Woe Unto Them That Call Evil Good
Well, those who oppose Biblical Truth to embrace the transgression thereof are at it again. It simply amazes me at the lengths some persons will go to in trying to justify their depravity. It is one thing to do what one will claiming Scripture holds no rule over them, but quite another for one to try to use God and Scripture to support their iniquity.
Lisa Miller of Newsweek has apparently written an article entitled, ‘Our Mutual Joy’, stating, ‘Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.’
R. Albert Mohler Jr. of Baptist Press gives a lengthy, but worthy rebuttal entitled, ‘Newsweek turns Bible on its head.’
Mrs. Miller is not the first to attempt such, for there have been others such as Ray Boltz, Peggy Campolo, President Elect Obama, the writers/authors of For the Bible Tells Me So, and even the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America which have tried to justify the immorality of homosexuality by use of Scripture.
Yet, this misuse of Scripture to try and justify ones sin is not limited to just homosexuality, the same thing has been done regarding abortion also. It can also be found in ones desire to leave their family and turn their backs to their wedding vows even in the marriage of Christians.
Why must we as Christians or non try to corrupt the very Word of God to seemingly justify our degenerate minds and actions? This will in no way make us less guilty before the One True Holy God. Sin is sin, whether we accept it, repent, and receive forgiveness from it, or merely try to rationalize it, embrace it, and die lost in it.
Isaiah declared, ‘Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!’
Lisa Miller of Newsweek has apparently written an article entitled, ‘Our Mutual Joy’, stating, ‘Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.’
R. Albert Mohler Jr. of Baptist Press gives a lengthy, but worthy rebuttal entitled, ‘Newsweek turns Bible on its head.’
Mrs. Miller is not the first to attempt such, for there have been others such as Ray Boltz, Peggy Campolo, President Elect Obama, the writers/authors of For the Bible Tells Me So, and even the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America which have tried to justify the immorality of homosexuality by use of Scripture.
Yet, this misuse of Scripture to try and justify ones sin is not limited to just homosexuality, the same thing has been done regarding abortion also. It can also be found in ones desire to leave their family and turn their backs to their wedding vows even in the marriage of Christians.
Why must we as Christians or non try to corrupt the very Word of God to seemingly justify our degenerate minds and actions? This will in no way make us less guilty before the One True Holy God. Sin is sin, whether we accept it, repent, and receive forgiveness from it, or merely try to rationalize it, embrace it, and die lost in it.
Isaiah declared, ‘Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!’
19 comments:
I have to agree with you - to a point. One can look to the Bible to justify almost anything. Even hatred and bigotry.
Think about it.
Why are you still quoting the OT? You are the one who said that OT doesn't count.
Still waiting for your answer, Tim.
Beast, it is clear that though you attended a Christian church you never understood the complexities of the Christian doctrine.
Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them"
NT Christians are not bound to the OT law, but we recognize that the law was given to benefit us so we apply it accordingly.
However, this is not an easy subject. It takes years to grasp fully. The worst thing that you can do is to condemn it without understanding it.
RC
I was not the one who said the OT laws were irrelevant: Tim himself said it. I doubt he will admit it, so I have kept a record, just in case he denies it.
Beast FCD
"NT Christians are not bound to the OT law, but we recognize that the law was given to benefit us so we apply it accordingly."
In short, cut and paste. Take the ones you like, throw the ones you don't like. In which case, why the bible? Secular law is enough to keep us guarded on our toes, minus the homophobia, the bigotry and the unnecessary guilt trips.
Beast FCD
That was sort of the point of my first comment. The Bible, both OT and NT, can say whatever you want it to say. Christians can cherry pick language to support whatever they want. From the outside, it looks like they arrive at their own conclusions, usually based on some internal bigotry or prejudice, then go thumbing through the good book for something to back them up.
I just read the other day a passage that might arguably do away with Christmas Trees! (Jeremiah 10:1-5) But I'll bet if you read that passage, you'll have a different spin on it.
If that's the way it works, and it sure looks to me like that's the way it works, then as Beast says, why have the Bible as your only source? You're figuring it all out on your own, without the Bible, and using it as a confirmatory tool, not a source. If that's the case, chuck the Bible, open yourself up to all the sources of morality in the world, and don't limit yourself.
You're slaves to one book. What a waste of good minds.
So, Spanish Inquisitor, what is the ‘internal bigotry or prejudice’ of Lisa Miller with Newsweek in her misconstrued nonsense regarding homosexuality and the Scriptures? If I am not mistaken, even though you and Beast dismiss the Bible as truth, you both agree that homosexuality is against the Scriptures. Does she simply desire to endorse homosexuality, thus has merely went ‘thumbing through the good book for something to back them up?’
Homosexuality is held as sin, against human nature and Holy God, both in the OT and the NT, so I can hardly find why and how such arguments of – ‘cherry pick[ing] language to support whatever [Christians] want -- can even be established or considered. Whereas some ideals may be misunderstood or twisted to accommodate the depravity of man, the immorality of homosexuality is clearly presented in Scripture and cannot be dismissed by any logical, honest report of the Bible.
If you will notice my last paragraph, my point that ‘It is one thing to do what one will claiming Scripture holds no rule over them, but quite another for one to try to use God and Scripture to support their iniquity’ is not limited to the unbeliever, but to the Christians as well.
As to the question(s) you pose in your last paragraph, I must repeat, ‘Sin is sin, whether we accept it, repent, and receive forgiveness from it, or merely try to rationalize it, embrace it, and die lost in it.’ Where man falls short in the truth, the Scriptures do not. Scriptures cannot be held responsible for the sin of man, nor man be held responsible for the holiness of Scripture.
Concerning your quoting of Jeremiah 10:1-5, I shall grant you the affirmative, and hope to find time to post a response tonight or tomorrow.
Tim
Here here! Woe unto them who misuse Biblical scripture to justify their degenerate minds! Sin is sin and it must be accepted! The nerve to try to justify slavery is not condoned by god and Jesus or that the disfigured can approach an altar! Do they make this stuff up sitting in Red Lobster dining on shellfish in their linen and wool clothing, too? OUTRAGEOUS!
Yes, Tim, you do cherry-pick.
While on one hand you quote the NT and OT to justify your anti-gay bigotry, you fail to take into account that the bible also advocates stoning non-virgins and stoning disobedient children. When I highlight these unsavory OT laws you claim the OT doesn't count. Yet you would happily quote the OT to justify anything under the sun.
That, Tim, is cherrypicking.
Beast FCD
PhillyChief,
Are we Israelite or Gentile?
Tim
Beast,
Fornication (immoral loss of virginity) and disobedience are still sin. Judgment is still death. The Israelites were told to deal with sin a certain way (OT), and the Church has been told how to deal with sin another way (NT). Sin and judgment remain the same, only the means by which judgment is carried out has changed.
Tim
Kindly highlight to me which verse spells the dichotomy between OT rules and the Church rules which over ride the OT rules.
Beast FCD
So, Spanish Inquisitor, what is the ‘internal bigotry or prejudice’ of Lisa Miller with Newsweek in her misconstrued nonsense regarding homosexuality and the Scriptures?
I don't know. I finally read her article, and actually found more to agree with than I've ever found on your blog. The internal bigotry and prejudice I was referring to was the natural human "ick" response to a opposing forms of sexuality, something even I have to admit to, (it is a mere physiological response, after all, not a "choice" like some Christians like to claim) that then becomes institutionalized by Christians who use their Bible to support their prejudice against it. The "ick" response comes first, then they look to support it. Not the reverse, as you would have us believe.
If I am not mistaken, even though you and Beast dismiss the Bible as truth, you both agree that homosexuality is against the Scriptures.
Actually I don't agree with you here. I actually agree with Lisa Miller. I think there is more reason to read the Scriptures and find passages concerning loving everyone, treating all as you want to be treated (the Golden rule) etc. that support homosexuality, which outweigh those from Leviticus and Paul. I understand you don't, nor do most heterosexual biblical literalists, and that's fine. Interpret the book any way you want. Just accept the fact that the bible is interpretable (if that's a valid word), meaning that one's man's sin is another man's virtue. Just because you think it's a sin, doesn't mean you should ram it down everyone's throat as a sin, because your interpretation of the Bible is true, and all others are false. Accept the possibility that you just might be wrong, and perhaps Lisa Miller is right.
That was my original point, in case you missed it. The Bible is not one thing to all people, it's many things to many people.
Does she simply desire to endorse homosexuality, thus has merely went ‘thumbing through the good book for something to back them up?’
No. She's doing what I'm saying, that the Bible is open to many interpretations. Yours might be right, hers might be right. That's for the reader to decide. Not you.
If you say that your interpretation is the only correct one, then that makes you god, now doesn't it?
Homosexuality is held as sin, against human nature and Holy God, both in the OT and the NT,
Actually, I looked, and cannot find where it's classified as a "sin". Abomination. Perversion, and many other terms, but not sin. Could you point it out? You clearly know the bible better than me.
so I can hardly find why and how such arguments of – ‘cherry pick[ing] language to support whatever [Christians] want -- can even be established or considered.
The cherry picking comes when those things that don't have that "ick" factor for you personally are ignored. Such things as wearing mixed fibers, eating shellfish, stoning adulterers, all the things that you ignore in the same section of the Bible, yet you pick out homosexuality as if it's worst thing to come down the pike.
Why aren't you down at your local seafood shop throwing stones? Because you cherry pick your sins.
Whereas some ideals may be misunderstood or twisted to accommodate the depravity of man, the immorality of homosexuality is clearly presented in Scripture and cannot be dismissed by any logical, honest report of the Bible.
You lose me here. I disagree as does Lisa Miller, as do the majority of people who live in the US. If it's so clear, why the controversy?
If you will notice my last paragraph, my point that ‘It is one thing to do what one will claiming Scripture holds no rule over them, but quite another for one to try to use God and Scripture to support their iniquity’ is not limited to the unbeliever, but to the Christians as well.
How about I change that just a little?: ‘It is one thing to do what one will claiming Scripture holds no rule over them, but quite another for one to try to use God and Scripture to support their bigotry’ - Does that hold true too?
As to the question(s) you pose in your last paragraph, I must repeat, ‘Sin is sin, whether we accept it, repent, and receive forgiveness from it, or merely try to rationalize it, embrace it, and die lost in it.’ Where man falls short in the truth, the Scriptures do not. Scriptures cannot be held responsible for the sin of man, nor man be held responsible for the holiness of Scripture.
Sin is a mental concept. It exists in the minds of men only. There is no "sin tally board" where angels are keeping tabs. You can't hold a sin in your hands, sell it, alter it, or for that matter control it in any way. In short, sin doesn't exist. It's just a shorthand explanation for those things we humans deem taboo or offensive. So you ascribing the term sin to the existence of homosexuality is totally meaningless. It says more about you than about homosexuality. But that's your problem, because if it's true, it makes you a bigot, who hides his bigotry behind scripture.
Concerning your quoting of Jeremiah 10:1-5, I shall grant you the affirmative, and hope to find time to post a response tonight or tomorrow.
Please hurry. I might have to take down my Xmas tree before tomorrow.
Spanish Inquisitor,
Interestingly, ‘loving everyone’ does not dismiss that which is sin from being sin. So, an argument of ‘love’ regarding whether or not one should recognize homosexuality as moral or accept it is actually chasing a rabbit away from the argument. Homosexuality is either moral (right) or immoral (wrong) regardless of whether one loves the homosexual or not. Scripture wavers not when claiming homosexuality as immoral; therefore a practice of love for the person does not dismiss the condemnation of the sin. We are to love mankind enough to share with everyone the gospel, yet if they so choose to reject it judgment cometh by God…not by the hand of Gentiles who were never instructed by God or Scripture to carry out the Israelite physical penalties upon sin. They had repercussions of breaking the law, just as we in America have repercussions of breaking the law. They had the law of God, we have laws based (or once based) on the law of God.
Lev 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Rom 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly
Neither of these verses can have any other meaning than the obvious contempt toward homosexuality. There is no honest, clear interpretable possibility around these two verses alone, not to mention elsewhere in Scripture which agree here.
As concerning sin…We are told in 1 Cor. 6, that the ‘effeminate’ and ‘abusers of themselves with mankind…shall inherit the kingdom of God.’ You clearly acknowledge the Levitical law of God, whereby you note first homosexuality is noted as an ‘Abomination’ which comes from Lev 18. 1 John 3:4 declares ‘sin is the transgression of the law;’ therefore having God’s law declaring mankind to refrain from homosexuality, any embrace (whether by deed or acceptance) of homosexuality is a transgression (violation/breaking) of the law and therefore sin.
The only honest argument that any Christian or nonChristian can produce to accept homosexuality is simply this: ‘I do not believe the Bible.” Any attempt at using Scripture to justify homosexuality is both illusory (to oneself or to others) and illogical.
May I also have the privilege of changing one of your statements a little? ‘Just because you think it's [not] a sin, doesn't mean you should ram it down everyone's throat as a[n okay alternative lifestyle], because your interpretation of [morality/what is acceptable] is true, and all others are false.’ A ‘ram down the throat’ is demanding marriage to be redefined to include homosexuality.
If I am a bigot to claim homosexuality is immoral, then so is the one who claims homosexuality is acceptable. Remember a bigot is: ‘a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.’ What homosexual will accept that homosexuality is immoral? Then, they too, are intolerant of my belief…quite often are intolerant of those who oppose their lifestyle. Example: [Bash Back Lansing]
The secrecy, the embarrassment, the disapproval from society, the lack of it in nature, the now violent demand of its acceptance all points to the conscience of humanity falls in line with is commendation in Scripture. Sadly, the conscience of mankind has been gradually seared with a hot iron, and our depravity is leading us down the road to total destruction.
Tim
Lol Tim
You are going down a very slippery slope here.
Allow me to debunk your fallacious statements:
1. "If I am a bigot to claim homosexuality is immoral, then so is the one who claims homosexuality is acceptable."
"If I am a bigot to claim homosexuality is immoral, then so is the one who claims homosexuality is acceptable. Remember a bigot is: ‘a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.’ What homosexual will accept that homosexuality is immoral? Then, they too, are intolerant of my belief…quite often are intolerant of those who oppose their lifestyle. "
Judging by your argument, a rights activist who fought against racial discrimination and apartheid is also a bigot! Clearly you love convoluted arguments of the sort so often used by KKK.
2. "The secrecy, the embarrassment, the disapproval from society, the lack of it in nature, the now violent demand of its acceptance all points to the conscience of humanity falls in line with is commendation in Scripture. Sadly, the conscience of mankind has been gradually seared with a hot iron, and our depravity is leading us down the road to total destruction."
The secrecy part again has to do with bigotry: Matthew Shepherd was murdered by a Christian because of being gay. If you have a life sentence hanging over you because of your creed or sexual orientation, would you want it a secret?
Lack of homosexuality in nature? Last I checked, many species have been known to engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior.....A consist 15% population of many mammals species are gays, or better yet, bisexuals. Abnormal? Hardly. Its kind of like a huge minority, but it is not rare, and it is not abnormal.
Violent demand of acceptance? Have you seen a gay parade where gays start burning cars and firing AK-47s? I haven't. I do see violent Christians in Ireland though. Don't believe me, ask the IRA.
Ah, hot part down the road of destruction. Again, you guys like the morals of yesteryears: Slavery, misogyny, feudalism, the works. Really. No kidding. The good ole' days.
Really Tim, don't make me have to repeat these things again. Its very silly, and puts your religion in a very bad light. You don't want to be another Fred Phelps,or should I put it this way: Are you emulating Phelps?
Beast FCD
You want violence? Check this out:
http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2008/12/us-of-refuses-un-condemnation-of-anti.html
"May I also have the privilege of changing one of your statements a little? ‘Just because you think it's [not] a sin, doesn't mean you should ram it down everyone's throat as a[n okay alternative lifestyle], because your interpretation of [morality/what is acceptable] is true, and all others are false.’ A ‘ram down the throat’ is demanding marriage to be redefined to include homosexuality."
Sorry to rock your boat, but since antiquity there have been many ways of defining marriage: 1 husband 4 wives in Islamic culture, 1 wife many husbands in some Nepalese tribes, and for the ancient Emperors of China, it is not uncommon for the Son of Heaven (i.e the Emperor) to have a harem number upwards to the thousands.
Not to mention that some cultures allow children as young as five or six to be married (Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6, consummated the marriage when she was 9.). This kind of talk about "modifying the sanctity of marriage" is as much of an empty talk as debating on the squareness of circles.
There has never been a fixed mode of marriage. People get divorced, remarry, or one of their spouses die and they remarry and so on. To delve on it in a dogmatic nature is really an exercise in futility, as history has shown very clearly.
Beast FCD
So, Tim, do you still want to justify your homophobia?
Beast FCD
Post a Comment