Chris Hohnholz, at the Fundamentalist blog Defending Contending, says that the reason Americans, especially young Americans, are embracing the radical homosexual agenda is because they haven’t been really told what the Bible says about the matter.
Maybe I am overstating the obvious here, but the Christian church has lost a lot of ground with regards to homosexuality. I’m not talking about on the legislative or protest front, I’m talking about in our preaching and teaching of the gospel. We are losing and the culture is looking at us as old, fuddy-duddies who simply haven’t got a clue…
…Now, all one has to do is peruse social media and blogging sites to see the prevailing attitude among our culture. Young people have no clue what the Bible says about homosexuality. And what little they think they know is grossly wrenched out of context. But the sad truth is that many Christians know less about this issue, biblically speaking, than those whose voices are being the agent of change in our culture. We simply don’t know how to defend the faith, and we look like fools when we try. So the culture throws the out of context verses at us, along with emotionally charged rhetoric, and we either respond with half thought answers, or we fold under the pressure. The result is that immorality grows unabated and the church loses more influence everyday.
So how do we address this? Well, it certainly isn’t going to be through protests, legislation and lawsuits. Just watch the evening news to see how well that battle is going. What’s worse, because there is no gospel centeredness in such efforts, all we appear to be are hate mongering jerks who want everyone to do things our way.
I believe that we as a church must first start by educating ourselves in the scriptures. And this means doing a lot of hermeneutical homework. We have to understand the passages of scripture, and their contexts, with regard to homosexuality. We also have to understand the passages the world loves to use to point out the so called hypocrisy in what we obey (such as the prohibitions to the Jews to wearing blended fabrics or eating shellfish). We have to understand for ourselves the differences between moral and civil laws and know what it is Christ really said about marriage. If we don’t take the time to do this individually, we will be ill prepared for any conversation that comes up…
…We have lost so much ground because, as a church, we have not invested the time to learn the right answers. We have lashed out angrily, we have given weak answers that toppled with a mere shove, or we have cowered into our philosophical corners and let the issue march right by…
Hohnholz believes that Christians need to be better educated about Bible hermeneutics and using the Christian Scriptures in context. Simply put, Hohnholz believes the problem is a lack of good apologetical skills. (on the website he recommends a video by the Apologetics god, Reformed Baptist, James White.)
Is the problem really a lack of education? Will America repent of her embracing of the radical homosexual agenda if Christians only learn how to argue and debate better?
Of course not. Perhaps this approach will work when debating liberal Christians who have done their best to reinterpret, explain away, or rewrite what the Bible says about homosexuality. Perhaps this approach will work with angry atheists who show their lack of theological and hermenuetical understanding when they point to Christian interpretive contradictions.
However, Hohnholz’s approach won’t work with people like me, a former Evangelical trained pastor of 25 years. I spent 25 years studying the Christian Bible and I know it inside and out. I understand the argument that Hohnholz is making about hermeneutics, about the difference between moral and civil law. While I am quite confident that I could poke holes in Hohnholz’s moral vs. civil law distinction (is he suggesting some of God’s laws are NOT moral?) I readily grant that his view is widely held among Calvinistic and Reformed Christians.
You see I agree with Hohnholz about what the Bible teaches on the matter of homosexuality. I think Hohnholz’s understanding of homosexuality accurately reflects what the Christian Bible teaches. In other words, Hohnholz is right. The Bible condemns homosexuality. It is a sin, a mark of a reprobate. Hohnholz believes what Christians everywhere believed for over 1900 years.
In a recent Letter to the Editor of the Defiance Crescent News I wrote:
Cal Thomas is right about one thing. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality. The Bible is not ambiguous about homosexuality. It is a sinful behaviour that is the mark of a reprobate heart. If the Bible is taken literally, it is clear that no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God.
And this is the very reason the Bible should not be used as a legal standard in the United States. Christians are free to live according to the dictates of the Bible, however, in a secular state, a particular religion’s moral code of conduct has no business being codified into law.
There are many moral strictures in the Bible that many moderns find abhorrent. The Bible has been used in the past to justify all kinds of vile behavior. Not too many years ago segregationists routinely quoted the Bible to justify their dehumanizing of the African-American race. We matured as a Nation and realized the Bible was wrong about slavery and the so-called inferior races.
In the same manner, the Bible is wrong about homosexuality. In fact, the Bible is wrong about many sexual matters. At best, the Bible is a religious text that promotes sexual repression and control. It is is book that is currently being used by single, white, Catholic men to deny women birth control and control of their own bodies. Christians who willingly submit to such anachronistic laws are free to do so, but Christian sects have no right to force, through the legal process, others to live by their moral code.
We say we are a Nation that believes in privacy but it seems that many Christians only support a right to privacy when what is being done in private lines up with their moral code. Simply put, Christians need to mind their own business when it comes to the sexual proclivities of others. What goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults is nobody’s business. Again, Christians are free to live according to their interpretation of the moral code of the Bible, but in a secular state they have no right to insist, through legal means, that others do so.
Homosexuals should have the same civil rights as any other American. Since marriage is a legal act licensed by the state, matters of religion have no place in the process. Two men, two women, or a man or woman should have the same freedom to marry. There is no civil reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry.
Christians need to realize that the United States is not a Christian nation. It never has been. Christianity does not deserve special status and certainly the Bible should have no weight when it comes to enacting law.
Our legal system should reflect what is best for the American people. How best to live as a pluralistic people in a secular state. Allowing homosexuals to marry and have the same civil rights as heterosexuals is absolutely essential as we mature as a nation.
Here is what I am saying…Hohnholz is right about the Bible and how Christians should present the Bible teaching on homosexuality. He is quite right to suggest that most Christians are woefully lacking when it comes to the skills necessary to adequately defend what the Bible says about homosexuality.
Americans should be told that the Christian God condemns homosexuality, along with fornication and adultery. They should be told that fornicators, adulterers and homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. They should be told that hell awaits ALL homosexuals and that the only remedy for the homosexual is to repent, embrace salvation in Jesus Christ, and stop being a homosexual. There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.
Americans need to be told bluntly exactly how much God hates their sin, how much God hates every person who is his enemy. (and all unregenerate people are God’s enemy. all unregenerate people have Satan as their father) Americans need to hear the complete, unvarnished truth about what the Christian Bible really teaches. I am for FULL disclosure.
Maybe then, finally, the American people will know WHY they should reject Christianity and its abhorrent Bible. Maybe then they will see the danger of attempts to erode the wall of separation between church and state. Maybe then they will stop voting for right wing Republican or God loving, flag waving Tea Party members who, if they had their way, would have homosexuals incarcerated or executed. (after all they only believe this because it IS what the Bible teaches)
Once Christianity and its Bible is completely exposed for all to see, maybe then we can put this prehistoric age behind us, and maybe then every citizen in America will have the same civil rights, regardless of who they love or who they have sex with.
So Hohnholz is right and I hope him being right will be the death of the Christianity he wants everyone to embrace.
HA! Brilliant and worthy of a loud, standing applause! Bravo!
(My favorite line of Hohnholz’s is “…all we appear to be are hate mongering jerks who want everyone to do things our way”). Well, yeah.
Bruce, that letter is so full of win it’s not even funny.
As far as I know, and I certainly defer to your superior wisdom on the Bible, Bruce, the Bible everywhere treats homosexuality as depravity. It is inconsistent with such a view for gay people to be advocating marriage, i.e., recognition as a “till-death-do-us-part” proposition. Anyone who had a heart would recognize this problem with the Bible–but authoritarians need their text to be flawless, so they backwardsly construe anything homosexual as immoral. The problem here is very simply bibliolatry–such Christians do not worship ANY god, they worship a text, and more sadly, a particularly indefensible interpretation of that text.
What makes one a homosexual? The same thing that makes one an adulterer or a fornicator. It is the sexual act, the unnatural act of sodomy that makes one a homosexual. A person could have sexual feelings for the same sex but these feelings are not what make a person a sinner. This is one way to look at it.
Another way is this. The Bible says, as a man thinks in his heart so is he. Sin begins with a thought rather than an action. Jesus appealed to this view when said if a man looks at a woman with lust he has committed adultery with her in his heart. So the thought, the look, the desire itself is sin.
Of course these views have all kinds of problems but my only concern is that Christians honestly admit what the Bible says. Attempts to redefine, explain away, or reinterpret the offending texts lack intellectual credibility. (and I have read more than a few of the relevant books on the matter) Attempts to dismiss what the Bible says by suggesting it is really talking about promiscuous homosexual sex or temple prostitution are just attempts to make the harsh teachings of the Bible palatable to moderns.
I view attempts to paint Jesus as a homosexual, Jonathan and David as lovers, etc the same way. We rightly ridicule right-wing Christians when they try to rewrite history to make America into a Christian nation yet we ignore the same rewriting of history when it is done by liberal Christians.
Christianity is a dead religion. Its texts are rooted in antiquity written in dead languages. So, I ask myself, what new historical or textual evidence has appeared that would cause us to change the Christian church’s 1900 year position on homosexuality? None. What has changed in our personal view of homosexuals themselves and now the harsh, homosexuals deserve capital punishment, teachings of the Bible make many kind, thoughtful Christians uncomfortable so they try to make the square peg fit in the round hole.
They are to be commended for be being people than the Bible commands them to be. However, trying to hang on to the Bible only delays the social progress of our culture.
I think all Christians practice bibliolatry to some degree or another. Christianity is a text-based religion. Remove the Bible from the equation and there is no such thing as Christianity. While the Fundamentalist may be more strident in his appeal to the Bible even liberals appeal to the Bible at some point. How can they not? This is exactly what they do when they defend their pro-homosexual view from their reinterpretation of the Biblical text.
We can glean many good things from the teachings of Jesus, the Psalms and Proverbs. However, Western Christianity is the Christianity of Paul, not Jesus and Paul’s writings, along with much of the OT law is abhorrent and harmful to a progressive modern society. These teachings MUST be rejected BUT this puts the Christian in a bind because it makes it appear as if he is picking and choosing what to believe. I have no problem with this approach but they need to be honest about it. (and of course NO Christian really believes and practices ALL of the Bible)
The Bible, when it comes to matters of sex, is wrong and as a culture we need to stop letting the Bible frame our discussions about morality and sexuality. If Christians want to live by the Bible standard that’s fine but we are a secular state and the state has no business regulating what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom. The state has a vested interest in establishing the age of consent and marriage contracts but outside of that they need to keep their nose out of the sexual affairs of its citizens.
We are making progress in these matters. Key to this progress is the marginalizing of the Bible and those who want to use the Bible to regulate what consenting adults do.
I hope this explains my view on this matter.
Great reply Bruce. I think you demonstrate perfectly how any perceived progression of Christianity is actually a progression of the culture. Though I much prefer the Christians willing to progress with culture than the fundamentalist variety
As for the article. I definitely agree that more bible education is the answer, because the bible is such a hideously stupid bunch of texts. It seriously cringe when I hear people talking about “searching the scriptures” and etc. Taking a bunch of insane desert scribblings so seriously just depresses me, and I guess that is because I used to do the very same thing, and that is indeed depressing. So few of us get out, and the ones of us that do are just lucky I’m afraid.
Also I must add that James White should not be taken seriously. I have a general rule that anyone who disables comments on their youtube videos is absolutely not worth engaging in any way. If the only way you can talk is when no one else can say anything, what you are saying isn’t worth squat.
Anyways, please keep on keepin on Bruce. Your posts are always insightful and encouraging.
-JKX
It is interesting that most of the “discernment” ministries don’t allow comments. Of course, I know why. They think they have THE TRUTH, no need for discussion. Believe it or fry.
Thanks for this thoughtful note, as always. Yeah, Paul is surely the greatest enigma in Christendom, even more than Jesus. Who is this guy, and what’s with the attitude?!
I honestly don’t know how to take the Bible. Seen as myth, it speaks volumes to the human condition and is a very useful piece for thinking through social and ethical issues. And many people I greatly, greatly admire such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Thomas Merton lived by it, and some of the people I respect most in the world are devout Christians whom I dearly love and just grieve to hurt with words of rejection. I’m sure you know all about that as well. But I agree with you, we need to move on, separate the wheat from the chaff (here I am, using Biblical allusions again).
It’s a good question to consider whether or not all Christians are bibliolaters. I think not. I think there are Christians of, for example, the Anglican tradition, who view their primary religious experience as rooted in tradition and ritual, NOT the text of the Bible. Of course the tradition is rooted in the text, but I think they tend to be open to re-evaluation of their values as times change. There IS value in tradition, there IS value in recognizing our bonds, obligations to, and the blessings of those who went before us. But I think it’s true that there must always necessarily be some duplicity.
I agree about tradition. My only counterpoint is that ultimately there must be some appeal to Scripture. Where does the story of Jesus and salvation come from? Tradition is not enough and ultimately there must be some appeal to the Bible. Christianity, at the foundational level, is a text-based religion. Remove the Bible and it all crumbles. Even in the Anglican Church, and we attended one on and off for a year or so, has as part of their ritual where they lift up the Bible and then give the gospel reading.
So I suppose it is a matter of degree. I tend to focus on Evangelicalism because it is the dominant religion in America. They dominate the social and political process with their Bible thumping views on homosexuality, abortion, prayer, the Ten Commandments, etc. Now they are expanding their rhetoric into matters like immigration, economics,public education, etc. We dare not ignore them.
The Episcopal church finds it’s base for faith and spiritual authority as part of like a three legged stool, Scripture, tradition, and human reason/experience.
I think all three need to inform our faith. It can be difficult to come to balance. I
Bruce, I honestly find it difficult to understand what your purpose is here. You claim to be an atheist, and I assume consider the Bible a fantasy, yet you try to give it validity when it comes to Homosexuality. If the bible is bunk, then who cares what it says?
I am a christian, but I have my questions about what a 2000 year old document, written in an alien culture has to say to us today. I mean much of the Bible relates to things such as idolotry and temple prostitution which are not praticed today. When is the last time you have bought food sacrificed to idols at your local McD’s or had to think about it,
At any rate. I don’t think the Bible has one thing to say about an exclusive, commited, non-physical gay relationship. I would gladly choose gays for neighbors over anyone assaults me with noise, or is invloved with criminal activity.
Of course if you are looking to discredit Christianity by using the gay issue, well we discredit ourselves enough by forgetting only God gets to judge and Jesus died for everyone, even Gays
We live in a action dominated By Christianity. There are political and religious powers bent on making the United States a theocracy and the Bible the law of the land. Look at how much time this year has been taken up debating issues like abortion and birth control. Who is it that is driving these debates and trying to push back the progress women have made over the past 60 years? Christians.
So my purpose is to push back. my purpose is to shine the light on the book Christians appeal to for their beliefs, both political and religious. Most of Americans believe the Bible is God’s word. How else do we disabuse them of this fiction other than by exposing what the Bible actually says?
I am the opinion that when a person says I am a Christian that ought to mean something. Since Christinity is intricately connected to the Bible, Christians should take seriously what it says, all of it. Your Pick and Choose approach to thr Bible, which most Christians practice these days, turns Christianity into nothing more than a religious buffet. As the Bible says, every man doing what is right in my own eyes.
You reject what I wrote about what the Bible teaches on homosexuality but then turn right around and tell me that Jesus died for everyone and only God has a right to judge. Both of us appeal to the same book. How do we determine who is right?
If you haven’t read my recent post on judging I encourage you to do so.
http://brucegerencser.net/2012/06/21/the-bible-says-thou-shalt-not-judge/
I should add lest it is lost on you that I reject in totality what the Bible teaches about sexuality, regardless of who is screwing who. What consenting adults do is none of our business even if they are not monogamous. Even in a marriage, the matter of monogamy is determined by the contract The married people have with each other. Some couples want monogamy and some don’t. It is not our business to tell them what they can and can not do. Bible believing Christians believe they have a solemn, God given responsibility to legislate and regulate the sexual proclivities of others.
Do you know of any book that lays out exactly what the NT says of ethics? We can read Matthew 5-7 and 1 Cor 13, but what exactly does the NT claim comprehensivley in terms of how to live? Is it consistent? And how do its claims align with our natural sense of what is right and wrong? Some things are necessarily tied to Christianity, e.g., “Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name,” i.e., worship of the deity, etc. I’m not aware of any honestly systematic attempt at tallying its injunctions, but I’d love to see such.
There are a lot of books written but few take a comprehensive approach. Years ago, theonomist, Christian Reconstructionist Rousas Rushdoony wrote a multi-volume work titled Institutes of Biblical Law. http://www.amazon.com/Institutes-Biblical-Rousas-John-Rushdoony/dp/0875524109/ I owned and read this set of books years ago. Agree or disagree, Rushdoony sowed how God’s law (all of it) is still applicable today. 9of course the caveat was that it needed to be “rightly” interpreted)
Are you conflating a fundamentalist way of viewing and interpreting Scripture, though, with the essence of Christianity? It is possible to be Christian, take Scripture seriously, and still realize that not all of it’s teaching are equally applicable, or to be best interpreted literally. Cultural context is important. This is not the same thing to me as arbitrarily picking and choosing, and automatically discarding anything that we don’t want to hear or is unpopular.
Bruce, people and cultures can completely reject the Bible out of hand, and still be homophobic and repressive toward women. This has been true since the dawn of civilization. On the other hand, there have been Christian people in the forefront of fighting for women’s rights, and opposing things like the slave trade, driven by their faith in Jesus Christ.
Also, I want to share that I consider myself to be feminist, but am also very pro-life. I would feel the same way if I were a convinced atheist. I think that our culture should move toward a consistent ethic of life, opposing the death penalty, and promoting world peace, as well as peace in the womb, speaking out against child abuse and domestic violence.
The issue to me with these people who carry signs that say, “We hate fags, ” is not their faith in the gospel, but their actual lack of the love of Christ in their lives. It is a sorrow, and a shame to the church.
Rebecca.
Grace, Grace, Grace.
Call it anything you want, explain it any way you want…it is still picking and choosing. You have never been able to give me the concrete hermeneutics you use to determine what to believe and what not to believe. Like all other Christians, including the Fundamentalists, you believe the verses that fit your view of the world and ignore, reject, reinterpret, or explain away the verses that don’t.
The verses about homosexuality are not allegorical, poetical, or metaphorical. They mean what they say. You can not explain these verses any other way. Skip, hop, jump up and down, cover your eyes, they still mean what they say. Put a hundred non-Christians in a room and ask them to read these verses and I guarantee you that the vast majority of them would come to the same conclusion that I have in this post. The root problem is that you are uncomfortable with what the Bible says so you reject it.
You have convinced yourself that Christians have always been crusaders for morality and social good. A few have, but even then they often come late to the party. Who is it that enslaved people? Who is it that treated women as property? God fearing Christians who used the Bible to justify their behavior. (and the Bible DOES support their views)
On this blog I generally talk about America. In America, the Christian America, who is driving the anti-homosexual debate? Atheists? Nope. Christians.
Who are you to judge the people carrying the signs? Using your logic, and pick and choose mentality, are the Phelp’s not free to choose what verses in the Bible THEY believe? They have Scriptural warrant for what they do just like you do. How do we judge between the two? The Phelp’s signs seem to accurately reflect God’s view of homosexuals so why would you have a problem with their signs?
The Phelp’s would say it is YOU that shows a lack of love, a lack of love for Jesus. If you loved Jesus you would be willing to tell people the hard truths. They would consider you the one shaming the church.
The neat thing about the Bible is that people can make it say most anything. Lost in this is the fact that words have meaning and the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality.
You speak of the essence of Christianity as if there is any such thing. You know there is not. 2000 years, thousands of denominations, constant internecine warfare, there is no essence of anything, except maybe the essence of a bankrupt religion.
Again, Grace, three years later. I haven’t changed.
Bruce, I know we have so often discussed this issue together. Once I felt as you. I was certain that the Scripture was clear concerning homosexuality. And, then I began to study this issue in great depth, and so became convinced otherwise.
I was never homophobic. Among my concerns was that the redefinition of marriage could do great harm in our culture, and lead to a further instability to the family. I was worried that affirming gay marriage could open a pandora’s box, if you will. I think this is still possible, but worth the risk.
What helped to impact my thinking was interaction with gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who truly loved God, and were committed to Jesus Christ, and in loving and committed relationships. Obviously these folks were not those “who did not wish to retain God in their knowledge,”and who simply burned with lust, and were doing what was unnatural for them.
After conversation and study, I became convinced that Paul did not address, and was not speaking of what we know today as innate sexual orientation. I also think it very likely that some of the terms generically translated as homosexual offenders in the NT. may actually reference the practice of pedastry, a form of boy child prostitution, widely practiced in Greco-Roman culture.
You may disagree, and I know that you do. That’s ok, but there are many informed Christian people, including noted Biblical scholars who have addressed this issue in depth who see things differently, Is it fair, my friend, to conclude that all these folks simply have a pick and choose mentality, and could care less about what Scripture is actually saying at all? It is what a fundamentalist would conclude though, definitely.
Also, I want to add, because there is disagreement concerning some issues of Biblical interpretation, does it necessarily follow that now logically all issues are open to differences of interpretation?
Bruce, can any fair minded person look at the Scripture and conclude that it is ambiguous concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Could a fair, and open minded person conclude that Jesus is presented the New Testament simply as nothing more than a mere man, or a great teacher?
There is certainly an essence of Christianity.
It is the love of God expressed in Jesus Christ.
Jesus is Lord.
If people do not believe this, Bruce, they are not Christians. This is true whether they happen to be sitting in a church pew every Sunday , or carrying signs in the streets.
Love,
Rebecca.
Doesn’t take you long to fall back into your preachy, passive-aggressive ways does it?
The only criteria for what Paul meant is what the text says. Knowing Gay people is immaterial. Here is what I think, you met some gay Christians, felt guilty over your view, and changed your view so you wouldn’t feel guilty. The revisionist view you have is a stretch to say the least and a normal reading of the text does not support this view. Where is the historical warrant for this view?
It seems you only use the three legged stool when it suits you. You have abandoned it on this issue.
Some scholars think Jesus from the dead spiritually and not physically. Seems fair.
Look at how contradictory you are. You want to appeal to history on the homosexual issue and suggest those who don’t are reading the text like a fundamentalist. Then you turn right around and appeal to the very same text to prove Jesus resurrected from the dead and is God.
Sorry but you can’t pick and choose what is open to interpretation. Your view makes it impossible to come to any concrete conclusion because, “good people differ.”
Fred Phelps believes Jesus is Lord.
I am not interested Grace in “love” anything. You were one of the few people banned from commenting on my blog. You just up and decided to start commenting again. So be it, but let me be clear, I am not interested in being friends and I sure as hell am not going to let you turn the comments into a pulpit.
It was not quilt, but like a door opened to consider the issue in a different way. Many Christians do not really know gay people who are believers and open about it. In some churches, the issue is not freely discussed and explored.
Bruce, I will respect your wishes in this. I feel so strongly about many of these issues, but do not mean to be passive-aggressive at all, or just “preachy.”
If you tell me, if I seem out of line, I will back off, and respect your wishes. This is your blog. And, I will hang in with the discussion and dialogue here as long as you and your readers are open and willing for that. I really meant it when I wrote about inclusion and hanging in with each other.
It hurts to be banned and excluded, Bruce. What does it accomplish, but to shut down honest dialogue, sharing feelings, and trying to understand and work through our differences?
Sorry Grace, I am not going to play this game with you. Played it too any times before. (as other blog owners have)
I still attend church (Methodist). At this point in my faith evolution (or devolution?), I pick and choose which parts of the bible are fundamental to my faith. I simply reject the homosexual is a sin parts and I’m quite comfortable with that. Actually, I reject most of the old testament, revelation, and gospel of john. But that’s just me, at this point in time.
I am fine with this approach as long as people own up to it and not try to cover it up with intellectually bankrupt arguments or reinterpretations of the text. Rarely will a Christian be honest about their unwillingness to embrace certain verses. Usually they try to cover it up with verbiage.
Of course, as you know, no Christian actually believes and practices all of the Bible. I didn’t and I didn’t know anyone who did.
I would say that far less than one percent of Americans practice even the deep fundamentals of a cursory read of the gospels. It would entail a rejoicing vow of poverty and a life of limitless loving service, a burning, rejoicing, loving life. May we all live that way, but I suspect as many atheists/agnostics approximate it as do Christians.
I think you are right. Towards the end of my ministry years I came to see that the church would be better served with less preaching and more application. I thought, we could spend the next 20 years just figuring how to best live out the Sermon on the Mount. Instead it was one sermon, go home, another sermon, go home and then do it all over again next week. There was never time for truly contemplating and applying what the Bible said.
I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality. I still do not condone people being rude to people who aren’t bothering them, no matter what their orientation. I guess I have to admit I choose which parts of the Bible to honor. I choose to love my neighbor, rather than to go out of my way to publicly offend him. I choose the cause of peace over killing everything in sight.
I have no problem with your view as long as the what the Bible teaches isn’t used to make public policy or law. This is where the problem lies in America. Christians want a Christian nation, complete with the Bible as the law, prayer in school, creationism taught in the science class, the ten commandments on courthouse walls, etc. And this is only the beginning. If they win on these things there is a horror show that awaits us. There is no record in history for a theocracy being good for a nation. It always results in a loss of freedom and often results in bloodshed and death.
With all respect I don’t see how you can say you believe what the Bible says about homosexuality, since in your writing on this blog you show a heart of considerable compassion and I can’t imagine you condoning the death penalty for a homosexual act. Who could “believe” that? I think the Bible is all wrong about homosexuality, because it asserts that it’s a form of extreme mental/spiritual depravity, so why would these depraved people want to live ordinary lives of monogamy with someone they love? What’s love got to do with it at all!? It doesn’t make sense to me for deprativity to be coupled with the desire for a socially-stable public and binding state of life-long commitment. The scriptural problem is that that kind of relationship existed neither in ancient Israel nor ancient Greece or Rome, so it simply wasn’t countenanced in scripture. Paul’s argument in Romans 1 strikes me as ridiculous–you refuse to see God in the starry sky and so you start the long sexual decline into homosexuality. There have been thousands of non-Christian societies that didn’t endorse homosexuality, his claim is demonstrably false, forget about the twelve other ways it’s absurd. I really feel that inerrancy is at the root of so many contemporary problems–it is utterly indefensible. Endorsing such a view is simply bibliolatry. My guess is your faith is something more rooted in your own honest experience.
Rand, you’ve commented here before, but I have to wonder if you’re actually reading any of the posts or if you’re just skimming the subject lines, because your comment here makes no sense.
Bruce doesn’t believe homosexuality is wrong; he believes that the Bible says it’s wrong. These are two very different things.
Now I know you couldn’t have read the entire post, and you obviously have no grasp of the blog, either. Bruce is an atheist. His whole point in this post is to show that the Bible is a deeply flawed, archaic, potentially dangerous (especially when applied to public policy) text that we would all be better off throwing away completely.
You know, if you’re going to take the time to comment on a blog, and so demand the time and attention of its readers and its creator, it would be better if you actually read it yourself first.
I think you misread his comment. I know I did. At first I thought he was taking to me but heviswctually responding to another commenter who said she believes what the bible says about homosexuality.
Whoops! Too bad he didn’t use “reply.” Now I feel like a schmuck. ^_^;;
Oh, he did use “reply.” BIG SCHMUCK, I AM. I didn’t follow the lines properly.
I’m sorry, Rand! I thought you were being dense, but it was I that was acting like a neutron star.
Pingback: I DISCOVERED GAY MARRIAGE LOVE | True Marriage vs Gay View
I’m sorry to hear this, Bruce. Would you like me to stop commenting then? It’s your blog, and your call. Let me know by e-mail if you like.
Rebecca.
Your comments annoy me like just like they always have. Do you know how many times you have left this very same comment on a blog of mine?
Do what you want Grace, Becky, Rebecca, GraceOne,SandyRome. I am not going to stop you from commenting.
Bruce, what I can struggle with is that you seem extremely changeable to me.
. Sometimes it seems that you really do want to talk, engage, and are not annoyed at all, even inviting comment. I find many of your posts to be spot on, and have benefited from your insights, and have enjoyed the discussion, with others here as well. You are a born preacher and teacher.
Heck, a lot of time your posts seem specifically addressed to people in the church, and you’re looking for an opinion, a response.
Other times, well, sure we disagree, and I share my perspective. I can feel strongly, just like you.
But, it’s not my intent to be disrespectful, or hurtful. We just see things differently. I know I’ve said this before, too.
I do think you’re pretty hard on the conservative evangelicals. I mean there’s some really positive things to be said as well. Sometimes I think it’s a question of the glass being half full or half empty, a matter of perspective. I”m not talking about serious abuse or manipulation here, of course. That’s another matter.
That being said, I will comment less frequently. To explain the confusion about my names. My name is Rebecca, nicknamed, Becky. When I first started blogging years ago, I used the handle Grace, so that’s on one account,and Sandy, is on another. It can depend on the computer I’m using at at the time. But, of course, they’re all the same person, not to cause confusion.
Are you asking about my personal approach to you and your comments? My view has not changed. Out of all the various Christian theologies, I find yours the most intellectually dishonest and I am unable to have a meaningful discussion with you and others like you. I live in a world where words matter and there is such a thing as facts. You seem to turn most everything into mush, topped with subjective cream. I have little to no tolerance for this kind of thinking. I thought this three years ago and I still think it now.
Here is the only difference. I have decided you are free to comment. I do not have the wherewithal to butt heads with you all the time. I will respond when I want and ignore you the rest of the time. I know that I am not alone in my view of your comments. (and this is no judgment of you since all I know about you is your comments) You have run into to similar problems on other blogs.
I am doing my best to not keep anyone from commenting. Perhaps others can interact with you in a meaningful way.
General rule of thumb, on the internet you should use the same moniker, especially if you are frequenting blogs that have connection with other blogs. This eliminates any chance of being considered a troll or trying to hide your identity.
This sounds fair, and like a good plan. I will comment less, and you respond only when you feel prudent. If we are starting to get too frustrated with each other, it is good to back away for awhile. I’m glad that people are not being banned, and are being given a chance to comment.
Also, Bruce, I do want to explain that I still do consider myself “evangelical.” But, the problem is in the understanding and definition of this term. A salty, kind of crazy Anglican priest from the United Kingdom advised me once to not refer to myself in these terms. It appeared to me in his country that being evangelical was the equivalent of fundamentalist.
And, unfortunately, I think it often appears to be the same here as well. When, I say “evangelical,” I’m thinking creedally orthodox, and caring about sharing the “good news.” Other folks have ideas running the gamut from Ken Ham to Jerry Falwell.
Partly, it does seem relative and a question of semantics to me. What I have noticed through the years is that in sharing with conservative evangelicals, they tend to think I am more progressive. But, when I’m with the real deal, progressive Christian brothers and sisters, they can find me pretty darn evangelical and more conservative.
As far as I’m concerned then, I can just be a bog standard follower of Jesus Christ, merely Christian.
I’m more than ok with that.
Pax.
Rebecca.
This maybe a little off the topic, but how do you know others share your view of Grace’s comments? Is there a way to track “trolls” , for lack of a better word if you are a blogger?
I frequent some of the same blogs she does and I am personal friends with several of the bloggers. We “talk.”
I am not hard to get along with, but when it comes to Grace/Becky/Rebecca/GraceOne I have been unable to make it work. I have no doubt we would get along famously if we lived in the same town but we don’t…and the internet is not always the best medium for human interaction.
Why is it that the Christians are all worked up about homosexuality but not about shrimp or women wearing pants or people working on the Sabbath? They should be protesting nurses because generally, nurses are women who wear pants and also work on the Sabbath. And they probably eat at Red Lobster, too.
I think the reason that they do NOT protest pants-wearing, Sabbath breaking, shrimp-eating female hospital workers is because they derive a personal benefit from said people. After, who wants all the hospitals to close down on Sunday?
“When is the last time you have bought food sacrificed to idols at your local McD’s or had to think about it”
Actually, I used to work in a nail salon owned by a nice Vietnamese lady, and she was always offering me food that had been set in front of a Buddha. Kind of awkward. You’d be surprised what is still relevant when you spend time with people of other cultures. At the time, I had recently been reading the passage about food sacrificed to idols.
As far as Christianity and homosexuality, all I can say is that the Bible says if you draw near to God, He will draw near to you. He loves all of us and does not blame people for things they truly cannot help. However, He does expect us to accept His help. I had an experience of my own in which I started reading from the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) simply because I was embarrassed about not being more knowledgeable about the religion I professed to practice. I hadn’t been to church in years, so this was the first time I had been able to read the Bible without some pastor or Bible teacher’s commentary nagging at me while I was trying to read it. It was the first time I was truly affected by reading it. I saw Jesus (His beautiful character and teachings) for the first time. Within a couple of weeks, I noticed that things I had struggled with my whole life (impatience bordering on wrath, sarcasm, conceit, lust) just went away without any effort on my part. Kind of like what C.S. Lewis said about being able to be more yourself with His help because of no longer having to fight the things you wish you could change. (I paraphrased there.) I felt so close to God that even though on paper, my life would have looked like crap by anyone’s standards (dead end job, single, etc) I was the happiest person I knew. Anyway, whatever your orientation, if you want to follow Jesus, all you can do is give Him permission to make you into the person God intended you to be. If He asks you to give something up (whatever it is), He will make you so you don’t need it anymore. I don’t believe He would expect you to continue to suffer with an intense daily longing for something, and tell you that you can’t have it. He would also take away the longing. At least that’s been my experience. If Jesus truly is the most important thing in your life, then you’ll know what the right thing is, and be content as well. Anyone who is open to trying it, just to see what happens, should try reading from the Gospels for 10, or even 5 minutes a day. More if you feel like it. Don’t worry about what anyone has told you, or Old Testament commandments, rude homophobes, or stereotypical Bible thumpers. Just read it a few minutes a day and see what happens. Give it a month to a year. It can’t hurt you, and might change everything.
I am a Christian, a woman, and wear pants. Ha Ha. Sorry, couldn’t help myself. I also worked in a hospital for a while, and eat shrimp as much as possible. Yum.
Also, Jesus healed people on the Sabbath, so healthcare is exempt.
I’m glad the Christian church is acting the way it is. It’ll cause more people to wake up and question Christianity, which is always a good thing.
This is exactly why a lot people from my generation don’t go to church. They can’t stomach what the bible really says and even if they are only socially Christian they shy away from these kind of teachings. I struggled a lot with this and it was one of the many issues that led me to become more progressive and eventually leave Christianity behind. Glad you are bringing these issues to light. People try to go halfway or pick and choose but that doesn’t really work.
I get the feeling Bruce you would like to round-up all us fundie-evans and put us in concentration camps. You strike me as being against the Bible because you are shall I say so much more enlightened than the rest of us. I agree that religion and politics should not mix but both sides do it until they can cast them aside like an ex-girlfriend. I do believe,and just think that mankind thinks we are the end of all things. News flash we are not.
And I said this where?
I am against the Bible for intellectual reasons. If that makes me more enlightened, so be it. And there are a lot more “enlightened” people when it comes to the Bible, many of which stand in pulpits every Sunday and teach people that an errant, fallible, contradictory book is the Word of God.
No, both sides don’t do it. How could I do it since I don’t have a religion to mix with my politics. I have no divine book or deity “guiding” or infiltrating my politics.
Since there is no God, who is the end of all things? It is up to us to make the world a better place. It is up to us to promote justice and peace. We, not a mythical God, are the final answer.
Once Christianity and its Bible is completely exposed for all to see, maybe then we can put this prehistoric age behind us, and maybe then every citizen in America will have the same civil rights, regardless of who they love or who they have sex with.
This was the statement that actually caused me to think you were for the elimination of Christians you probably don’t see it that way but the only way to get the age behind us is get rid of us Neanderthals that believe that book by you count as a myth as true. Unfortunately that would involve the political activity I guess it’s ok to repress religion through governmental action. You actually sound like some one who needs to lay down your arms.
And from this, you got “I get the feeling Bruce you would like to round-up all us fundie-evans and put us in concentration camps. ” That, my friend, is a persecution complex. In all the writing I have gone over the last five years you will not find me making any such statement.
You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. There is no religious persecution in this country. Every person, every sect have the freedom to worship as they wish. However, when you attempt to require through political action or subterfuge your peculiar beliefs be taught and believed by everyone, then, yes, I am all for the government reminding you that the U.S. is a secular state and you need to check your theocratic tendencies at the door.
Give me two or three verifiable illustrations of where government has directly repressed religion in this country. Be specific.
My fight is not against religion. My fight is against those who think the separation of church and state is a myth and who think that America is a Christian nation that should be governed by the Bible. These are ignorant beliefs not supported by our Constitution, our laws, or history. Outside of that….worship away, Jay. No one is standing in your way.
Dear Jay,
your persecution complex is showing. Quick, tuck it away before the girls notice.
I think it’s the poor atheists that are being persecuted by having to tolerate religious exchange in the public square the sooner they can stamp these Christians and their book out of existence their persecution will end touche’
There is no need for exchange with the religious since religion should have no place at the table when it comes to government policy and law. John Kennedy had it right when he separated his obligation to govern a secular state from his Christian, Roman Catholic faith.
I am NOT saying religious people can not participate in government. I am saying they can not demand that their religion be given preference or that their religion be the standard by which our laws and policies are shaped.
Besides, Jay, you are an atheist too. You know that, right?
That’s interesting you say that what should we use to set public policy what rules what standards and if those standards coincidentally agree with Judeo-Christian standards or rules should they be discarded. I’m just playing the devils advocate.
Certainly our laws and policies agree, in some, or even many, places with what religions teach. Many of our laws and policies agree with humanism too.
Christians have the naive and quite ignorant view that all truth, wisdom, and law comes ONLY from their God and their religious text.
There is a difference between being religious and demanding that your religion’s peculiar beliefs be given special status.
When I entered the ministry in the 1970′s, most all Evangelicals believed in the separation of church and state. Now many of them don’t. Why? They are drunk with political power and if left to their devices they would turn America into a theocratic state much like those we see in theocratic Muslim countries.
Great blog enjoyed the topics for goodness sakes critical reasoning is in very short supply. I would encourage all people to take off their presuppositional glasses to whatever degree they are able and listen to everyone’s side of any issue. And your observation of the method of political discourse as practiced by some evangelicals, you are correct they are perceived as grabbing for power and it is not very attractive. By the same token the repression and ridicule directed against them by the “wizards of smart” aka secularists is equally repulsive. I much prefer courteous and passionate dialogue between the two world views may they both be afforded their place in the public square.
I would add your blog is one of the places that seems to be one of the places that reasonable dialogue is taking place thanks again.
I try to accept people as they are, where they are. I am an accommodationist when it comes to religion and this upsets a lot of atheists. I have no desire to convert people to atheism. I see myself as a facilitator. We are all on a journey. I have a story to tell, a point of view, and if that helps people, fine.
The only people I have a problem with are those who refuse to accept my story as being authentic or those who attack me, preach at me, quote Bible verses, or try to “save” me. These people think that they are going to tell me something I have never heard. Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun, and after 50 years in the Christian church, 25 years as an Evangelical pastor, I doubt anyone is going to say something I haven’t heard before.
Atheism is not the sum of who I am. Humanism is my worldview and defines my ethics and morality. Politically, I am a progressive/liberal with a tinge of socialism and libertarianism.
Thank you for commenting.
Bruce