Someone help me with this, because I'm not getting it.
I'm not a big fish in the blog pond, so I'm not surprised that I don't get a lot of comments. I might expound on Reformed Theology and get a nibble or two. Sometimes when I point out the Sovereignty of God someone might have something to say. But for the most part it's pretty quiet in the comment department on these pages. And I understand. I mean, people commenting is not the same as people reading. I get that.
There is, however, one single solitary subject upon which I can write and I will almost certainly get a host of comments. I'll get comments and I'll get people contacting other people to comment and I'll get people writing about what I wrote behind my back and ... lots and lots of response. Outrage, actually. Now, to be fair, I'm not a big fish in the blog pond, so the outrage is fairly small, relatively speaking. No death threats. I haven't lost my job. Nothing that extreme. Still, I can say just about anything about just about any subject and I will get nary a peep, but write about the Bible and the sin of homosexual behavior and I am hit with all sorts of complaints about intolerance and error. In one of the recent exchanges I asked a dissenter "What would you suggest we do?" He said, "How do you treat fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (be they believer or believer-to-be) when they differ on whether infants or adults should be baptized?" The call, then, is to let matters lie. Don't make waves. Don't say anything.
So, here's how it goes. I believe in believer's baptism and you believe in infant baptism, so we should just leave it alone and be friends anyway. I believe in worshiping on Sunday and you believe in worshiping on Saturday, so we should just leave it alone and be friends anyway. I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin and you believe it isn't, so I should shut up and stop believing what I believe and agree with you. Wait ... how does that work? How does that make sense?
You see, I have lots of reasons to believe what I believe about the morality of that particular behavior. It's what I see in the Bible. It's consistent with all the other topics around it. It's consistent with nature. It's consistent with Church history. All well and good. So I hold a position. And in every other case it seems I can hold a position and no one will say a word except this one. So when loud voices complain repeatedly and continuously that I should shut up and change my beliefs to align with theirs because theirs is more tolerant and accepting and inclusive (which is contradictory because theirs does not tolerate, accept, or include my beliefs), it simply convinces me one more way that theirs is wrong. Which means that mine is right.
So here I am with my position. I'm not campaigning to make the behavior illegal. I'm not visiting pro-GLBTQILMNOP blogs explaining why they're wrong and need to shut up. I'm not writing my congressman or recommending deporting those who practice such things or ... I'm not doing anything to stop them. But my voice needs to be silenced by "tolerant" people who urge "inclusiveness" and "equality" by being intolerant, exclusive, and unequal. And I'm the problem.
Like I said, I'm not getting it.
24 comments:
There is a war going on. Man, under the leadership of Satan, is warring against God. It seems odd to me that the "tolerance" crowd, and the atheist crowd and the pro-let's-kill-and-dismember-the-defenseless-in-the-womb crowd, and the let's-kick-God-out-of-our-educational-institutions-so-we-can-indoctrinate-children-into-a-God-hating-worldview crowd, and the let's-make-sure-pornography-is-legal-and-abundant crowd, and a whole host of other crowds, will always be linked in arms with common purpose in the same trench.
If you had written on homosexuality back when Satan was attacking, say, nomianism, it would not have irritated the soldiers of Satan... then. But that battle has been lost in Western Civilization in a narrow sense, and Satan is advancing.
But in a larger view, you and I both know that the battle is not lost, and indeed cannot be lost. Therefore, all men need to repent of their sins, fear God, cry out for His mercy and seek His salvation.
I appreciate your saying what you believe. I happen to agree with you. Your standing on what the Bible says
This particular issue, this particular sin, has gained a great measure of acceptance. They don't want to take their foot off the gas now. They don't want to lose what they feel they've gained. Thus, any comment or argument that threatens those gains will draw a response that reflects that fear of loss.
Imagine your child if you gave him the opportunity to have his dessert, but then implied that he won't be getting it after all. He'd get pretty emotional about it. With this issue, we're dealing with the very same level of expectation by the proponents of the behavior in question. They believe they're on the cusp of full satisfaction and they do not want to lose now that they are so close. It's really a natural response.
Indeed, Dan, the war is not lost. But not too many ("Christians" included) are listening to "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
Thanks, Jeff.
Marshall, I get see the child's dessert analogy, but, like I said, I'm not working to cancel anyone's dessert (metaphorically). I'm simply saying, "Ummm, you might want to reevaluate that because the Bible says it's gonna be bad for you."
Natural response, yes, but not a rational one.
Wow, am I to believe that Christianity is linking up with secular humanism to pass anti-Biblical laws? Go figure.
at least one bigger fish isn't getin' it... or maybe that's just the problem, maybe we do get it!
@Dan, you take such a humungous leap, you see everything in black and white, your dualistic mind has boiled down the good news into ashes of moralistic edicts. Worse, the irony, that you can only adopt this fundamentalist tact in a post-enlightenment, rationalist, scientific realm (indeed, no ancient would ever make their arguments as such, only commonality would be you just "know" the "will of God" whilst "those people" are heretics. I feel sorry for you and how small, petty, vindictive and provincial your vision of God is. You really are no different than the Westboro Baptist church people or the people (another fundamentalist group from CA) who yelled at me at Phoenix gay pride parade with their "God Hates Fags" signs while I attempted to bring them a cold drink. Your whole mindset is predicated on exclusionary tribalism, something totally alien to Jesus gospel, and the way the early church put their faith into practice.
@Stan, people respond because they wish to speak out against the lies brandished against our LGBT brothers and sisters. Yes, by denying people rights (i.e., visitation, estate, financial, etc.) and declaring they are less than human. And in the previous story, Eich, gave money to a campaign (Prop 8) that floated insidious lies about LGBT children of Christ. Worse, it's the hypocrisy that you pluck a small number of verses (and you make atrocious assumptions about NT text, which by the best esteemed scholarship, there is debate on what exactly was being referred to, that it looked nothing like a modern day covenantal same sex union) while *choosing* to ignore many other verses (i.e., divorce, usury, tattoos, other proscriptions).
In 50+ years, Christians will look back aghast, same as was true today as we look back at the majority of American Christians during the Civil War who believed the Bible sanctioned slavery, the majority of American Christians that favored segregation (as recently as the 60s) and opposed interracial marriage (and too, used the Bible to justify), at how most Christians acted in this.
"Lies brandished against our LGBT brothers and sisters"
This presumes that the Scriptures offered and the history of the Church are all mistaken and they are indeed "brothers and sisters" in direct disagreement with the plain and simple reading of 1 Cor 6:9-10. No one is denying people rights of visitation, estate, financial, etc. because no one has protested "civil unions" which allow such rights.
Will people look back in 50 years aghast at what I believe? They already do. But those who do do not do so because of Scripture or because of the long view or because it makes sense. They do so because the Bible stands in many places in the face of popular culture and current morality and condemns it, and this makes people aghast. But if the Holy Spirit actually leads His people into the truth and if He has always done so, the fact that no one until you and yours has come to your conclusions will demonstrate that those who are "aghast" are listening to a different master.
Look, Naum, I have a commenting rule. "Let's keep it friendly." You have accused me of ignoring Scripture without any evidence of such and accused me of declaring people as less than human without my having done so nor even intended it. Despite my clear statements that these are not true, you persist in your unfounded accusations without any evidence or proof. Making false and unwarranted accusations against someone is not, by anyone's standards, "friendly". If the best you have is pop culture and false accusations, do it somewhere else. I am under no obligation to allow such nonsensical conversations here.
I wrote "lies" because the supporters of Prop 8 decided to focus their campaign primarily on children, stoking parents’ fears about gay people brainwashing their kids with pro-gay messages or, implicitly, turning their children gay. Prop 8 supporters zeroed in on the terrifying possibility that religious adoption agencies “may be forced to place children in same-sex marriages.” The campaign’s strategy was to debase gay families as deviant and unhealthy while insinuating that gay people are engaged in a full-scale campaign to convert children to their cause.
And @Dan, in his comment, equated LGBT brothers and sisters to baby killers, God haters, pornography mongers, spawn of Satan, etc.
Dan said there were people warring against God. They were not the same people, except that they are at war with God (which, by the way, is biblical language -- Rom 8:7; James 4:4). Anywhere that it is argued, "I don't really care what God has to say; I'm going to do what I think is right", it would be classified as "war with God". It might be by denying the existence of God or by promoting the murder of children in the womb or by removing God from the public square or by feeding people pornography. These are not the same things ... except that they remain as "I don't really care what God has to say; I'm going to do what I want." Only insofar as practicing homosexual behavior transgresses what God has to say is it "war with God." "Equating" is the wrong term.
As for Prop 8, the proposition said was titled the "California Marriage Protection Act" and the entire content of the text was "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." As it turns out, the GLBT side claimed it "changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry", which was not a right in California before the whole Prop 8 dustup.
As it turned out, gay people have brainwashed children with a pro-gay message and religious adoption agencies have been forced to place children in same-sex marriages which is why the Catholic adoption agencies were shutting down rather than go against their principles. And, as it turns out, "deviant" means "different from the traditional norm" ... which "gay marriage" definitely is (even according to the California court that voted to throw out the law while recognizing that one man and one woman is the traditional, longstanding definition of marriage). So ... exactly where was the lie?
Naum, I will respond to your first assertion to your previous comment:
"@Dan, you take such a humungous leap,"
So, scripture says this:
Rom 1:24-32
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
NIV
I interpret it to mean this:
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Continued:
Scripture also says this:
1 Cor 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
NIV
I interpret it to mean this:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I'm sorry, I don't see the "humungous leap".
I do detect a humongous leap however. To read these same passages and interpret them as: "God is all about Homosexual marriage and you are evil for saying that it is unbiblical.", well now, call me stupid, but that seems to me to be just a little more qualified as a "humongous leap".
(Also, it seems Paul--and evidently the Holy Spirit as well--also sins against you and homosexuals by equating them, as you say I did, with: the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers.) No?
@Dan, (1) Romans 1 not about homosexual behavior, (2) the word in 1 Cor 6 is ἀρσενοκοῖται (the other word used to denote "soft" or effeminate) -- and it likely meant pederasty or male prostitution, not necessarily same sex unions as in today's age
Seriously, you can pluck out verses to prove or disprove anything.
That doesn't make it truth.
Nor Christlike.
Naum,
Good to know that your source about Romans 1 is an unbiased source, beginning with, "'The bible says' is often the excuse employed by homophobic Christians who believe scripture requires a condemnation of homosexuality" because apparently the only way anyone (like every translator of Romans 1) could conclude that the text is a ban on homosexual behavior would be if they were psychotic homophobes.
Romans 1 starts with idolatry (Rom 1:22-25) and transitions to the consequences -- "degrading passions". Arguing that "degrading passions" refers to "religious rituals" is certainly novel even if it's not rational. Suggesting that "burned in their desire toward one another" is actually a reference to religious vervor makes no sense at all. I wonder why it is you assume Joel Watts knows better than any prior translator? John Gill lived before the Victorian era, and he says, "God left them to very dishonourable actions, sodomitical ones, both among the men and women." But I don't suppose Gill will work for you.
The word in 1 Cor 6 is arsenokoites, and it means homosexual behavior. (Malakos preceeds it and simply refers to softness, so "effeminate" is likely a reasonable translation ... and doesn't refer to homosexual behavior.) Every translator has always translated it this way. Gill, way back in 1746, understood it to mean "sodomites". But that won't matter to you, either, since the only way anyone can understand the Bible to mean what it says in every case on this topic is if they are homophobic.
@Stan, the word is ἀρσενοκοῖται (which you phonetically cast as "arsenokoites")
"Homosexual" is a *modern* translations for the Greeks had no word to denote homosexual "identity". Its translation to "homosexual" is less than 200 years old. ἀρσενοκοῖται is not an often used word, in the NT or in ancient texts but best language scholarship says it's sketchy and could be mapped to homosexual rape or pederasty. Basically, Homosexuality wasn't really a thing in Rome (not in the way it is today, same sex attraction, monogamous relationships, etc). There isn't really a Latin word they used that would translate to that. What was very important, was the role you took on during sex (active or passive). That was greatly focused on. But someone from our time living in theirs would be as confused about how sexuality is treated as someone from their time would be in ours. To imply that Paul is condemning something that he wasn't really aware of can be seen as stretch
True, "homosexual" is a modern translation. Would you prefer "sodomite"? Since "homosexual identity" only means something today and never did before, of course the word doesn't refer to "homosexual identity". Identifying someone as "homosexual" is as meaningful as identifying someone as "lustful" or as a kleptomaniac or ... as a sinner. It refers to a propensity that the person can choose to indulge or not. This is why the New American Standard Bible translates it as "homosexuals" (prior to the advent of "homosexual" as a "sexual orientation") and the ESV (newest literal translation) translates it "men who practice homosexuality", recognizing it not as an identity, but a practice. But since the Greeks did have words for rape or pederasty, if Paul intended those terms, he could have used them. Instead, he chose (coined?) a word that is the Greek equivalent of Lev 18:22. Now isn't that interesting? In fact, I find support for this notion in a variety of places including the GLBTQ Encyclopedia.
So every translation says that it is homosexual sex, but you are quite certain that every time any translator has translated it, they got it wrong. Now, to me that sounds narrow-minded, prejudiced, and far-fetched, but that's okay. I'm sure someone most interested in denying that this biblical passage says what every translator has always translated it as like your link to Gay Christian 101 would be the best source on this, right? Come on, Naum, even you would have to admit that it would not be in the personal interest of someone who wants to justify their own behavior to translate this in the way it has always been translated.
I don't know the extent of your theological education, but if you understand anything about languages, you know there isn't a simple one-to-one mapping of words. It's a difficult chore to translate because words often have a range of meaning. And especially tricky considering ancient text which nobody is alive to confirm or deny. The more I immerse in reading the NT in its original language, the more I recognize how nuanced phrasing can be, and there is debate among even the most regarded scholars (no matter the theological inclination).
Why did Paul make up a word or use a term that did not seemingly exist until then when there were terms already available -- κίναιδος or παιδεραστής?
And you're right, tradition has most translations as "homosexual". But that doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. KJV had a lot of mistranslations later shown by going back to early Greek texts and/or discoveries over the past 100-150 years.
Here's some more scholarship on the linguistics.
It doesn't take a theological education to understand the problem of mapping words from one language to another. I get it. What is astounding (to me) is what appears (to me) to be the level of arrogance required to say, "Every single translator thus far has gotten it wrong and the Holy Spirit has failed to solve that problem."
Plucking verses not Christlike? Hmmmmm. I've contended all along that, though we both say that we belong to a religion of the same name, we do not in fact belong to the same religion... and I'm OK with that, though I think it confuses many.
But to counter your claim, I'm afraid I'm going to have to be un-your-Christ-like, and pluck some more verses.
Matt 4:4
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"
NASU
When one reads the gospels, "It is written" is the very second thing the reader will encounter.
Here's another one that ought to give pause to those who reject 1900 years of teaching to embrace a brand spanking new and radical idea:
Matt 13:11-17
"To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 "In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
'YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
15 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'
You see I am in a quandary here Naum. One the one hand I have scripture. And on the other I have you and a liberal web-site that says that what is written is not really what is written, or, IOW, "did God really say"? Hmmmmmm, which should I choose. The Christianity that appeals to what scripture says, or the Christianity that appeals to a link on the intertubes. Hmmmm, quandary, quandary, quandary.
Am I the one who, though I have ears I cannot hear? Perhaps I am. But I think I'll take my chances with the historical Church's teaching. In any case, I'll contend again, as Jesus certainly implied here, that you and I do not worship the same Jesus, nor do we belong to the same religion. That seems to bother you a great deal because you keep coming by here, not to suggest that we repent and get saved, but to insist that we embrace the sanctioning of one man sticking his penus in another man's rectum and calling it love and marriage.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to ever do that. But in the mean time you ought to at least agree, and it would seem to me that logic would also dictate, that at least one of us is lost. No?
Naum "Seriously, you can pluck out verses to prove or disprove anything."
So, then, we're not supposed to use the Bible to prove or disprove anything? How, in all the years of Stan's writing can you accuse him of "plucking"? He has been adamant about context. Seeing as he has pointed as SEVERAL paragraphs from different areas, I can't really see that as plucking. Either we use the Bible to define right and wrong, or its a worthless stack of mythology. Seems odd to keep saying that Stan is wrong about Scripture when you can't seem to use Scripture to say he's wrong. Every thing you say is from extra-biblical sources (reminds me of another frequent commentor). If the Bible can be trusted as a source for truth, then stick to the Bible. Yes, sometimes Stan uses other sources, but he begins with Scripture, and typically ends with it too. In two separate posts, I don't think I've seen Naum use a single Biblical reference to back up a statement. It is always anecdotal evidence or someone else that has said something. If you want to counter Stan and have him agree, try using Scripture, because he (and most of those that follow him) will not be persuaded by anything short of Scripture. "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
Everybody tends to think that *their* version of "being blblical" is *the* true version of "being biblical".
According to Augustine, no matter what interpretation of scripture you arrive at, no matter how clear you think the Bible is being or how faithful you think you are being to the words on the page, if your interpretation (and therefore way of life) doesn’t adhere to the greatest commandment – **love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself** – then your interpretation of scripture is wrong.
PERIOD.
If I were to find myself linked arm and arm with those who are in favor of this, which is just the natural progression from killing babies in the womb, it would seem to me that love would demand that I reconsider my position. Traditional christianity has opposed redefining marriage, and it has opposed the crushing and dismembering of babies, and it opposes this too... because love demands opposing murder.
We would agree, Naum, that we need to adhere to the Great Commandment (and its second -- "love your neighbor as you love yourself"), but it still begs the question as to what the definition of love is. Jesus said, "If you love Me you will keep my commandments", so obedience to God would be part of the definition of loving God. It would follow, then, that denying God the obedience He demands would not fall in the category of adhering to the Great Commandment.
And just to point out, everybody tends to think that their version is true (actually about anything, because why would anyone knowingly hold to what they believe to be false?), but it's not as if we believe in a vacuum. And our command is to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 1:3).
Post a Comment