Monday, October 31, 2016

History

We have been scorned for taking a biblical position on the question of sexual immorality either in those of opposite sexes or the same sex. We have been laughed at for standing for marriage in the sense that it has always been understood and in the way that the Bible portrays it -- the union of a man and a woman. We are, they tell us, on the "wrong side of history."

As it turns out, I think their view of history is mistaken. If, by "history", they simply mean "the flow of human events over time", there is no right or wrong side. There is just ... history. But I think that this, too, is a mistaken view of history. You see, the primary error of sinful humans is "It's all about us." And I don't think that's what God had in mind at all.

History, from God's perspective, is all about Him. It's all about Him and His glory and His acts and His grace and His mercy and His justice and ... well, you get the idea. History, in a very real sense, is His Story.

Considering it, then, from this alternative view -- God's view -- if history is His Story and His Story is about Him and His ideas and actions and He has said, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10) (for instance), tell me again who is on the "wrong side of history".

2 comments:

Danny Wright said...

I came up with a syllogism of sorts to explain this.

Slavery is evil.

Many supported slavery in history and so wound up "on the wrong side of history" because they disagreed with what the modern "knows".

The homosexual bases his claims on a birth feature, like skin color, and in so doing is able to give his struggle the appearance of being no different than that of the 19th century and earlier slave, but mainly the late 18th and 19th century because that involves the US.

So it follows then that there is no difference between pigment and natural--natural becasue they're "born that way"--behavior.

So it follows that the Oppression of anyone who can paint himself as the same as a black man, is evil.

Of course, the hater of the "bigots" reserves the right to define terms like "oppression", and "victim". And he also reserves the right to frame the argument on his own terms. And he can avoid the glaring differences, like, for example, the fact that society was not required to be completely reordered to accomodate the liberation of the black man. There were no black holes to jump into, like the transgender bathroom abyiss we're currently looking for the bottom of.

Stan said...

Danny, did you actually expect someone operating on an "it feels wrong" basis to follow that logic?