I don't believe that we have an arbitrary god and I expect my god to make sense. If you believe in a god that makes no sense to you then we are in great danger of being misled!
The fact is, homosexuality is not identified as a sin against god in the bible, and the bible tends to be very specific about that type of thing. When it says abomination the actual word use is Tow'ebah and that is generally a culturally determine sin, not against god. Likewise Paul's objection is that he does not think it is the natural order. He does not say it is against god.
Your last couple of paragraphs consider that we are all sinners. So I ask you, why pick on the homosexuals given Jesus primary teachings are about loving others, the fact that homosexuality hurts no one, it is not identified as a sin against god. I don't know how you can write those last two paragraphs and then walk away saying we should torment gay folks further. Even Paul let them have their sin!!!! Isn't that what he really is teaching?
May 17, 2012 at 01:28 PM
This is hilarious: "The article is amazing for including so many bad arguments in so little space."...JUST what I was thinking. Who let this guy speak for Christianity?
Thank you for this article!
May 17, 2012 at 01:22 PM
There is a lifestyle that goes with it, though, DRT. Homosexual individuals give in to the desire to be romantically involved with a person of the same sex, therefore engaging in homosexuality, which is sinful.
May 17, 2012 at 01:15 PM
For those who keep thinking that for gays it is about sex and for gays there is some lifestyle that goes with it, please stop thinking those things. They are simply not true any more for gay folks than for non-gay folks. OK? The best way to determine this on your own is to find some nice gay friends and get to know them.
May 17, 2012 at 01:14 AM
But do morality and politics always have to go together? Can we, as Christians, make a POLITICAL argument against same-sex marriage or will it always be moral?
May 17, 2012 at 01:09 PM
David L., yes, people here take a lot based on authority, and that is a big part of the problem. Authority of a person is a terrible reason to accept something. So, regardless, the arguments on that site are good arguments and that is what people need to consider. It is fallacious to not listen to an argument because you don't like the person, which is what you are saying.
So here is another resource. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
May 17, 2012 at 01:09 PM
@ PLAIN AND SIMPLE
You sir, are a complete moron. I don't even need to say anything else.
Your argument DOES NOT HAVE A PLACE IN THE KINGDOM OF THIS FORUM!!!! If You Don’t Like It Get Over It.You Can’t ARGUE WITH FACTS!!! Enough Said!
May 17, 2012 at 01:05 PM
Ok I'm Gonna Make VERY PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!! Quit Sugar Coating The Word Of GOD!!!It Plainly States (1Corinthians 6:9)Homosexuality DOES NOT HAVE A PLACE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD!!!! If You Don't Like It Get Over It.You Can't ARGUE WITH THE WORD OF GOD!!! Enough Said!
May 17, 2012 at 01:04 PM
I do not know everything, but please take my words with humility and grace. My intent is not to offend, but to offer my opinion. I'm coming from a place of love for people and concern for the church and world.
What are we going to choose to believe. This is the issue we all face today. Will we let our experiences, our thoughts and perceptions dictate what the Word of God says or will we let the Bible define the way we SHOULD view the world.
What is love, that's defined in 1st Corinthians 13. "Love isn't about turning a blind eye to sin. "Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, it always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres" (vs. 6-7). I want to protect people from their sin. It doesn't matter if sin isn't hurting anyone, ultimately it hurts the one sinning. I apologize for the bigotry and hate speech (that I also am guilty of) that the church in times past and present has used to belittle, degrade, and dehumanize the LGBTQ community. However it would be an act of violence to not speak up against this sin (or any sin). If I am casual and turn away from that sin then my actions demonstrate hate for that individual because a heart that loves sin will keep anyone from eternal life. I want everyone to know Jesus and experience the life and hope that I have.
People don't have a problem with why a specific sin is a sin. The real issue (I think) is why is sin, sin? I don't know the answer but I do know in Isaiah 59:2 says "But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear." Sin separates us from God. God in His love and justice must hate sin, because He wants to be with us and know us. Jesus came to give us eternal life (John 3:16) and eternal life is that we may know Him in all His fullness (John 17:3).
Homosexuality I think is so tricky because it delves into the issue of identity. To call homosexuality a sin, I think can be interpreted by a homosexual person that "I am a sin." I think the reality is that we (every human) is a product of a fallen world. All of us have sin in our lives (whether we acknowledge it or not). The blood of Jesus is strong enough to free us from every sin. Whether it's drunkenness, idolatry, lying , or theft, the blood of Jesus can and will (if we choose it) set us free. God can override Biology and mindsets. If it was a sin to have brown, then I think God would make a way to change that individual's eye color. Sure, it might be difficult, but I'm at war with my sin EVERYDAY. I still get caught up in my own pride but I repent and continue to keep my eyes on Jesus. Sometimes I have to repent over and over in a matter of seconds. That's okay, we just can't love our sin. Do we really trust that God's grace is sufficient, to make up for our lack?
Romans 8:26 "In the same way The Spirit helps us in our weakness..."
2nd Corinthians 12:9 "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."
God is greater than our sin, our weakness, our physiology, and our identity, our righteousness. Our hope is in God's provision through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
May 16, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Greg,
Marriage gets redefined every generation. It means something different today than it did 20 years ago, and certainly something different than it did 4000 years ago. Your point is moot.
If God is supposedly so clear that remarriage after divorce is so sinful, why no fight for outlawing that before fighting gay marriage? It is certainly a far more common 'sin', and unlike gay marriage, is actually mentioned in the bible.
The story of one side arguing for fewer rights and another for more rights for some minority group always ends the same way. Just ask Roger Taney.
May 16, 2012 at 11:44 PM
By the Biblical definition of sin, yes, homosexuality is indeed sinful. And this article isn't any more than the Bible itself is (not attempting to equate this article with the Bible; however, the Bible has a habit of making us uncomfortable by pointing out sin).
May 16, 2012 at 11:42 PM
Greg, homosexuality isn't sinful. A great many other things certainly are, and condemning gays involves many of these sins. If anything, this author is guilty of more sin for writing this article than gays are for being gay.
May 16, 2012 at 11:42 PM
It's not just that it is sinful, it's also that it would be redefinition of marriage. That, and if I had my way, there would be no divorce either. That issue isn't currently up for debate though.
Lol, only if they lose, because the winners write it. Still not a valid argument at all.
May 16, 2012 at 11:39 PM
Greg, if one wants to prevent gays from marrying because they think it is sinful, why not also prevent people from marrying a second time?
And the anti-gay side is on the wrong side of history.
May 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM
If Kevin DeYoung is casting stones with this article, so are you with your comment, Mark. Oh the irony.
Explaining why an action is sinful is not "casting stones". Jesus himself did it many times, and your quote of him is stripped entirely of its context.
May 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM
I have no issue with the writers defense of his position on homosexuality. I just hope he is also observing the other 50 plus 'abominations' that are in the bible. If not I fear a 'just and true' God will deal with him very harshly on judgement day. And before the writer claims he doesn't participate in any of the other 50+ abominations in the bible, I would suggest he read them all first to make sure. Let he that is without sin cast the first stone. I suspect sir that you will not cast anymore stones if you take this to heart.
May 16, 2012 at 11:05 PM
I've asked as many people as I can (pastors, scholars, theologians, gays, straights, etc...) why the practicing of homosexuality is wrong & to this day have not received an answer that makes any sense.
Some say, "Because it's not the way God designed us." Okay, so what? We do lots of things these days that weren't the "design" of God, or are "unnatural" (eating processed food, for instance. not a part of God's design for you to sit on the couch and eat twinkies or steroid-induced chicken...or the very act of throwing a baseball overhand. Underhand is "natural" and overhand is "unnatural". Why are there so many injuries to pitchers in baseball but not softball?) Ridiculous examples you may say, but examples nonetheless of how we've misused our bodies for what they were created for.
We could also talk about what WAS a sin then and what IS a sin now. Just because the Bible approved or disapproved of it THEN does not mean it's approved or disapproved of now. Jesus said that Moses allowed divorce "because your hearts were hard." So there was a time a man could issue a woman a certificate of divorce for no reason and not be judged because of it, but Jesus changed the rule on that one. But, in the 21st Century many (very, very many) churches allow divorced people in leadership, even if the reason for divorce wasn't marital infidelity (and to "justify" this we've come up with a wide definition of what "infidelity" or "unfaithfulness" means. Which, I'm mostly all for, btw).
Paul doesn't outright condemn slavery, but tells slaves to be obedient. Even though slavery looked different in the 1st Century than it did the 19th, it was still slavery and many know that we'd never, ever, in a million years, get away with saying to the 27 million slaves in our world today, "hey pal, for the love of Jesus, obey your master who sells you out for sex."
We could talk about women in the church being leaders, but I'm pretty sure Mr. DeYoung still believes this is a sin so he's still with Paul on that one, even though Paul was speaking to a specific audience in a specific context for a specific reason. (what was the reason, btw? Because Christ's love and message transcended the "right" for women to talk at the moment. It would've impeded the Gospel's progress, so Paul tells them to simmer down for the sake of the Kingdom. I wonder, is our "view" of the practice of homosexuality doing the same thing? Hindering the advancement of the Gospel...)
But what I would really like to discuss is WHY it's wrong. "Because God said so" really doesn't mean much to anyone. We "know" why murder and rape and incest are wrong. We "know" what lying and cheating will do to a soul and to the future of people, but where is the evidence that being gay and acting out on it will be detrimental to society? Don't say the HIV/AIDS epidemic, for it has hit hetero and homo alike, though far more homosexuals have HIV/AIDS, but with protection & monogamy this would cease. Recent studies reveal that gay parents raise well-adjusted children, adopt minorities and older children at a higher rate than hetero couples & if a gay couple has a child it's because they WANT one, rather than it being a "surprise". Studies reveal gay parents are doing a good job of raising children. We can no longer argue that "God's best" (i.e., every other way is somehow "not God's best) is for there to be a male/female in every household when there are so many single mothers doing a spectacular job of raising their kids in tumultuous circumstances. Yes, we need male and female influences, but c'mon, we've got oodles of kids in foster care and if the choice is either (a) for them to remain in foster care and bounce from house to house (where lots of abuse occurs, btw) or (b) for them to be raised by a loving gay couple, which would we choose as "best" in that scenario?
How does a monogamous gay relationship mar society and our future? We are in a broken world, yes, I agree with that. I also agree that the Bible called the practice of homosexuality sinful. Does that mean that God still does? Are there other occurrences where the Bible spoke to a specific audience and that message no longer rings true today? (how about war, for instance? How do we marry what Jesus said about violence & peace with what we're doing in Afghanistan, Iran and other countries to "create" peace? Or how about murdering someone who has intruded your home? Jesus says "turn the other cheek" but I bet most devoted Christians would do something to the intruder and we'd all be okay with that).
What I'm saying is that we try to make the Bible "cut and dry" like it was written as a set of bullet points to be believed and memorized and agreed upon, or else. And it's not. It's not. God chose to use imperfect people to demonstrate His incredible love for humanity, flaws and all. And love always, always, always, looks for a way to do more than was asked or commanded of it. This is the story of God.
May 16, 2012 at 11:02 PM
What side of history was Stephen on? Or Paul? Peter? They died for the message of truth. Obviously not popular since they were killed for it. So by reasoning of many on here, they were wrong.
That must be a popular line on atheist sites because I am seeing it more and more.
May 16, 2012 at 10:46 PM
No one here is arguing that divorce is not sinful, quarkgluonsoup. It personally enrages me, for one, far more than homosexuality does.
This is no reading between the lines. This is precisely their words and their intended meaning. The argument here isn't about what they were actually saying--most with any knowledge of Scripture agree on that. The argument is whether or not it matters.
"Wrong side of history" isn't an argument either lol.
May 16, 2012 at 10:36 PM
If you are going to use the bible (and some flexible exegesis) to argue that homosexuality is sinful, then why aren't you doing the same for divorce? You try to read between the lines of what Paul or Jesus must have thought on homosexuality, and yet they tell us outright what they think of divorce: marrying after divorce is no different from adultery, which certainly counts as an immoral act.
You guys keep this up. You won't have much longer to put yourselves on the wrong side of history on this topic.
May 16, 2012 at 10:21 PM
If its OK to do what "God has created us" to do...then its OK for me to run around and have sex with all the beautiful women I'm attracted to rather than my lovely, Godly wife of 29 years. The "God created me this way" rhetoric, is just plain LAME. We are born sinful...we want to do things that are disobedient to God and his Law...and our only hope is redemption by Christ's sacrifice. And still, Christ's sacrifice does NOT mean we are free to sin. Sure, it SUCKS that folks want to sin...it sucked when I was 20, engaged, not married, and had to wait...it was really, really bad. But I was obedient, a virgin, as my wife was, and God has richly blessed us for this obedience. Get a new line folks...God did NOT create you sinful...you CHOSE that.
May 16, 2012 at 10:19 PM
CNN also conveniently failed to mention that this guy is no longer a priest and that he is openly gay.
Kind of puts the whole article in perspective.
May 16, 2012 at 09:09 PM
JP, thanks for being detailed in your analysis here. It gives us meat to debate.
1
a. why do you think that first needs to be a conversation among those who think it is a sin. I think that Paul thought it was a sin, and that is why he said it.
The point of debate is whether despite Paul thinking it was a sin, we should allow it. The question is why he thought it was a sin.
b. It seems you are simply saying it is a sin. I don't get your point.
c. you are generalizing the behavior of some people and therefore condemning the whole population. This is simply irrational. Why would a group of people be judged by someone who is sinning instead of someone who is not?
d. I don't understand what you are saying. Yes, the evidence clearly shows that people who are gay largely are born that way. If you don't have a personal relationship with gay people I hope that you will get the will to develop one.
e. I am not exactly sure where you end up in this point, but it seems you are worried that you will be judged for allowing gay people to exist. If that is the case, and I don't know that it is, I think you need to talk to your pastor about that view.
2. It seems that you are putting forth an argument that is similar to one that says if they torment me then I must be right and am happy about that. I suggest you talk to your pastor about that too, if that is the case.
May 16, 2012 at 08:43 PM
Daryl Little, great comments. You are right it is about silencing dissent and not tolerating those that teach contrary thought.
JP, your comments are some of the best that I have ever read. If you had a blog I would read it.
May 16, 2012 at 08:36 PM
[...] What the Bible Really Still Says About Homosexuality – Kevin DeYoung [...]
May 16, 2012 at 08:36 PM
DLT,
It is not the schools position to teach on sexual lifestyles. The is the parents job. No one has the right to train my children more than I do. Second, if a school elects to teach on something then there should be a opt out option. I don't expect another person to sit and listen to my beliefs if they don't want to.
Third, and most importantly, yes the Bible is perfect. To say it is not is to allow us to question everything. It is the serpent saying "Hath God said...".
Also, I can see where it is ok for a person to not marry but I don't see where we are to marry but not have children. God calls us together to produce blessings for Him, not to "only" have sex. However, I leave the birth control issue between husband and wife, and of course God.
May 16, 2012 at 07:21 PM
Two comments:
1. Re. "the other sins": one can probably make a principled argument that "homosexuality is different from other sins." For example, in Romans God "gives them over" to this state in response to determined unbelief, not to (e.g.) impatience.
a. Most debate does not mention this singularity or comment on its significance or what it tells about either God or homosexuality. At any rate, that seems like an advanced conversation among people who first agree that homosexuality is a sin.
b. The less advanced conversation would be to observe that homosexuality is a species of sexual brokenness, for which Christ died and for which he offers healing, like all other forms of sexual brokenness that are brought to him.
c. It seems to me that the real problem with homosexuality is embodied in the phrase "gay pride." At least to a first approximation (see (b)), "gay" isn't the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is pride: the hardness of heart that manifests itself as "I do not need You." I also think that most Christians, "by (spiritual) nature," muster compassion for humble sinners (including homosexual sinners) but are revulsed by proud sinners. A great deal of the damage caused by the "homosexual movement" derives from entrenching this kind of pride at the core of a homosexual's being. In that condition, repentance is essentially impossible.
d. While I wouldn't push this point too far, I think it is important to grapple with Luke Johnson's point: many homosexuals believe deep down that they were "born that way." I think it needlessly narrows the Scripture (and ignores the widespread descriptions of many people who wish they weren't born that way) to assert that homosexuality is merely a "lifestyle choice." In the process of "giving them over," God may very well have given them over at some point prior to an unknown "age of consent," possibly even in the womb.
e. For me the question is, What if a just God permits person A to suffer for the sins of person B? There are obviously many examples in Scripture where this is the case. What if as part of chastizing a group of people for not recognizing him as God, God gives over some of their children to this state? If that is the case, it would explain the self-descriptions offered by many people. It would also require that we enlarge our compassion for these people - not denying the sinfulness of their situation but also not shrinking back from the difficulty that they face (and that heterosexuals do not) in confronting something so apparently close to the core of their being. And it would require admitting that, every time I engage in the predicate sin ("not glorifying Him or giving Him thanks"), or failing to correct others who may engage in it, I may contribute to the problem for which "giving over" of someone else is the resulting chastisement. If that is the case - if judgment begins at the household of God - then it should be much easier to muster both the fear of God and the compassion towards men and women on whom his chastening has fallen.
2. I do think that an essential issue is the extent to which Christians should enlist the authority of the state to impose the kingdom of God, or to restrain evil. Certainly this issue was far from the minds of the people of the early church, who had zero influence with the state and apparently very little interest in its coercive power, but a great deal of interest in creating a people who voluntarily looked like the bride of Christ, regardless of what happened to constitute legal or illegal behavior under some transitory regime. Perhaps one silver lining of the slide into legislated immorality will be the church's renewed recognition of the impotence of law - even the perfect Law - to make anything perfect. "Then shall the righteous shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father." I think the battles over homosexual legislation are inevitable, at least in the United States at this point in history, but if they are lost they do not signal the diminution of the kingdom whatsoever. They (hopefully) signal the determination of God's people to seek a city that has foundations, who shine like lights in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. To quote Ira Gershwin, "They can't take that away from me."
May 16, 2012 at 07:07 PM
I have to add that given the arguments, there are strong implications.
If we do not accept same sex unions, we are subject to the accusation that god is arbitrary in his decrees. That he simply decrees that we should not do something because he says that we should not do it. You may respond that it is against the natural order and that is why god prohibits it, but is that really a good defense given god made the people the way they are?
Another implication is that we are to follow our Christian leaders without applying our own reason to their teachings. Let's face it, we all don't believe the bible, we believe what they teach us about it. Otherwise you would believe in slavery, not mixing cloth, avoiding shrimp, women would wear hats etc etc. We all pick and choose. Do you pick and choose based on your pastor? Do you? If you don't, then you need to educate yourself as to why it is bad to be gay.
Another implication, we will determine, unambiguously, that a minority view is simply not acceptable even if there is no harm involved. There are grave consequences to that charge.
Another, is that biblical inerrency is probably not viable in its strictest sense, which I believe most here adhere to. Frankly, it is not. The bible does not hold up under the standard that the innerentists place on it. There are many many interpretations of the same texts among good Christians. There are obvious conflicts in the recollection of the same story. There are obvious missteps in the statement of science. The bible is not the radical innerrent text.
But I do argue the bible is true. It is as true and inspired as the word of god. We have the bible. I love the bible, I am under the rule of the bible. But please, don't make the bible the object of perfection.
May 16, 2012 at 06:44 PM
Daryl Little,
Thanks for that perspective. I have a couple of comments.
First, this is clearly a slippery slope comment. Here in the US we would have to actually make a law against such things and that has not happened. If we all agree that a law should be made then that will be the law, but that has not happened. Given our current state I think it would be more than a little unlikely for that to happen.
Second, I think you are right when it comes to the judicial arguments, it is more a freedom of speech issue, but I was referring to the church battle. The conservative church is going to vote based on their beliefs regardless of their legal basis, imo. They will think it is holy or not, and vote that way. I don't think they will say, oh, it is an abomination but people deserve to do what they want.
Lastly, I don't see anything wrong with bringing kids into an assemble on 5 minutes notice to talk about gay sexuality (given obvious restraint). Nor do I see it as being wrong to require them to be there. I do see a very big problem with them saying that they should not tell their parents. I really don't think that would happen more than once or twice here before the outrage sets in.
Fear of the unknown is not a good reason to change. It is only a good reason to justify fear. If fear binds your community, then we have a different problem.
May 16, 2012 at 06:37 PM
RN,
The Gospel Coalition does a great job of commenting on culture. As of now, the gay debate is what people are talking about in the media and public sphere. I feel like GC has done a great job of not elevating it above other sins while still staying faithful to what's going on in our culture. My guess is that after the election, the debate will die down and GC will move on to the next big debate.
May 16, 2012 at 06:22 PM
RN & DRT,
This whole issue is about far more than simply the government legislating a new (and harmful) definition of marriage. This is about the right to dissent.
It's been a long time since toleration of a thing really meant toleration of a thing. Now it has come to mean embracing a thing as good.
The reason this is such an issue now is that the trajectory is in the clear, intentional direction of shutting down churches who are willing to call homosexuality a sin and refrain from participating in the endorsement of it.
No one is about to put you in jail for calling adultery a sin and for shutting someone out of a church because of it. Not so homosexuality. Here in Canada, although no one has yet been jailed, the laws are on the books, awaiting a willing enforcer.
The province of Ontario is on the brink of implementing a fiercely pro-gay curriculum in the schools, including elementary kids staging a gay-pride parade as part of the agenda. Beginning in the 3rd grade.
This is not so much about inerrancy (churches who argue for gay marriage in that front are simply puppets), as it is freedom of speech.
When high school kids are brought into an assembly on 5 minutes notice, for a talk on gay sexuality, told not to tell their parents and suspended for leaving the assembly before it ended (as happened in my town. The student in question being a pastor's son), well then the issue becomes clear.
Churches will not be tolerated. At least not ones which teach the truth.
May 16, 2012 at 06:17 PM
RN, are you serious? The bible does not teach large families for us! Jesus and Paul both said it is fine to be childless!
May 16, 2012 at 05:47 PM
RN,
Seriously? Do you condone appendectomies or do you allow God's design to carry itself out in the death of the sufferer?
I so agreed with your first point that there are lots of other important sins to address. Why not focus on injustices, modern slavery and sexual abuse?
May 16, 2012 at 05:34 PM
Personally, I'm getting tired of the gay issue dominating everything (even Al Mohler's daily podcast seems to be little more than a daily report of "gay news"). Agreed, it's a sin, and Scripture makes it clear, but aren't there OTHER sins out there as well? For the gazillion articles on Christian blogs blasting homosexuality, why not a few more addressing those lesser-addressed sins like deliberate childlessness/small families in evangelical Christian homes? "How dare homosexuals marry! Well, we've had two children, so time to get the obligatory surgical genital mutilation. No deviation from God's procreation design in doing that..."
May 16, 2012 at 05:31 PM
Zack Smith says
Where I still disconnect with you is on why this must also be the position of the state on homosexuality. You say “For starters, the government legislates plenty of morality already—morality about killing, stealing, polluting and a thousand other things we’ve decided are bad for society or just plain wrong.”
I think the clear thread between the things the government legislates is that they are things that directly harm people other than themselves. For example, the government does not legislate against drunkenness, but it does legislate against drunk driving. I don’t see homosexuality following into this classification.
This is true. I would like to hear a response on this. It really does seem that the government is going to be legislating on morality in this case because the harm element is out of the equation.
Succinctly, if there is no harm in an action (and buying illegal drugs has harm, so does bestiality and plural marriage) should the government legislate against it? Clearly we would have to definte harm as being limited to this world :)
May 16, 2012 at 05:30 PM
Zach, good questions. And fair. I hope to write more about these kinds of questions in the next couple weeks.
Bryan, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of those details. That explains why the CNN article just says he was ordained. I'll tweak the intro so as not to say he is a priest. Update: I left the designation as is (because he is still technically a priest), but added a link with the words "sort of" so people can see that there is more to the story.
May 16, 2012 at 05:26 PM
Greg, I am not sure I understand your point, and I want to make sure that I keep this civil without presuming some things.
If you just want to say god=bible, then you will not be much of a conversation partner with me.
I believe that god is quite a bit bigger than the bible, and the bible is our primary window into what god is about (the holy spirit being another, the creation reflecting god another..etc).
I have absolute faith in god. Absolute. So please do not imply that I somehow have a different faith. My faith is in god.
So could you rephrase so I can engage with you?
May 16, 2012 at 05:22 PM
Kevin, if you applaud LTJ for his honesty, then you can also admit that you can see why innerrency is wrong.
> Implying that it is a foregone conclusion that inerrancy is wrong.
I'm sure he can see, as I can, why someone would think such, but one does not accept another's position simply because he understands it.
We have no faith if not in God himself and that which he has told us. It becomes something other than a "faith" at that point. Further, you have to demonstrate that what you term "hurt" is something that actually should be avoided.
May 16, 2012 at 05:19 PM
I do think I need to clarify just a bit.
No doubt that Leviticus and Paul that being gay was wrong. That is indisputable in my view. The reason innerrency comes into play the way I do, is that I feel that those same authors would have a different view if they were writing today. If you feel that innerrency prohibits them from being culturally and timewise sensitive, then you will likely not support gay marriage. If you feel that given our culture and knowledge things can change, then you will allow them to change.
The same goes for geocentricism, slavery, the storehouses theory of weather and many other things in the bible. All of those have changed with changes in time and culture and knowledge.
And obviously, even if you admit that some things can change you would still have to argue whether THIS thing should change.
I challenge the readers to at least get past the argument that says "the plain reading of scripture says it is bad therefore it is bad" and admit that there are other things in scripture that simply are not so. Then we can have an honest discussion about this.
May 16, 2012 at 05:13 PM
I agree with Kevin (at the summary) and Luke Timothy Johnson. This is a fight about the innerrency of scripture. It is about how we view the bible and interpret it for ourselves.
I come down on the side that the bible does not teach the strong form of innerrency that many churches have adopted and also feel that we are putting a burden on the text it cannot support. It is harmful to our faith.
Kevin, if you applaud LTJ for his honesty, then you can also admit that you can see why innerrency is wrong.
May 16, 2012 at 05:06 PM
Kevin - I think you've done an excellent job laying out the Bible's position on homosexuality.
Where I still disconnect with you is on why this must also be the position of the state on homosexuality. You say "For starters, the government legislates plenty of morality already—morality about killing, stealing, polluting and a thousand other things we’ve decided are bad for society or just plain wrong."
I think the clear thread between the things the government legislates is that they are things that directly harm people other than themselves. For example, the government does not legislate against drunkenness, but it does legislate against drunk driving. I don't see homosexuality following into this classification.
Everyone in this country isn't a Christian. If you aren't a Christian, you probably don't particularly care what the Bible says about homosexuality (or anything else). We aren't coming from the same starting point.
All of this to say, I think the bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin. But I don't think it comes anywhere close to saying that a non-religious government should legislate against sins it describes. Hold yourself to that standard. Hold fellow members of the church to that standard. But hold the entire state to that standard? I think we're overstepping.
May 16, 2012 at 04:53 PM
Kevin, thanks for deleting some of my comments on the other thread. They were wrong, I repent. But good for you to keep the others.
May 16, 2012 at 04:49 PM
Kevin,
I agree with what most all of what you say here, but I think it is misleading merely to describe your interlocutor as "the Catholic Priest Daniel Helminiak." He was ordained a priest, yes, but he left the office before entering grad school at the University of Texas, and is not active as a priest. He says he was "unable to reconcile my integrity with Vatican expectations," so he withdrew from active ministry. Your statement makes it sound like he represents the orthodox Catholic position. Nothing could be further from the truth. He doesn't speak for the Catholic Church. The media picks him, because he is saying what they want to hear, not because he represents what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
May 16, 2012 at 04:39 PM
[Edit] What Greg said. ;)
May 16, 2012 at 04:37 PM
I know what specious means. What I was saying, Aaron, was that the line should probably read:
"This reasoning is so specious that it’s hard to know where to begin."
rather than:
"This reasoning is so specious that it’s hard to nowhere to begin."
EDIT: Ah, seems he has corrected it. Cool :)
May 16, 2012 at 04:35 PM
Greg & Mak—no typo, just an uncommon word. Specious means:
Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument".
Misleading in appearance, esp. misleadingly attractive: "a specious appearance of novelty".
Kevin, great article; really thoughtful approach to a difficult subject. Your call at the end for intellectual honesty (citing Johnson) is one that those who oppose what Scripture says would do well to heed. It's hard to take an incoherent argument (such as the one in the CNN article) seriously.
May 16, 2012 at 04:35 PM
Let's not forget that the Romans passage tells us that homosexuality is wrong not simply because the Bible says it is wrong but that nature itself shows it is wrong. That is, the Bible tells us that we don't even need the Bible to see that homosexuality is wrong because it is so clearly unnatural. Christians today need to make more natural law arguments against homosexuality because Romans 1 tells us we can do that.
May 16, 2012 at 04:30 PM
Didn't the President cite his religious convictions as his very reason for supporting gay marriage? The irony is just...I can't even...
And, that whole flat-earth thing - that's a myth originating from a text book written in the 1940s, IIRC. If I find the link, I'll post it here.
June 9, 2012 at 10:53 AM
Adam Borsay, thanks for your thoughts.
I find that there is a thought that makes absolutely no sense to me and I am not sure others see it.
Let me frame it up like this. Suppose that I have an employee stealing from the company. Now, suppose that I don't know that the employee is stealing from the company but someone comes to me and says, I think Stan is stealing from the company. I ask if he has evidence and he gives it to me. I then say, you know, I don't think that I want to investigate Stan because if I don't trust him then I will have to fire him. So I will continue to trust him anyway. But remember, Stan is indeed stealing from the company.
The bible debate on inerrancy strikes me exactly as that. The inerrantists seems to say, "you know, if I were to believe that the bible is inerrent, then I may have to change my views on other matters". The problem is that this thought is irrelevant to whether the bible is actually inerrant or not.
Thanks for talking, have a great weekend.
June 9, 2012 at 09:29 AM
I have enjoyed the Kevin/Heather/DRT debate over the last few days, and while I know I am late to the party, I had a few thoughts. Something that I think Kevin(maybe) said I found interesting. Basically, that everyone brings their own biases into interpretation of scripture. In response; Either scripture is alive and active and we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to rightfully discern truth, or, it is nothing. You can't have it both ways. Either there is an absolute and possible to be known answer, or their are no answers to be found, and we can believe whatever it is we want to believe.
Once we have created the template for distrusting orthodox(not purposely using a word to cause more argument) and historically consistent views of the testimony of scripture, then all of it is subject to distrust. While it may be politically and personally beneficial to say "no, the bible really isn't clear about homosexuality, and therefore we have to reinterpret it in light of "new" discoveries in "linguistics, archaelogy, etc", it pulls out the logical foundation for anything else to be trustworthy.
If the bible can be interpreted through a new lense to no longer mean what it has always been understand to mean, then there is no logical scripturally based reason to assume that Christ really died on the cross to save us from our sins. Whether accepted or not, the template of denying the reliable clarity and consistency of scripture in any area necessarily sets the stage for rejection of any and all of it.
One of the issues in the modern theological debates I have had in the last 20 or so years is that for 2000 years Christians apparently got very serious issues wrong, but, thanks be to God that you great modern thinkers and philosophers have finally compiled enough training and education to set us straight. As if God was just waiting for you modern acadamians to arrive on the scene to save us all from ourselves and our simplistic plain reading of scripture.
Either scripture means what it says it means, or it means nothing at all.
June 6, 2012 at 08:53 PM
[...] One more I’d like to add by Kevin DeYoung, addressing biblical revisionism which has been rampant in [...]
June 25, 2012 at 01:28 AM
[...] http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2012/05/16/what-the-bible-really-still-says-about-h... [...]
June 16, 2012 at 12:36 PM
[...] In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Read the rest here [...]
June 15, 2012 at 04:10 PM
Adam & DRT,
I just checked this out today. I think Adam's point about "for 2000 years Christians got it wrong" is an important one. It's that line of thinking that Protestantism rejected though. Councils, popes, saints, tradition, and corporate agreement on biblical interpretation all err. What did Luther posit instead? the Bible and reason/conscience
So relatedly, I'd ask Adam if he knows of anyone who teaches sola fide or sola scriptura before the Reformation-- or if you have ever even had a pastor suggest that you read an entire work by a pre-Reformation Christian. How do they resolve the tension between James and Paul? How do they decide what books are in the canon?
I started looking at early interpretations of the NT and saw that no one (that I could find-- and I looked diligently!) espoused Luther's doctrine of sola fide or sola scriptura. Luther didn't even claim that anyone did as far as I know (not even Augustine-- Luther liked his high view of grace, but not his view of of the church or of tradition).
My thought would be, take your reasoning to its consistent end. Either you will cease to be so dogmatic in your Christianity (which I think is a good thing), you will become Eastern Orthodox or Catholic, or you will become non-dogmatic in general.
My two cents!
June 11, 2012 at 12:02 AM
[...] not, and I repeat DO NOT claim these pairings, as Daniel Helminiak seems to do: David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master. Or have you forgotten, when [...]
January 31, 2013 at 06:29 PM
And yet here I thought you said your handle was "sensible Christian." Silly me.
January 31, 2013 at 06:23 PM
Homosexulaity is as much a sin as wearing clothes of mixed fiber, which is also stated in the bible as sinful. Give it up people! Sex in biblical times was primarily a way to exert power over another person - men and women. The Abomination that is meant is just that, random copulation of a powerful indiviual over another. Julius Ceasar held girls and boys as sex slaves. Cleopatra used sex to further her empire as was the custom (she married her brother, then killed him when he tried to usurp power) - and that was OK. The Hebrews valued relationships but still recognized sex as primarily a way to increase numbers of the Tribe. Jesus certainly didn't condem gay people and his was the next step in the evolution of how people treated each other- and accepted gay people as having the ablity to have normal, loving relationships is another step on our journey. And besides, the science bears it out. The Bible was also used to defend slavery and epilepsey as demonic possession. It's a living document, not meant to be taken literally.
January 15, 2013 at 01:22 PM
[...] [...]
February 3, 2013 at 07:43 AM
These childish attempts at theology are infuriating to read through. I'm seriously done with this it's jacking up my blood pressure. My final statement- the fundamental linguistic problem precedes composition of text, in composition of thought itself. Paul wrote in a socio-historical context that as such constrained the very possibility of truth. The times have changed, and it's about time you all caught up or shut up.
February 3, 2013 at 05:55 AM
If you believe that God creates individual persons, and if you believe that God is concerned with persons' behavior, and if you believe that God is all about calling us out of ourselves to love others, then it is by no means obvious that "sex is irrelevant." Rather, the opposite is likely.
God could have created us to reproduce by fission or budding. Or, God could have created us to reproduce by females laying eggs, males ejecting sperm over them, and both wander off to live their separate lives and leave the fry to fend for themselves. Instead, we are so made that two individuals are drawn to each other (thus being drawn out of themselves, the first step). Then, at the very moment when they are most intensely celebrating their love for each other, whom they have chosen, God challenges them to extend their love still further, to a wholly new person, whom they have not chosen. It is a beautiful design, even though marred by sin, like everything else as it appears on earth.
It makes sense that, having given us this design, God would not favor the various ways we have come up with to claim the pleasure of the sex act while avoiding the work and the risk of bringing forth new human life and taking lasting responsibility for it (and in some cases avoiding even reaching out to another person as a person). That includes masturbation and contraception along with rape, fornication, and adultery. It also includes same-sex sex acts. (Logically, it would also include choosing an opposite-sex sex partner with the requirement that the person be infertile.)
A fact also to be noted is that not everyone is going to get to be in a sexual relationship on earth. Biblically speaking, that's stated in Matthew 19:12.
February 3, 2013 at 04:46 AM
Mr. Nickoson, your reading comprehension doesn't look so great, or perhaps you simply did not read the text, if you think the Bible uses a word translated as "homosexual" that actually implies roving gangs of rapists.
The Old Testament doesn't use a word translated "homosexual" at all. What it does say, Lev. 18:22, is "With a male (in Hebrew, _et-zakhar_) you [addressed to a male] shall not lie down (_lo tishkav_) the ways one would lie down with (_mishkevei_) a woman (_ishshah_)." No roving gangs of rapists involved. Just two people of the same sex having sex, however consensual or mutually enjoyable.
We could suppose we could leave that prohibition safely behind as nobody's business but the Jews', if St. Paul hadn't written, 1 Cor 6:9, that people he called _arsenokoitai_ in Greek would not enter the kingdom of heaven. This is a brand-new word, probably coined by Paul himself, composed of _arsen_ "male" and _koite_ "act of lying down." In the Greek translation of the Old Testament made at Alexandria a couple of centuries before Paul, with which Greek-speaking Jews and Christians in Paul's time would all be familiar, _arsen_ translates Hebrew _zakhar_ and _koite_ translates _mishkevei_ in Lev 18:22 above. An _arsenokoites_ is a man who violates Lev. 18:22. Paul could have used one of several existing Greek words that referred to homosexual behavior, but they all were tied to specific circumstances, such as _paidophthoria_ "despoilment of a boy" by an adult male. Instead, he coined a word that simply means two people of the same sex having sex. No roving gangs of rapists here either.
February 3, 2013 at 03:16 PM
So Kevin, what is truth in your opinion? I think you are saying that truth is relative. Do you believe that to be a true statement?
February 2, 2013 at 07:43 PM
Good God you simply have no reading comprehension. I answered the troll question. I said I was deadly serious and I meant it. I'm done with you. You are a hopeless fool.
February 2, 2013 at 07:37 AM
There is no need to get angry Kevin. I am sorry that you are disgusted with us. I think that we all will have to "agree to disagree" for now. I understand why you are angry with "language teachers." They haven't re-defined the meaning to fit your preferences. However, if we are honest (as we should be according to the Bible), I don't think you can argue with the evidence. A good article on this fact is at (http://carm.org/word-homosexual-english-bible-1946), I hope you will read it. As far as the overpopulation thing, your perspective really concerns me. So I suppose you are saying that unborn children are a class of people that deserve to die? Or, do you think that maybe there should be some additional classes of people? Did you know that we could fit the entire world's population into the state of Texas? There is a lot of land that isn't inhabited now even with our large population. I do agree that poor stewardship of the environment can lead to some short term consequences, but some of the long-term chaos that is described by scientific theory and politicians I find highly doubtful. The Bible promotes good stewardship of the environment such as taking care of the land, and even animals. It has been proven that where these principles of management have been used, the environment has been in good condition considering the fact we live in a cursed world. Does God desire that we shed innocent blood because we are afraid of overpopulation? Since the Gospel teaches "self-denial" and "self-sacrifice" I find your logic severely flawed. Check out the following link when you have the chance (http://www.caseforlife.com/). Abortion is murder.
February 2, 2013 at 07:07 PM
@Kevin Nickoson: You pointedly didn't answer the troll or serious question. So, I'm going to go off the troll assumption. So, you may go ahead and say something angry and nonsensical, but I think this will be my last post. Unless you come up with something rational. In that case, I'd be happy to respond. I read your comments enough. Throughout them you do the very thing to Christians, that you accuse Christians of doing to homosexuals. It's very silly, but nothing real to respond to. Just sort of, reheated liberal propaganda, complete with buzzwords like "overpopulation" and "dense westerners."
The gospel is not a cliche, my dear. I mean, you do assume there is a God who punishes sins, and you seem to quite seriously be gleeful over that. I am highly saddened by the fate of people who never quite understand the gospel. That is the difference between us.
You put up two previously posted comments (more regurgitated nonsense) that were slightly worth responding to I suppose. I mean, Phil really did respond to the first with the article he put up. Did you read it? (Note: this is the second time I asked) But apple is not dependent on the word red, so I have trouble with your links there. And I love your chronological snobbery implied in that first argument: (Back in the savage days those homosexuals were practically raving lunatics out for sex. Today in our more enlightened times we have peaceful homosexuals) There is absolutely nothing to base this claim on. Don't worry, it's something many historians struggle with as well, so you aren't alone. As Phil says, you are angry because biblical scholars have studied the word and as it turns out, the bible really does just mean "homosexuality" and not "roving rapists" or whatever you choose to believe.
I did respond to your abortion comments. I said, "are you saying you’d rather see poor people dead?" Because you said there would be a bunch of poor people if we didn't have abortion.
Of course homosexuals are not the only people who have sexual sins. I think nearly everyone has had some form of struggle with a sexual sin, be it adultery, or sex outside of marriage, or pornography, or pedophilia, or what have you. I'm just saying Jesus can overcome that, and it doesn't have to define you. And honestly, asking someone to recount any sexual sins is a little bit gross and creepy.
February 2, 2013 at 06:59 PM
Oh, and are you saying you have no sexual sins? Why don't you outline every detail of your sex life and let society judge that for itself? Just because gay and lesbian couples have the disadvantage of that one simple fact being obvious from outside the bedroom, they are the only ones capable of sexual sin? Let's hear it then! Every sexual encounter you've had, and we'll decide if you let sexual sin rule you!
February 2, 2013 at 06:53 PM
You could have responded to,
"Language is a spiderweb of interlocking symbolic ideas, every one of the self-referential and inherently dependent upon the entire context of their language. The word apple cannot have meaning without the word red having meaning. Therefore, sense the word ‘homosexual’ (as it is REDEFINED by translators) derives its meaning from a historico-ethical context devoid of peaceful gay couples, unlike our languages modern context. In addition, the word ‘homosexual’ was connected to roving gangs of rapists. UNLIKE TODAY. So yes, according to my preference for logic, the word has been illegitimately redefined."
Or,
"Also, if abortion were simply made illegal, not only would black market abortion ensure much blood was still spilled (babies and mothers) but a undergraduate knowledge of sociology and poverty would suffice to understand and predict the increase in violent crime that would inevitably accompany such an influx of poverty level population."
Those are not insults. They are serious arguments. And that is just what I've posted today- would you like me to go back to the beginning of this thread and copy over the volumes of arguments I made that were met with the reasoning of a chimp? Insults are for flavor. Try reading the Old Testament prophets sometime- they were quite insulting. The last refuge of the out-argued is throwing up a wall and ignoring the argument they should be dealing with. Otherwise known as the straw-man fallacy.
February 2, 2013 at 06:50 PM
@Heather- You haven't addressed a single argument I've made, today or at the beginning of this god forsaken thread. I am completely serious when I said there is a special place in hell for you self-righteous fools. Your cliches will not save you. Reread my comments, and my suggestion is that you pay someone with better reading comprehension to help you. Because you haven't understood a thing. And it's been, how long did you say, almost a year? That should have been long enough.
February 2, 2013 at 06:41 PM
@Kevin Nickson: Ok, come clean...troll or serious? I mean, you've literally left me nothing to respond to. Who was it who said, insults are the last refuge of the out-argued?
I would have faced righteous anger coming from God, but thankfully Jesus was righteous when I couldn't be. That gospel is for me, you, and homosexuals. But the problem is, I have to stop letting my sins rule me. You have to stop letting your hatred rule you. And homosexuals have to stop letting sexual sins rule them. Don't worry, though, Jesus is really powerful.
February 2, 2013 at 06:33 PM
@Heather- It is you and your ilk that go about spewing hatred while pretending that you are just good religious people. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of dense westerners thinking they have difficult philosophical questions hammered out when they clearly don't even have the reading comprehension to understand my comments. Which makes me a little sad, because you clearly didn't understand me when I insulted your grammar. Oh well, let me make it easier.
You won't accept it from me, and you may deny it until you die. But you are very, very stupid, and your actions and opinions are negatively affecting the world. We would all be much better off if you just shut your mouth. I am angry. I am very angry. It is a righteous anger and perhaps you'll face it from God one day. Until then, you'll just have to settle for getting yelled at on the internet.
February 2, 2013 at 06:24 PM
@Kevin Nickoson: It's quite simple. I saw your angry irascible comment last night and wondered how you did it. This morning, I'm still wondering.
So, reading your abortion comment...are you saying you'd rather see poor people dead? I also am amused. I'm STILL amused even that you said abortion was a low level priority, so let's fix murder instead. I mean, you do see why someone like Phil or someone like me would find that funny, right?
Also, you are incorrectly defining "homosexual." So,you are actually doing what you accuse bible translators of doing. You should probably read the link that Phil provided. That is, if you actually feel like learning instead of spewing hatred.
February 2, 2013 at 06:16 PM
Oh, and there IS a need to get angry. Innocent people are oppressed, and forced into living a guilt that is completely unfair, because you IDIOTS think homosexuality is any kind of wrong. Not to mention we waste valuable political inertia grinding back and forth on this issue- what about starving children? What about the wrongfully imprisoned and executed? What about financial law and policy that has entire regions of the world caught in a blood bath and struggling with major food shortage and despair? GROW UP! Sex is irrelevant. There is no systematic kind of 'literal interpretation' that can be applied to hermeneutics, that has been demonstrated thoroughly by myself and others throughout this thread and elsewhere. There will be a special place in hell for you angels of light who hate just to hate.
February 2, 2013 at 06:12 PM
@Phil- Language is always being re-defined. 'Literalists' and 'traditionalists' are simply people who refuse to see that THEIR preferences are just like any other, in that they are interpretations as well. Language is a spiderweb of interlocking symbolic ideas, every one of the self-referential and inherently dependent upon the entire context of their language. The word apple cannot have meaning without the word red having meaning. Therefore, sense the word 'homosexual' (as it is REDEFINED by translators) derives its meaning from a historico-ethical context devoid of peaceful gay couples, unlike our languages modern context. In addition, the word 'homosexual' was connected to roving gangs of rapists. UNLIKE TODAY. So yes, according to my preference for logic, the word has been illegitimately redefined. Also, if abortion were simply made illegal, not only would black market abortion ensure much blood was still spilled (babies and mothers) but a undergraduate knowledge of sociology and poverty would suffice to understand and predict the increase in violent crime that would inevitably accompany such an influx of poverty level population. It isn't a simple issue. In a perfect world there would be no abortion, I agree. But it is WAY down on the list of problems in this society. Lets fix murder and poverty, then we can talk about abortion. People die. Hell, fetuses don't make it due to natural causes- and that used to happen a lot more than it does with now thanks to the evolution of human medicine. You conservatives compartmentalize your societal ethics, and it is absurdly simplistic, irresponsible, and preventing this society from having any productive dialogue on how to actually improve the state of the world.
@Heather- Obviously I simply didn't check the time stamp. It seems like years. I am wondering what you mean by "still" wondering. Lets perform a little thought experiment. Remove the word "still" from your sentence, and tell me how the meaning changes.
February 2, 2013 at 05:36 PM
@Kevin Nickoson: I'm still wondering how you commented "years ago" on a thread that is less than one year old...
February 1, 2013 at 11:37 PM
I cannot believe this thread is still going. Jeanie- people like you are why this world is still a complete mess. Because you think abortion and marriage have anything to do with the gospel. You disgust me. You do not represent love. You do not represent God. You are a selfish person basking in their own self righteousness- and not that it is necessarily the core of your problem, but you are also quite dense. Does God desire overpopulation to condemn the human race to misery and suffering? Should our reproductive ethics really never change?
Homosexuality is not sin. I'm not even sure the notion(s) of sin that have survived to modern language are identical to the original notions- but I am 100% confident that the term that is designated "homosexuality" in both the New and Old Testament writings by modern translators is NOT the same as the modern term homosexuality. Biblical concepts of homosexuality included the idea of gang rape, criminal deviance, etc. The words are not the same. This planet would be best served by replacing every language teacher on the planet, because they are clearly all doing terrible jobs.
I am really just extraordinarily angry about this. I commented on this thread years ago, and here the conversation continues in circles. Because no one is capable of reason. This world is doomed because humans are by and large just barely more intelligent than chimps.
February 1, 2013 at 09:09 AM
Sensible Christian you stated that you do not take the bible literally however, Jesus said himself when tricked by the Pharisee in regards to divorce. Jesus brought them back to beginning what God meant for marriage. Between man and woman. He said that men's hearts were hardened and divorce was allowed because during those times when a woman were left by their husbands, they were left with nothing. God designed marriage to bring forth life. That is what the gospel is about. That is why abortion and marriage is a big deal to christians because it is all about the Gospel.
February 1, 2013 at 08:11 AM
I don't think you have read enough of the Bible or history "Sensible One." The New Testament also condemns it. As far as the mixed fiber laws, they were part of the Mosaic Law system for the nation of Israel. Those laws were for the nation to function in the world that they lived. There were foundational principles that drove the placement of those laws and it was the laws of righteousness and faith. Jesus and the Apostles spoke about These certain principles concerning sin and righteousness. They mostly hinged on the Greatest Commandments (Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor), and the Ten Commandments as a foundation. They stated and illustrated that those sins and deeds were a result of what comes from the heart. Jesus did condemn Adultery and fornication. Which covers "all" sexual impurity. Paul stated that homosexuality was also a sin, which falls under the category of sexual immorality with adultery. This has been proven. I have left a lot out, but to make such a statement is very short sided. The document is "living" but unchangeable like God. Men try to distort it and change it to fit their fancy like the people you mentioned who used it to hold people against their will in slavery. However, it never condemned voluntary servants who committed their lives to a person usually for reasons of poverty. It always condemned the type of slavery that was used in the early years of our country. The people who supported slavery in those days were trying to take the Bible out of context as you are now. We need to understand and clearly define what is there. It is true that we all are born with a "sin nature," but by the power of God and the Holy Spirit, we can overcome the power of sin so that we can be free to serve God. Be killing sin, or sin will be killing you. Have a good day.
April 2, 2013 at 02:09 PM
[...] What the Bible really still says about homosexuality. [...]
April 14, 2013 at 05:02 AM
[...] months to recover. Homosexuality disagrees and disobeys the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ according to the Bible (I’m not saying it will not be accepted in our culture but that it cannot erase the [...]
Heather E. Carrillo
May 31, 2012 at 11:20 AM
@Anthony: No it hasn't.