A reader forwarded me an article from Advocate.com decrying those who interpret the Bible literally, and the article actually does a reasonable job of explaining how we do so. The author, Charles Hammer, seems to be pretty familiar with Christianity, and the main problem with his position is that he gives little justification for his casual dismissal of conservative reasoning on the matter. He lists a lot of commands from the Old Testament that most modern Christians don't advocate enacting into American law, then he explains why we believe that way, and then he dismisses the reasons.
Conservative Christians also struggle against God’s order, passed down through Moses in Leviticus 20:9, which reads: “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: He has cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” These conservatives are too kind to kill such children, nor would they—unlike the witch-burners of Salem, Mass., in 1692, obey Leviticus 20:27: “A man also or a woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones.”Conservatives ignore Deuteronomy 22:21, which dictates the fate of the bride whose parents cannot bring forth the cloth that would serve as a token of her virginity: “Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die...so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”
The Bible also condemns to death many different classes of sinners, including “he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord” (Leviticus 24: 10–16) and “whosoever doeth work” on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2).
Today’s conservatives disregard Leviticus 25, which commands that we buy bondmen and bondmaids of the heathen around us and of strangers that sojourn in our land.
It's pretty clear that these commands were given to Israel and the Jews and not to modern Christians (or ancient non-Jews), and that's exactly what Mr. Hammer goes on to point out.
Conservatives do not explain why—defying Biblical commands—they refuse to stone wizards, homosexuals, and nonvirgin brides. Instead, they justify today’s more humane ethics by speaking of the “Old Covenant” and the “New Covenant,” the supposed harsh Biblical law before Jesus and the gentler era after. As if the enduring, eternal God had reinvented himself and his laws between the Old Testament and the New.
That's basically what we believe, however it's not that God "reinvented" himself; rather, he changed the way he deals with humanity, expanding his scope from Israel alone to all mankind.
Unlike the U.S. Constitution, however, the Bible contains no article specifying how it can be amended.
On the contrary, the Old Testament is entirely focused on this eventual "amendment" -- namely, the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The whole point of the OT is to point to Jesus, and if Mr. Hammer misses that then it's no wonder he's having trouble understanding what's going on.
With conservatives it also comes down to the same picking and choosing among scriptures, the same dreaded interpretation they decry in mainstream Christianity. They choose to absolve Sabbath-breakers, blasphemers, remarried “adulterers,” and nonvirgin brides—but not homosexuals, who are condemned if not to death at least to damnation.
This argument is disingenuous, since Jesus explicitly absolved New Testament believers from the Sabbath laws and other ceremonial laws regarding food and worship that were only applicable to (and only fulfillable by) ancient Jews living under the Temple system. Furthermore, there are New Testament scriptures that specifically condemn homosexuality (along with many other sins!).
Romans 1: 26-3226 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.
I've taken the liberty of emphasizing "deserve death" above, and an astute reader will quickly realize that homosexuals are not the only people condemned. In fact, I doubt anyone would be exempt from the list of evil-doings that Paul listed above.
Which is exactly the point. No person can be "good enough" to escape God's death sentence.
We are all liars and thieves, we have all been disrespectful to our parents, we have all committed idolatry, we are all boastful and arrogant, we are all gossipers and slanderers. We are all condemned by our own actions. The point of the New Testament is that we don't have to stay condemned, because Jesus Christ paid the penalty for us.
We have each earned death, but God has provided a way for us to escape, no matter what we've done in the past. We can't undo what we've done or pay back God or buy forgiveness, but Jesus already died in our place to cover the debt. That's what the Old Testament points towards, and that's what the New Testament reveals. We can be forgiven because of Jesus, and all we have to do is admit our sin and ask God to forgive us because of what Christ did.
The rest is details. Do Christians tend to elevate the sin of homosexuality as being particularly evil? Yes, and probably unjustifiably so. Because of this attitude, many homosexuals whom God loves enough to die for have hardened hearts and have no desire to hear about the forgiveness that's available to them.
A literal reading of scripture will indeed show that the mosaic law required capital punishment for homosexuality, witchcraft, premarital sex and rebelious children. That we are not bound by scripture to kill gays, witches, tramps and brats in no way means that the Bible condones such behavior, or that chrisitans ought to cosnider such activities as moral.
Do Christians tend to elevate the sin of homosexuality as being particularly evil? Yes, and probably unjustifiably so.
I would disagree here... The difference here is that the homosexual activists tend to be;
1) Blatantly unrepentent
2) Arrogantly demanding that our moral standards be conformed to theirs
3) Actively engaged in the activity of undermining the moral and cultural underpinnings of a society originally established on christian principals and ideals.
Their beligerant hostility is what escalates the level of opposition to homosexual activism, not the moral judgement of an act as sinful. Most most adulterers and child molesters acknowledge the wrongness of their actions. Were an adulterer or molester to advocate moral approval for their sinful activities, I believe you would find similar opposition within the christian community.
Hey Mike,
Very good post.
A very good answer.
Craig
As a homosexual, I'm thankful that I do not require anyone's approval... or that the law doesn't require me to be approved.
gaw: I'm curious... do you hold the activities of "Reverend" Fred Phelps and his followers in the same contemptible light that you hold homosexuality? After all, they're "arrogantly demanding that our moral standards be conformed to theirs"... among other things.
Yeah, I guess that it's true that Christians put the sin of homosexuality on the "worst sins" list. All sin is equally bad in that it's simply sin and inherent evil, but I agree with Gaw's point that most gay activists want our moral standards brought down to theirs. That's why there may be more of a focus from Christians.
There are many Christians whose moral standards I would never lower mine to.
Mark: Well I certainly can't defend the nebulous standards of "many Christians" you refer to, but I will point out that at least part of the difference between us is that you define your own standards, whereas I believe that mine are defined by God. As such, your conception of "lower" most likely does not match my own.
gaw and DD: Which is more important? Protecting the "moral and cultural underpinnings of a society originally established on christian principals and ideals" or winning homosexuals to Christ? If we do the latter, won't the former take care of itself?
And what "standard" do you base yours on? Is is yours alone? Law? What? I am curious because I have seen this same type of "standard" from the atheist point of view and they couldn't (or wouldn't)define where their base moral values came from. Either they made it up themselves or they base in on Christian morals but erase the parts they don't want to conform to, which is what a lot of "Christians" do. I have seen you do this twice in the last few days trying to justify some action/view by pointing to another action/view that is equally bad or worse. So, what is the moral standard you are using?
6K: Like most people, my "moral standards" are an amalgam of how I was raised and life experiences. In that respect, they are indeed my own... but I wouldn't say they're exclusively my won either.
What you still fail to realize is that, back in MW's thread about "Rightists Have No Right Not To Be Offended", I was not justifying anything. I no more believe in "tolerance", as the people MW refers to believe in it, than I do in using religion in the same manner. I was merely pointing out that tolerance isn't the only tool to be used in such ways. Got it?
Oops... "I wouldn't say they're exclusively my OWN either."
MW: That is undoubtedly the case. Perceptions of what "lower" and "higher" moral standards means are indeed different between people... even between people who share a common religious faith or political or ideological affiliation.
Mark-
Fred Phelps is a heretical ass.
MW-
Gospel of Christ wins, hands down.
Michael,
It seems to me that the faith we practice is more important than the faith we believe. Let's assume that Mark's beliefs are more in accord with his own standards than with God's, but his practices are closer to God's standards whereas your beliefs are more in tune with God's standards than your own but your faith practices more accurately mirror your own standards. In that case, Mark would be leading a more spiritually alive and true life and you one that was lesser so. It isn't what we believe about the Bible intellectually that counts for much. It is how oriented our hearts are toward God in response to reading the Word.
I believe that one of the reasons that many Christians single out practicing homosexuals is that their own lives are so far from God that they need to cast someone or something as a "demon" that they are superior to in order to ignore their own guilty feelings.
One Christian blogger constantly derides liberals for their lack of faith. However, he is quite comfortable with describing retiring Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor as a "witch."
JT: I disagree in that, as Hebrews 11:6 says, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
Actions speak louder than words, but mere actions cannot be pleasing to God without faith in Christ.
Since Mark didn't write that he lacked faith, I wrote my comment assuming that he does have faith. So I wasn't assuming that he had mere actions.
Besides, I was generally speaking of a heart oriented toward God, not actions. Those overall actions would be a reflection of the heart, not its substance. I think that there are many practicing gays who have accepted Christ as Savior and walk closer to God than most people do.
Just so there's no doubt, I do not believe (or have faith) in God.
Mark: I know, and was writing with that knowledge.
JT: There's nothing wrong with being gay, it's the homosexual sex that's sinful.
Michael,
We just have to agree to disagree on the idea that all homosexual acts are a sin.
Anyway, the word "gay" has changed in meaning twice now. We all know about the first change. The second change is that "gay" was applied to people who accepted their sexual orientation and did not consider homosexual relationships per se sinful. Today, "gay" tends to be applied to all homosexuals, practicing or celibate.
I think what I find most offensive is those who claim sexual orientation is a choice. I've known so many gays whose mental health was practically destroyed by pastors who claimed that sincere prayer would automatically change their orientation to straight. Thankfully, more pastors today are educated on how thoroughly sexual orientation can be integrated into the psyche or personality.
I understand your point that you consider celibate gays not to be living in sin. You should understand that on the whole, however, society treats celibate homosexuals just as horribly as practicing homosexuals -- not that either one should be treated with hate.
I have a friend who is a celibate homosexual who is teased unmercifully about when he will marry, how come he isn't married, the clock is ticking, etc. The people who tease him know his orientation is likely homosexual. (I know it is because he's told me.) If he wants to remain celibate, why should he be forced to publicly state his orientation to people who are mere acquaintances? But that's what a lot of folks want him to do.
JT: I wasn't aware of the second change in meaning for "gay" that you mention, I've always thought it could be applied acceptably to all (male at least) homosexuals.
I don't think it's relevant whether homosexuality is a choice or not. Most of the research that I've seen demonstrates that the vast majority of male homosexuals have experienced sexual abuse as children, which is awful and not under their control, but also not genetic.
As for celibacy, I'll say what I've said before: sex between two unmarried heterosexuals is a sin, and glrification of such is probably more damaging to our society than is glorification of homosexuality. I don't think anyone should be treated with hate though, as you say.
As for your friend, I hace no idea. It seems strange for his friends to tease him if he's made it clear that it bothers him. That seems more like a friendship issue than a homosexuality issue.
dear people
as a servant of jesus,i decalre that all people that a gay and lesbian is an act of their own accordance and not these lies and decipation that doctors easyly say that homosexuals are born like that.
NO they are not born like that,they are Anti Life,and Anti Jesus.
would jesus accept this No way on gods green earth,jesus the salvation would have purified his lands by removing the evil and filth.
God created ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE
these people that do these acts are evil people how are following the devils course.
Come back to Jesus before its to late.
look at our archbishops,cardinals in europe that have been caught out committing these evil acts with children,have they got an scentific excuse no.
Dont belive these lies that gays/lesbians become like due to the fact they "were abused as a child and what not"lies lies lies.
has a murder,criminal etc got an excuse NO
They answer is these so called normal humans have no faith in god,nor do they belive in hell,so if they did surley they will refrain from these evil destructive satanic life they lead.
May God bestow his guidence upon those in this situation and forgives yous for what you have done and doing.
servant of jesus
Michael, not all of the celibate homosexual's acquaintances are friends. Some are merely people who work with him or who encounter him at the stores, etc. It is a small community. Why would some of his own family members (cousins and aunts and uncles for instance) tease him? Sadly, many people have a perverse need to know private matters. The thing is, knowing many of his relatives, I think a lot of them would actually be angry if he told them his orientation is homosexual, regardless of the fact that he is celibate, and regardless of the fact that in many ways they are pushing him to tell. He's gotten to where he has a somewhat amusing response that in many ways is accurate and helps him not to be quite as defensive. He smiles and tells them women are too much for him to handle.
I just think most people aren't aware that celibate homosexuals aren't accepted very well by either the gay or straight community on the whole. There are exceptions, however. Particularly in smaller communities, many of them feel extremely isolated.
I understand that you don't think whether it is a choice is relevant. My point is that for years, many Christians were saying "homosexuality is a choice" without making a distinction between orientation and behavior. I'm aware that you do make a distinction and I give you credit for that.
One of the tragic results of the current Christian response is that many homosexuals feel pressured to marry, even though they know they aren't sexually attracted to women. Others, so much wanting to please fellow Christians, come to almost self-deceive themselves into believing they are really straight. What gets buried is often a deep anger or self-loathing. The result is often an aloofness from or even meanness toward their spouse and/or children.
I'm not opposed to anyone who wants to try any many of conversion or reparative therapies. However, no one who has been significantly attracted to someone of the same sex beyond the age of perhaps 15 should marry someone of the opposite sex without first fully disclosing their sexual identity struggle. A spouse of the opposite sex has the right to say they don't want to risk less than full commitment, a loveless marriage, or even divorce, or that they are not up to the struggle -- for it will truly be a struggle for both spouses.
Bishop Robinson of the Episcopal Church told his wife before they were married that he struggled with attractions to men. She chose to marry him anyway, but she paid a stiff price for that decision.
soj: Please, put down the crack pipe.
Hey, if well-written or spoken proselytizing from all of the other people I've met who've told me many of the same things you did hasn't gotten me to "go back to Christ".... what chance do you think you've got with that poorly-written grammatical train wreck you just provided?
But.. there appears to be some good news. I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.
can someone please give a none literal transltion of the 10 commandments